SB 301 adds Section 31566 to the Government Code to prohibit a county or district whose officers and employees participate in a County Employees Retirement Law (CERL) system from excluding any employee, group, or classification from membership, except for narrowly defined “excludable officers and employees.” The bill cross‑references existing statutory exclusions (temporary, seasonal, intermittent, or part‑time personnel and categories excluded under Sections 31552 and 31553) and expressly states that the provision is declaratory of existing law.
The bill also contains a finding that ensuring uniform membership in county retirement systems is a matter of statewide concern, making the rule applicable to all cities and counties, including charter cities and charter counties. For employers, retirement boards, labor representatives, and budget officers, the immediate questions are how the retirement boards will apply the statutory exceptions, what administrative changes are required to enroll newly covered workers, and how employer contribution and liability calculations will change without accompanying funding directions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds Section 31566, which forbids counties or districts that participate in a CERL retirement system from excluding employees from membership, except for categories already statutorily excludable. It ties the permissible exclusions to Section 31527 (temporary/seasonal/intermittent/part‑time determinations) and Sections 31552 and 31553.
Who It Affects
County and district employers that participate in CERL systems, county retirement boards that administer membership decisions, public employees (and bargaining units) who may gain or have had membership excluded, and charter cities and charter counties that previously relied on local discretion.
Why It Matters
SB 301 narrows local discretion over pension coverage and creates a uniform baseline for membership across California, which can expand pension plan membership, change employer contribution requirements, and reshape administration and bargaining dynamics at the local level.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 301 creates a single, statutory rule: counties and districts that participate in a CERL retirement system may not carve out particular employee groups from membership unless those groups fall into narrowly defined, statutorily recognized exclusions. By adding Section 31566(b), the Legislature stops local entities from using resolutions, ordinances, or contract amendments to exclude general members from the system other than those already identified as excludable.
The bill leaves the substance of the exclusions to existing provisions. Section 31566(c) anchors the exceptions to Section 31527 (which permits retirement boards to treat temporary, seasonal, intermittent, or part‑time positions as excludable) and Sections 31552 and 31553 (additional exclusion categories).
That design means the retirement board's factual determination about a position’s temporary or part‑time character becomes the primary gatekeeper for any exclusion.SB 301 does not prescribe funding, retroactivity, or specific administrative procedures for enrolling newly covered employees. It also does not redefine who counts as an “employee” for CERL purposes; instead, it constrains the ability of local employers to opt out of membership for categories that are otherwise general members.
Practically, counties and districts will need to audit current membership lists, identify positions previously excluded, and work with their retirement boards to confirm whether those positions remain excludable under the referenced statutes.Finally, the bill removes an argument that charter cities and counties can avoid this statewide rule. By declaring the matter one of statewide concern, the Legislature forecloses—at least in statutory language—the defense that CERL membership is a municipal affair immune from state preemption, thus extending the rule uniformly across jurisdictions that participate in CERL systems.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 301 adds Government Code Section 31566, which flatly prohibits counties or districts participating in CERL plans from excluding any employee group from membership except for statutorily recognized “excludable officers and employees.”, The bill defines permissible exclusions by reference: an exclusion is allowed only when the retirement board determines the position is temporary, seasonal, intermittent, or part‑time under Section 31527, or when an employee is excluded under Sections 31552 or 31553.
SB 301 makes the retirement board’s factual determination central: the board decides whether a position meets the statutory criteria for exclusion rather than leaving that determination solely to local legislative bodies or employers.
Section 31566(a) states the provision is declaratory of existing law—legislative language that signals intent to confirm, not expand, current membership rules—while still creating an explicit statutory prohibition on exclusions.
Section 2 of the bill declares membership consistency a matter of statewide concern and applies the new rule to all cities and counties, including charter cities and charter counties, limiting local home‑rule defenses.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative declaration — declaratory of existing law
This subsection states that Section 31566 is a declaration of existing law. Practically, that language aims to shape judicial interpretation by saying the statute confirms current legal standards rather than creating a novel entitlement. It matters because a court confronted with litigation over membership exclusions may view the provision as clarifying legislative intent rather than expanding coverage, but the subsection does not itself resolve factual disputes about which positions qualify as members.
Substantive prohibition on local exclusions
This is the operative clause: a county or district with employees enrolled in a CERL system may not exclude from membership any employee, group, or classification except the narrowly defined excludable officers and employees. It replaces any local practice of carving out groups via ordinance or contract amendment and directs retirement systems to treat general employees as eligible members unless a statutory exception applies.
Definition of ‘excludable officers and employees’
This subsection ties permissible exclusions to existing statutes: it adopts the retirement board’s Section 31527 determinations about temporary, seasonal, intermittent, or part‑time appointments and includes exclusions authorized under Sections 31552 and 31553. The practical effect is to concentrate interpretive authority in retirement boards deciding the factual status of positions rather than in local legislative bodies.
Statewide‑concern finding and application to charter jurisdictions
Section 2 declares that uniformity in CERL membership is a matter of statewide concern and therefore applies the added Section 31566 to all cities and counties, including charter entities. The clause reduces the scope for home‑rule arguments that might otherwise allow charter cities or counties to maintain different membership practices.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- General county and district employees previously excluded from CERL membership: they stand to gain access to retirement system membership, accrual of service credit, and the protections of the CERL framework where an exclusion has been removed.
- Labor unions and employee representatives: the statutory prohibition strengthens bargaining leverage and provides a clear baseline for demanding enrollment of newly covered classifications.
- Employees in charter cities and charter counties: by removing a home‑rule escape hatch, the bill extends the same membership baseline to workers in those jurisdictions who participate in CERL systems.
- Retirement system members and beneficiaries: broader membership can increase contribution pools and, over time, reduce disparities in coverage across jurisdictions, which may support actuarial stability if managed.
Who Bears the Cost
- Counties and special districts that participate in CERL systems: expanding membership can raise employer pension contribution obligations and increase unfunded liability exposure absent corresponding rate or funding changes.
- Retirement boards and administrators: the boards must review positions, make determinations about exclusions, update enrollment systems, and handle increased paperwork and actuarial recalculations.
- Local finance officers and budgeting authorities: they must absorb higher near‑term costs or reallocate budgets to cover increased employer contributions without any appropriation or funding mechanism in the bill.
- Charter cities and counties: the bill reduces local discretion over pension design and may force budgetary adjustments for jurisdictions that previously excluded certain workers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between uniform worker protection and local fiscal autonomy: SB 301 strengthens employees’ access to CERL benefits and creates a single statewide baseline, but it also transfers or increases pension costs and administrative burdens for local governments without providing funding or detailed implementation rules. That trade‑off—protecting coverage versus preserving local budget flexibility—has no easy policy solution baked into the statute.
SB 301 clarifies membership rules but leaves major implementation questions unanswered. It does not specify whether coverage changes are prospective only or apply retroactively to previously excluded service, and it contains no funding provisions to offset increased employer contributions or potential rises in unfunded liabilities.
That forces local employers and retirement systems to make actuarial and budgetary judgments without legislative direction on amortization, employer rate adjustments, or transitional mechanics.
The statute also centralizes interpretive power in retirement boards by referencing Section 31527 determinations, but it does not prescribe standards for those determinations or a dispute resolution path if an employer, employee group, or local government contests a board’s factual finding. Another open question is the treatment of nonemployee categories commonly used by local governments—independent contractors, volunteers, interns—and whether practical reclassification pressure will increase as jurisdictions seek to avoid new pension costs.
Finally, although the bill declares itself declaratory of existing law and asserts statewide concern, it leaves room for legal challenges about municipal affairs and for factual disputes that can result in litigation that the bill does not foreclose.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.