County retirement system that operated under County Employees Retirement Law (CERL) brought action against county seeking declaratory relief and writ of mandate to compel county to implement system’s job classifications and salary levels for its employees in county’s salary ordinance.
The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, denied relief. System appealed. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed. County sought review.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Supreme Court would review de novo whether retirement board or county board of supervisors had power to set job classifications and salary levels for system employees;
- Supreme Court would not take judicial notice of county counsel’s opinion letter;
- Supreme Court would not take judicial notice of analysis of ballot initiative prepared by California Senate Office of Research;
- Supreme Court would not take judicial notice of news article published after enactment of constitutional amendment;
- Supreme Court would not take judicial notice of news articles published before enactment of constitutional amendment;
- A retirement board’s “plenary authority” over administration of the retirement system, within the meaning of the constitutional amendment giving retirement boards plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for investment of moneys and administration of the system, does not encompass the power to set job classifications or compensation for system employees; and
- While retirement boards have the power pursuant to CERL to hire necessary staff, the employees they hire are county employees that remain subject to county civil service rules and the county’s power over classification and salary setting.