To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
March 1, 2016 - We are uncertain if the administration’s budget proposals will provide the Public Employment Relations Board the resources it needs to address the existing backlog in processing cases. We recommend that the Legislature (1) determine how fast cases should be addressed by the board and then (2) ask PERB and affected groups questions in order to understand what level of funding and staffing is necessary to process cases within the desired amount of time.
February 2, 2016 - This post is the seventh in a series looking at the implementation of the CalSTRS funding plan. In this post, we describe how a recent CalSTRS policy change increases projected district rates under many scenarios.
February 2, 2016 - This post is the sixth in a series looking at the implementation of the CalSTRS funding plan. In this post, we describe how the plan might fall short of meeting the principle of “shared responsibility,” a key goal of the Legislature in passing the plan. Specifically, we explain how the state may not incur higher costs under the funding plan.
February 2, 2016 - This post is the fifth in a series looking at the implementation of the CalSTRS funding plan. In this post, we describe how the state’s share of CalSTRS’ unfunded liabilities will be more sensitive to investment gains and losses than the district share.
February 2, 2016 - This post is the fourth in a series looking at the implementation of the CalSTRS funding plan. Our third post explained how theoretical asset gains have increased the school and community college district share of CalSTRS’ unfunded liabilities. In this post, we continue this discussion by describing how CalSTRS’ treatment of teacher contributions has also increased the district share.
February 2, 2016 - This post is the third in a series looking at the implementation of the CalSTRS funding plan. In this post, we describe how the abstract calculation upon which the funding plan is based has increased the district share of CalSTRS’ unfunded liabilities while decreasing the state share.
February 2, 2016 - This post is the second of a series looking at the implementation of the CalSTRS funding plan. In this post, we critique the complex calculation central to the funding plan.
January 12, 2016 - As part of the Supplemental Report of the 2015-16 Budget Package, the Legislature directed our office to issue a report evaluating defined contribution retirement benefits provided to public employees and the effect the Great Recession had on these benefits.
September 9, 2015 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 10 (Scientists). Bargaining Unit 10 is represented by the California Association of Professional Scientists (CAPS). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
September 4, 2015 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 9 (Professional Engineers). Bargaining Unit 9 is represented by Professional Engineers in California Government. This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
June 19, 2015 - We have provided information on the major provisions of the budget plan passed by the Legislature on Friday, June 19. (It does not reflect potential gubernatorial vetoes.) We will provide a more comprehensive summary of the budget plan in our annual California Spending Plan later this summer.
May 15, 2015 - As part of the 2015-16 May Revision, the Governor proposes to establish a new process for reviewing changes to labor contracts. This analysis reviews the administration’s proposal and recommends that the Legislature adopt it with modifications to ensure legislative and public oversight.
March 16, 2015 - Health benefits for retired state employees constitute a large and growing cost for the State of California. The state’s retiree health benefit program constitutes the state’s last major liability that needs a funding plan. As part of his 2015-16 budget, the Governor proposes one approach to address retiree health liabilities through the collective bargaining process. In our report, we recommend that the policy committees of the Legislature hold hearings to discuss the Governor’s proposal—as well as other options to address retiree health liabilities—with actuaries, employee groups, policy experts, and the public. We acknowledge that a delay in implementing a funding plan might make some elements of a funding plan more expensive; however, we think it is more important to get the plan right that to quickly set up a plan that can be implemented in 2015-16.