FROM: Barbara Hannah, Chief Counsel
SUBJECT: Benefits Appeal of Alameda Decision Implementation re Lisa Mirisola
RECOMMENDATION:
title
Approve and adopt the Proposed Findings of Facts, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Disposition to deny Lisa Mirisola’s request that SBCERA refrain from applying Alameda pay item exclusion to the calculation of her retirement benefits.
body
BACKGROUND:
Lisa Mirisola appeals staff’s administrative decision to exclude certain pay items in compliance with the Board’s implementation of Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assoc. v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1032.
In this case, Member was employed by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD paid health care premiums or other costs on behalf of its employees to third-party providers (referred to as an employer sponsored “cafeteria plan”). These in-kind payments were included in compensation earnable prior to the court’s decision in Alameda. In the Alameda decision, the Court prohibited inclusion of in-kind payments in compensation earnable calculations. In response to the Alameda decision, the SBCERA Board of Retirement adopted SBCERA Resolution 2020-5 on August 6, 2020.
On April 4, 2022, Ms. Mirisola was notified that she was in a group affected by the Alameda decision and was provided notice that she is eligible to receive a refund related to the Alameda decision.
On November 14, 2022, SBCERA notified Ms. Mirisola that she would receive a corrective distribution on all contributions she made prior to July 30, 2020, on the disallowed in-kind pay items such as “cafeteria plan” benefits and provided detailed information as to the how her refund was calculated, and the refund amount of the corrective distribution.
On December 8, 2022, Ms. Mirisola appealed SBCERA’s letter of November 14, 2022.
On February 8, 2023, Ms. Mirisola was notified that her appeal was denied based on the facts and the relevant case law. Her retirement benefits are subject to the Court’s holding in Alameda, and her retirement benefits were properly calculated by SBCERA. (CEO Determination Letter - Exhibit A). Attached to the letter was a copy of the Staff Analysis Memorandum dated January 25, 2023, with a recommendation to deny Ms. Mirisola’s appeal, as SBCERA had properly applied the Alameda pay item exclusion to the retirement calculation for member’s account. (Exhibit B).
Pursuant to SBCERA Benefits Policy No. 025, Ms. Mirisola was given 30 days within which to file an appeal regarding the CEO”s determination. On March 8, 2023, SBCERA received from Ms. Mirisola an appeal letter dated March 3, 2023, appealing SBCERA’s decision to deny her request regarding implementation of the Alameda decision to her retirement account. (Appeal of Administrative Decision - Exhibit C).
BUDGET IMPACT:
None.
STRATEGIC PLANNING GOAL/OBJECTIVE:
Prudent Fiscal Management
STAFF CONTACT:
Barbara Hannah
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: CEO Determination Letter dated February 8, 2023 - Confidential
Exhibit B: Staff Analysis Memorandum dated January 25, 2023 - Confidential
Exhibit C: Appeal of Administrative Decision dated March 3, 2023 - Confidential
Exhibit D: Privileged and Confidential - Chief Counsel Memorandum