California National Guard Capt. Steve Sonza thought he found a good deal for his retirement earlier this year. He learned about a program that would let him buy into CalPERS and secure a state-backed pension for life.

“It’s an awesome retirement benefit. It’s one of the best in the country,” Sonza, 38, said.

But Sonza, a military intelligence officer, soon found what dozens of California National Guard members before him already knew. The program never provided the benefit lawmakers promised when they wrote a law in 2007 opening the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to part-time soldiers.

His disappointment dates to a law signed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that created a new perk for troops in the California National Guard as an acknowledgment of the increased pace of their deployments since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

California has about 21,000 citizen soldiers and airmen in the National Guard. They’re part-time federal employees who are only eligible for a government retirement if they accumulate at least 20 years of service.

They’re paid to train about 40 days a year, and they could be called up for lengthy missions on foreign deployments, responding to domestic natural disasters or carrying out various anti-narcotics assignments at the Mexico border and elsewhere in California.

Lawmakers took care not to create an unfunded promise for the pension fund when they voted to open the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to troops. They wrote the law in a way that would make it cost-neutral for taxpayers, requiring the military service member to pay the full cost of funding a retirement plan.

That’s different from how state workers and local government employees fund their pensions. They share the cost with their employers, with each side putting money every paycheck toward the worker’s retirement.

Despite the cost, even a small CalPERS pension based on part-time military service appealed to some troops who wanted to lock in an alternate source of retirement income, according to testimony given to legislative committees at the time.

“This bill is a modest attempt to show support and appreciation” for the California National Guard, the law’s author, Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Los Angeles, wrote at the time.

The law was long on good intentions, but short on details.

Thirty-three National Guard members have attempted to enroll in CalPERS through the program since 2008, according to the National Guard, but they’ve been unable to buy into the pension fund.

The National Guard Association of California contends the state Military Department, which oversees the California National Guard, isn’t interested in making the program work. The association advocated for the law as it moved to Schwarzenegger’s desk.

“I am disappointed that in the 12 years or so since the (association) sponsored CalPers bill became state law the Military Department has refused to enroll any traditional soldier or airman in the state retirement program as they are authorized to do so. But I am not surprised,” said retired Col. John Haramalis, the group’s legislative director.

He said National Guard leaders at the time seemed opposed to the law even though they did not make a public argument against it.

Flaws in the program have long been apparent. The Legislative Analyst’s Office in 2014 wrote a report recommending that lawmakers repeal the law rather than “mislead” National Guard members about their retirement options.

It found that the program was problematic in part because the state pension plan can’t easily deduct money from federal workers’ paychecks going to National Guard members. That could create a scenario, the report warned, in which guard members must send checks to CalPERS every month or risk late payment penalties.

The analyst’s office wrote that National Guard members would be better served by opening private retirement investment accounts, or using the federal government’s thrift savings plan.

For its part, the California National Guard says the program “has been challenging for our members to join.”

Some find it “financially untenable” because of the expensive up-front costs, state Military Department spokesman Lt. Col. Tom Keegan said.

CalPERS today says it can’t fully enroll applicants because it isn’t getting payroll information about them from the National Guard. That prevents the pension from calculating the applicant’s potential retirement income, and the amount of money the soldier or airman would have to pay now to get the benefit.

“We cannot proceed until we have been given payroll and compensation information. Despite our best efforts, we have yet to receive that information,” CalPERS spokeswoman Amy Morgan said.

She added that CalPERS is considering reaching out to the federal government to find a way to fulfill the law. CalPERS has created promotional materials describing the benefit, and National Guard members occasionally ask questions about it.

Sonza, a member of the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion, was one of several National Guard members who applied this year. They received letters from CalPERS describing the problem with payroll.

“You’d think in 12 years you could figure it out,” he said.

This story was originally published November 11, 2019 at 6:00 AM with the headline "California passed a law letting troops buy CalPERS pensions. It has never worked."