Sheriff Michael Johnson’s “Double-Dip” Pension Deal - How a 2015 Law Made It Legal
- Rex Ballard
- 3 days ago
- 5 min read
And Why the Way It Happened Is Now Under Fire
Imagine quitting your job one day, starting to collect a big retirement check the next, then getting right back into the same office with your full salary on top. Sounds like a sweet deal, right? That’s exactly what Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson did in early 2022 — and it’s all perfectly allowed under California law. But the how of it has former Supervisor Patrick Jones sounding alarms about secret shortcuts and broken rules.
In a bombshell radio appearance on April 19, 2026, and follow-up reporting by Shasta Unfiltered, Jones laid out the details: Johnson resigned mid-term, triggered his full CalPERS pension, and was quietly put back in the sheriff’s chair — allegedly without the Board of Supervisors ever voting on it. The result? Roughly $445,000 a year in combined pension and salary, with Johnson defending the move as legal and even money-saving for taxpayers.
Here’s the plain-English breakdown of how this became possible, what steps were supposed to happen, and whether the alleged procedural slip-ups could actually change anything.
The Law That Opened the Door: Government Code § 21231
The key to this arrangement is a quiet 2015 change buried deep in a state budget bill (Senate Bill 84) that was passed as a trailer bill. It added Government Code § 21231 to the books. In simple terms, it says:
A retired CalPERS member can serve as an elected official without losing their pension.
The only catch?
Any new pension credit earned while in the elected job gets suspended during the term.
The rest of the retirement check continues to flow.
This was a deliberate carve-out for elected offices only. The rationale behind the law was that it allows experienced people to run for (or remain in) jobs like sheriff, supervisor, or city council without having to choose between their pension and their paycheck.
Before 2015: This Trick Was Flat-Out Illegal
Prior to the 2015 law, the 2013 Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) put strict limits on every CalPERS retiree:
Wait 180 days before any new CalPERS-covered work.
Never work more than 960 hours a year.
Risk losing your entire pension if you broke the rules.
Serving a full elected term while collecting a pension? No way. The 2015 fix changed that only for elected positions — which is why Johnson could do what he did, but only after that law passed.
The Exact Steps an Elected Official Must Follow
To pull this off legally, the process is crystal clear (straight from CalPERS rules and § 21231):
Resign from the office — create a real vacancy. No secret handshake promising you’ll get the job back immediately.
Apply for retirement with CalPERS. Your pension starts the day after your last paycheck.
Get reappointed or re-elected. Once you’re officially retired, § 21231 kicks in and protects your original pension.
Notify CalPERS so they suspend only the new-service portion.
Jones says Johnson resigned in early 2022 (right before the June primary), began collecting his pension, and was then reappointed. Johnson has responded that the move was handled properly through county personnel and the auditor’s office — and that it actually saved Shasta County more than $527,000 by stopping further pension contributions once he maxed out his benefits after 30+ years of service. Sheriff Johnson's statement is misleading: the proper procedures were not followed, and the savings he refers to were offset by pension payments that had to be paid by an already overburdened CalPERS retirement plan. At the end of the day, those pension payments are funded by the taxpayers.
The Big Controversy: Who’s Allowed to Reappoint a Sheriff?
Here’s where things get sticky — and where Jones is focusing his fire.
When a county elected office, like Sheriff, becomes vacant, only the Board of Supervisors can fill it. That’s spelled out plainly in Government Code § 25304:
“The board of supervisors shall fill by appointment all vacancies that occur in any office filled by the appointment of the board and elective county officers…”
The law uses the word “shall,” meaning it’s not optional. The Board must vote. The appointee serves out the rest of the term. The significance of going through the Board is that,
It complies with the law,
The issue would have appeared on a public agenda
It would be subject to citizen comment
It would have been voted on by the Board (who could choose to reappoint, appoint someone else, or wait until after the election)
It would have been fully transparent ahead of the coming primary election
Jones alleges the reappointment was done unilaterally by then-County Executive Officer Matt Pontes — no Board vote, no public agenda item, no transparency. If anyone knows if that is true, it is Jones-he was the Vice Chair of the Board at that time. The laws were not followed. Jones has now formally asked current County CEO David J. Rickert to investigate the sheriff’s case (and a similar one involving the Tax Collector). He says he’ll bring it directly to the Board of Supervisors if needed.
So… Are the Procedural Failures a Big Deal? What Happens Next?
Yes, they’re material — meaning they violate a clear state statute. But California courts have a safety valve called the “de facto officer doctrine.” If someone is doing the job under color of authority (which Johnson clearly has been since 2022), their official actions are usually treated as valid to protect the public from chaos.
Plus:
Johnson won re-election later in 2022, albeit without any transparency to the voters as to the double-dipping arrangement that Johnson was enjoying.
More than four years have passed.
CalPERS's primary focus is on whether there was a genuine separation and whether proper paperwork was completed (which appears to have been done) — the issue of following the internal county appointment details is likely not within their jurisdiction.
Realistic outcome right now (as of April 25, 2026):
The Board or CEO may review records and may retroactively ratify the appointment (a common fix).
No lawsuit has been filed (at this time) over this specific issue.
Johnson keeps serving and keeps the pension arrangement.
The story is still fresh — Jones’ radio comments and Shasta Unfiltered reporting only broke in the past week. Expect more public discussion at upcoming Board meetings.
Why This Matters to Every Shasta County Taxpayer
Whether you love or dislike the sheriff, the case shines a light on how a perfectly legal 2015 pension rule — passed with zero public debate — can combine with local procedural shortcuts to create arrangements that feel surprising (or worse) to voters.
Jones isn’t calling the pension itself illegal; he’s calling out the lack of transparency caused by a failure to follow the law. The fact that it occurred just before a reelection bid looks especially bad, given how the reappointment happened. Jones is also asking the Board of Supervisors to issue a clear policy to ensure transparency and prevent this from happening again.
For the full details, check the latest Shasta Unfiltered articles or Johnson’s public responses. The actual text of Government Code §§ 21231 and 25304 is easy to read on the California Legislative Information website.
Transparency isn’t always exciting — until the numbers hit $445,000 a year. In a county where many families are struggling, residents deserve to know exactly how these deals get made.
Editorial note: In earlier articles, we may have referred to a 2017 California law change as enabling double-dipping. It was actually the 2015 law (SB 84) that applies to elected officials covered by CalPERS pensions. The 2017 law (SB 112) applied specifically to California counties that have their own retirement programs and provided identical benefits.
