Comité Judiciary de la Cámara de Representantes, 19 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

986 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:23:24

   All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna get started and, uh... Oh, yeah. Getting started. Uh, that'll keep them in. Um, and I'm gonna call on Vice Chair Reeves to give us an in- prayer for the afternoon.

2. 0:23:38

   Let us pray. Dear Lord, thank you for all, all the doctors, all the business folks, all the public safety folks who've come to the Capitol today. Pray for your blessings on them, safety for them, and, uh, pray for wisdom on these proceedings. In Your name we pray, amen.

3. 0:23:51

   Amen.

4. 0:23:56

   You ready for your bill? This, this is the one that was returned back from Rules, uh, 1042. Is that right? Actually, that one is not ready- Not ready ... waiting for legislative counsel. Um, 1042, I could, I could ex- explain it or wait- Until we get a copy of it in front of us. Okay. All right. So 1028. 1028? Ready on that. All right, we'll start with that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee. Uh, the substitute in front of you on House Bill 1028 is the district attorney pay bill.

5. 0:24:26

   I'd like to thank Chairman Leverett and everybody who worked for two or three years on the judicial pay bill that passed last year. After the judicial pay bill, the district attorneys, prosecuting attorneys council, uh, met and reviewed compensation, uh, issues and, uh, have requested this bill, 1028. Uh, 1020 passed today relating to the retirement component, which partially funds, uh, this pay increase. Uh, Wendell Willard over my shoulder here, former chairman, uh, back in 2008 when I worked at the Capitol when he was chairman, worked a lot on judicial and DA pay back then.

6. 0:25:05

   And I, I learned at that time that DAs, uh, in Georgia lagged behind the Southeast at that time, and unfortunately, that is still the case. Currently, our DAs in Georgia have a base state pay of 132,473, $132,473. And there are patchwork of local supplements, uh, that can increase that, um, but, uh, the state base pay is one of the lowest in the country. Uh, DAs, of course, handle felonies, so our district attorneys, uh, are subject to getting called in the middle of the night to go out to crime scenes, murder scenes of, you know, gang, drug dealing, murder, armed robbery, um, all sorts of, uh, serious violent felonies.

7. 0:25:48

   And, uh, they work to, uh, uh, keep public safety strong with, uh, the felony prosecutions that we, uh, pass here in the General Assembly. So what this bill does is-

8. 0:26:02

   Can you give us the LC number?

9. 0:26:02

   Uh, sure. The LC number is 474061S.

10. 0:26:08

    We just did 61S.

11. 0:26:09

    No, 4066. Okay. 4066. That is, uh- Okay ... that is the, uh, hot off the press, uh, version- ... which, uh, uh, I wanna thank Chairman Leverett working, uh, with Legislative Council, uh, to get this updated. And, um, I will go through what the bill does as well as what the changes, uh, in the substitute do. So what, uh, last year the judges, uh, could make 90% of what a northern district federal judge makes, and it's subject to appropriations.

12. 0:26:41

    Appropriations has been consulted about this, and they're prepared, uh, to pursue that, um, uh, like they are with the judges. So, um, the 132,473 current pay, 88% of the northern district federal judge subject to appropriation would be approximately 196,592. Um, there is an opt-out provision. If the district attorney likes the current system, uh, they could continue pursuing the local subs- uh, supplements by opting out.

13. 0:27:16

    And the substitute s- that's in front of you puts an opt-out date. There are, uh, you've got January 1st, 2027, then a final opt-out date of January 1st, 2028 in there. So that was, uh, one change in the substitute. The other change in the substitute, uh, public defenders, chief public defenders under a Title 17 statute are entitled to have, uh, parity pay with our district attorneys. Uh, we tightened the language up in this bill to make that abundantly clear.

14. 0:27:47

    As a state official, the chief public defender, uh, retains parity with district attorneys. Uh, the language in the bill, uh, that pertains to various local officials who, in the words of one of my Gwinnett County officials, are tethered to district attorneys. In the course of updating the district attorney pay, just like we did last year with the judge pay, we do not wanna impose an automatic, um, liability on the locals for any local, uh, officials who are tethered to district attorneys on their pay.

15. 0:28:19

    That's what this bill does, and we made that clear through that. So if there are any local folks at the courthouse who are tied to the DA's salary, this bill would say that, um, it separates that. You could pursue that through local legislation here at the Capitol if needed, or just local, uh, laws there at the county. So it, it did not wanna impose an automatic pay increase liability for the locals. Uh, so going back to, uh, how this bill works, under the new structure, the jurisdiction can vote to pay a DA locality pay, which is the lesser of 10% of the DA, DA's salary or 20,608.05.

16. 0:29:00

    Uh, it decreases as the DA's salary exceeds 206,805 based on a formula. That is similar to the judge bill. Uh, we have 88% rather than 90, but it, it very much mimics the judge bill. One, uh, thing that, uh, may have been included in the judge bill, but we definitely made abundantly clear in this bill, is accountability courts. There is a, um, $6,000 supplement for accountability courts. That is retained under this bill. If a DA does opt out, that continue, uh, the 132 base pay plus the $6,000 supplement, uh, if they have an accountability court, they can, uh, continue to pursue their local supplement, uh, and that is, uh, a, a current maximum of 50,000.

17. 0:29:44

    Uh, my county, for instance, the Gwinnett County District Attorney gets that maximum $50,000 supplement. Um, and if, uh, my district attorney wanted to opt out and retain that, uh, you would have the, the deadlines in the bill to do that. So, um, circuit public defenders, again, are compensated the same as a district attorney under Title 17, and this bill, uh, retains that provision, honors that provision. Um, the, uh, again, the tethering issue, uh, to make sure the locals don't get an automatic liability, that is local laws, local ordinances, resolutions, whereas circuit public defender, chief public defenders, they are state officials paid by state funds.

18. 0:30:28

    So, um, that is an overview of the, uh, the bill. Um, we have several, uh, district attorneys who are here. We've got, uh, Joe Mulholland, the president, uh, who was the first person I heard from on the bill. Uh, we have, uh, Herb Cranford from Newnan, Don Kelly from Columbus. Um, uh, previously we had Wright Barksdale come to the retirement hearing. Uh, the district attorney from Athens, uh, wanted to come, but I believe he's sentencing criminal defendants today, uh, as an example of what our district attorneys, uh, are doing.

19. 0:31:04

    And then we've got prosecuting attorney's counsel here also. So that's an overview of the bill. I respectfully request approval and glad to answer questions.

20. 0:31:13

    All right. Representative Evans, I think.

21. 0:31:18

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

22. 0:31:19

    You're welcome.

23. 0:31:20

    Uh, Vice Chair Reeves, the, the substitute, the new substitute has now parity for DAs and chief PDs.

24. 0:31:30

    Yes.

25. 0:31:30

    Does the locality restriction apply to the chief PDs like it does to the DAs? Is that in here? And can you... Or can you tell, show me where it was? I was trying to flip through and find it, and I wasn't sure I-

26. 0:31:40

    Sure

27. 0:31:40

    ... had it.

28. 0:31:41

    Let's take a look at that.

29. 0:31:55

    The, um... I, I do know that, uh, most of these references are Title 15 and the... Uh, here we go. Page seven references Title 17-12-25. That is-

30. 0:32:07

    What line? Sorry, I just wanted to-

31. 0:32:08

    Uh, that is line 151.

32. 0:32:10

    Okay.

33. 0:32:11

    That is the, um, public def- chief public defender statute that has parity, and there's a clear exception now in that.

34. 0:32:21

    But how... There's a lot in here about how local supplements can and cannot happen anymore for DAs, but is the same language in here for chief PDs?

35. 0:32:30

    Thank you.

36. 0:32:30

    That's what I'm asking.

37. 0:32:32

    What we made clear is this, this does not, uh, alter, uh, the, the provisions about any local pay that automatically tracks a DA. That is removed. But 17-12-25 requiring the district attorney and the chief, uh, circuit public defender, that is retained.

38. 0:32:53

    Okay. So let me make sure I have this. So it's not that we as a state are gonna make a policy that the chief PD has to make the same as the DA. The state's not gonna pay that. We're just saying if your county has set that policy, then they can continue?

39. 0:33:06

    No. Um, state law requires the chief public defender to be paid the same as the district attorney in that circuit under 17-12-25. That's present law. There was some question over the last couple of days about whether this changed it. We made it abundantly clear, no, we are retaining state law. What we did in the substitute is make sure that any local offices around the courthouse that are tethered, in, in the words of one of my officials in Gwinnett, that are tethered to the district attorney, the locals do not automatically bear that expense for local offices.

40. 0:33:38

    However, the chief public defender still has the right under state law to have the same pay as the district attorney in that circuit. And I believe we may also have a public defender representative here prepared to speak on that also.

41. 0:33:54

    No, understood, and I, and maybe I just... We got this new substitute right when we sat down, and so I haven't been able to study it like I would want to. But I'm just really concerned, and I was hoping you could point me to a line to alleviate that concern, and so far you haven't been able to, to... If we are going to... I understand we're raising DA pay, and I think I hear you to say we're trying to raise chief PD pay to the same.

42. 0:34:16

    Yeah.

43. 0:34:16

    But we are talking a lot about the local pay, restrictions on local pay for DA, elected DAs, but not talking about restrictions on locality pay for chief PDs. And I could be missing it because-

44. 0:34:26

    Sure

45. 0:34:27

    ... like, we just sat down, but so far I'm worried that we are limiting... I don't wanna limit lo- locality pay anyway. Let me just throw that out there. But if we're gonna limit locality pay for the DAs, I'm assuming you would wanna also limit it to be the same for the chief PDs, 'cause otherwise you're gonna end up with a chief PD making more than the elected DA, and I don't think that's the intention.

46. 0:34:46

    Well, by statute, they're required to be paid the same. And so on page seven, line 150 to 152, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, except for Code Section 17-20, dash 12-25, as of July 1st, 2026, all local laws and local ordinances or resolutions in effect as of such date that provide for salary on and on, that's suspended, but this retains 17-12-25 that says you have parity between the DA and the chief public defender.

47. 0:35:20

    So it stays the same. That is a state office, a state statute. That is not affected. The only thing that's affected in this bill is any local offices that are tied to the DA. The locals get to decide that either through local legislation or local ordinances and budgets.

48. 0:35:37

    So would lo- would local governments be free to pay supplements to their chief PD? Even if it made their pay higher than the elected DAs?

49. 0:35:46

    This, this doesn't change that, but that, I mean, the, the... They should get paid the same under 17-1225.

50. 0:35:54

    But does it, does it restrict local governments? Like, like, we are very clearly-

51. 0:35:58

    Mm-hmm

52. 0:35:59

    ... restricting local governments earlier in the bill, right?

53. 0:36:02

    On DA pay.

54. 0:36:02

    On DA pay.

55. 0:36:03

    Correct.

56. 0:36:03

    Are we restricting them on chief PD pay?

57. 0:36:07

    No.

58. 0:36:08

    Okay.

59. 0:36:08

    That- this bill does not touch that.

60. 0:36:10

    Okay. That seems like a problem. Um, my, uh, next question is-

61. 0:36:14

    Listen, I fi- we filed- ... this bill a month ago. Um, the DAs have been talking about this since last summer. Um, I heard yesterday or maybe the day before that. And, uh, and also we've got the public defenders here to speak of the bill.

62. 0:36:26

    Mr. Reeves, is it all right if I sit up here too? I'm sorry.

63. 0:36:27

    Absolutely. We've got Joe Mulholland, and he may be able to shed some light when the time's right.

64. 0:36:31

    If you don't mind, I'd love to.

65. 0:36:32

    Well, c- could I ask the... I just have some questions for the author, if you don't mind-

66. 0:36:35

    Sure

67. 0:36:36

    ... just a little bit. Um-

68. 0:36:38

    Question up here

69. 0:36:40

    ... the... I wanna, I wanna step back to the, the broader picture here. I understand we've talked about how this is gonna be patterned after the judges, but given what I understand to be the set of facts, and I want you to tell me if you agree with this, we as the state have the ability to control case counts for judges. We can add a new judge to a circuit, for example, if we feel like the case counts are getting uneven across the state, right?

70. 0:37:06

    Correct.

71. 0:37:08

    There's nothing in state law that allows us to make sure that DAs have equal case counts, and in fact, we can't control that, right?

72. 0:37:16

    Yes and no. I think the amount of personnel, um, prosecuting attorney's council, uh, tracks that frequently, and that determines the number of assistant DAs, the number of investigators, the amount of personnel. For instance, a lot of these DA, DAs here do not have PR personnel or other officials that larger circuits do based on case count. They get resources based on the case count. So the prosecuting attorneys do keep track of case count. That determines the amount of resources, uh, that they have in their office.

73. 0:37:48

    And as you mentioned, the number of judges also affects it, because they can handle more cases based on more judges to try the cases.

74. 0:37:55

    There's nothing the State of Georgia can do to add a DA to a county? There's gonna be one DA per circuit no matter what, right?

75. 0:38:01

    Circuits have been split. I think Mr. Cranford's got split based on caseloads, but we have 51 DAs and 51 circuits, and circuits can be changed depending on the circumstances.

76. 0:38:11

    And that won't change.

77. 0:38:12

    If it's a one-county circuit, more personnel could be added. My... You know, Gwinnett County-

78. 0:38:17

    Mm-hmm

79. 0:38:17

    ... um, does a good job with the resources they have. They have a lot of investigators, ADAs, and other, uh, personnel in their office, um, and they do a great job with the resources they have.

80. 0:38:28

    Can you just share, given the difference... I understand that if we add a judge to a circuit, there's a formula that adds a, a, a number of ADAs, and p- and I get that. Um, but there will always be one DA per circuit. If we created another circuit, there, there's gonna be one, but the number of judges, we do control that. I mean, you acknowledge that.

81. 0:38:50

    Yes.

82. 0:38:51

    So other than... Well, then tell me why, why are we applying the same rationale for judges' pay and locality pay that we do... That, that, why do we wanna apply that same rationale to DAs given that big difference? And then also, if we're so concerned about locality pay, why are we still gonna allow the local governments to... And I, and I think local governments should supplement if they want to, but we're not trying to stop them from supplementing sheriffs or tax commissioners or clerks or anyone else, right?

83. 0:39:23

    This bill is about trying to get Georgia DAs who are paid the lowest in the southeast to a much higher level with state funds.

84. 0:39:30

    Why, what's the rationale for cutting locality pay for DAs?

85. 0:39:34

    Because, uh, here's an example. The Gwinnett County solicitor is tethered to the DA's salary, and s- it may not be 100%, but it is tied to the DA's salary. Just like with the judges, if there are other officials in the county whose pay is tied to the amount of the superior court judge's pay, we made clear in that bill that, you know, in our 159 counties, 51 circuits, we did not intend to impose on the counties an unexpected liability by raising the judges' pay, which was a good thing. That's what we're trying to replicate here.

86. 0:40:04

    So if the, if in Gwinnett County they wanna keep the, um, solicitor, the county solicitor's pay tethered to the DA, they can do that through local legislation, through local ordinance, through local budget funds as a choice, but this bill, um, disconnects them so it's not an automatic. And, and that's, that's what-

87. 0:40:24

    I understand

88. 0:40:24

    ... that's what was done with the judges.

89. 0:40:26

    It's a different question, though. On lines 89 to 91, we are limiting the amount of local supplements that a local government can add to a district attorney pay. What's the rationale for... I understand this bill is just about DAs, and I wanna give the DAs a raise too, but in the course of that, why do we have to cut the salary for some of our circuits? Because we all know that local governments supplement, especially in the metro area, supplement their salaries so that those DAs make more.

90. 0:40:58

    I haven't been presented with any where this is a cut, uh, to go from 132 to, you know, 206, um, 805. Um, and this, the 10% or 20,608, that mirrored the judge's formula.

91. 0:41:13

    So you don't intend, you don't intend to restrict local governments from adding locality pay to DAs? You, that's not what you wanna do.

92. 0:41:22

    If they, if they opt out. If they opt out. They can continue pursuing the supplement-

93. 0:41:27

    Okay

94. 0:41:27

    ... uh, if they opt out.

95. 0:41:29

    But future DAs in a circuit, you, you are intending to restrict the amount of money that a local government could add to their local DA's pay?

96. 0:41:38

    We have the opt-out period, so the current DAs can keep that arrangement, but yes, in the... Going forward, you do have uniformity just like you do with the judges.

97. 0:41:46

    And so what's the rationale for doing that to DAs but not to any other- Any other s- salaries that local governments may supplement, like sheriffs or clerks or tax commissioners?

98. 0:41:56

    Well, w- legality for one thing. District attorneys are judicial circuit officials just like judges are. A sheriff, a probate judge, a tax commissioner, they are, um, county constitutional officers. So this is state money with the DAs. And-

99. 0:42:14

    It's not, though. I mean, it, you, you, locality pay is not state money. You, you acknowledged that.

100. 0:42:18

     Those are sup- those are supplements.

101. 0:42:20

     Right.

102. 0:42:20

     But again, we're trying to increase the state, um, pay for DAs. And they, I know they're here. They're prepared to talk about the reasons for that, uh, in recruiting and retaining district attorneys across the state.

103. 0:42:34

     But could I ... Mr. Chairman, this will be the last time, 'cause I'm not getting an answer to my question. Why do we as a state, in the course of trying to raise DA pay, why are we saying that we want local governments not to be able to use their money to prioritize public safety, to prioritize their DA's office and, and provide a supplement? Why do we want to stop that?

104. 0:42:55

     Because just like with the judges, uh, last year, instead of having a patchwork, we want to have a system that compensates our judicial circuit officials, uh, fairly uniformly and, uh, better in comparison with other states, uh, just like we did with the judges, which is working well. There are a lot more judges than there are DAs, and the DAs looked at the judge pay and they said they want to replicate that. That's what this bill does.

105. 0:43:19

     Well, one thing I, I, I know PAC will talk, but I ... It's been said a couple of times, and I, I know from our, our subcommittee on appropriations for the judicial section of the budget, PAC has been clear that there is no PAC position on this. And so I just, I just think it's fair that the committee knows upfront that th- there are some DAs that want this bill, and there are some DAs that, that don't, and PAC doesn't have a position. And so I just don't want you to misspeak again and say that they do.

106. 0:43:46

     Well, they're here today, so I think we can hear from them firsthand and let you, uh, get, get their clear position.

107. 0:43:52

     Okay. Um, Chairman Leverett.

108. 0:43:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, uh, to the lady's question, I think it is, it's a, it's a policy choice we're making. We're trying to establish uniformity of pay to state employees. DAs are state employees just like superior court judges are. State court judges, sheriffs, uh, clerks of court, those are all county constitutional officers. So I think there's a distinction there, at least one I feel make, it, it makes sense. And I think it just makes more sense to have that pay uniform statewide. As to an existing DA, and I think y- you, you, one of your comments indicates you are aware of this, but just to clarify, i- i- if, if a DA ...

109. 0:44:34

     I- in other words, a DA has to opt into this system. So if the DA gets more pay under the current system, they, they would not have to opt in, and they could continue to receive their pay. So we're not cutting any, any current DAs. Now, after that DA resigns and someone else runs, we are making that DA have the same pay as everybody else, because they're a state employee. Um, so I would say if you, if you still want to have the system of local, uh, county supplements instead of move that to a more uniform system, then I, I would see where you may not like this.

110. 0:45:10

     But I think the, the feeling amongst most of the judicial officers we've talked to is we'd like to try to move to uniformity with respect to the pay to state employees that are in that system. At least that's my goal with it.

111. 0:45:27

     That it?

112. 0:45:27

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

113. 0:45:28

     Okay.

114. 0:45:29

     Chairman Smith.

115. 0:45:30

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the gentleman of the 99th House District, is it not true that problem we see in rural areas, rural circuits, is that a lot of times, if you have a multi-county circuit, that the one circuit is bearing the brunt of the cost, uh, to fund any extra supplement that would go to the DA's office? And w- we've seen a turnover in DAs that love being prosecutors, but due to whatever reason, whenever a judgeship opens up, uh, it's kind of crazy to refuse putting their name in to go on the bench, just from a financial standpoint.

116. 0:46:12

     So this would allow for us to not see a lot of the problems that a lot of us that practice, uh, are running into with inexperienced DAs across the state.

117. 0:46:23

     That's absolutely correct, and, and that brings to mind another issue, this whole notion of having a system that almost requires the DAs to go, um, hat in hand and request supplements, uh, every year, um, along with everybody else in county government. That ought not to be the case, and this bill moves our judges or our DAs forward, just like we did our judges last year. It's a good, well-thought-out system that Chairman Leverett and, and others around the Capitol worked through for two or three years to get to with the judges.

118. 0:46:55

     And there are over 200 superior court judges. The 51 DAs, uh, looked at this, and they're here today to, to ask for it. So this, this keeps them from having to go to the budget hearing like other folks at the county and ask for county funds. And quite frankly, I don't know anybody from a county who said, "We like having to bear 50 grand a year to pay state DAs." You know, this is a state liability that the state is stepping up to here in this bill, just like we did with the judges last year.

119. 0:47:25

     All right. Uh, Representative Holcomb.

120. 0:47:28

     Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, a few questions is, one is how long have DAs been roughly at their current salary? I know that there have been incremental increases sort of over time, but do you have a sense of that?

121. 0:47:44

     The 132, um, I, I will def- I believe the chairman was the one who worked on it in 2008, uh, and it was way behind then. But the Great Recession hit, so whatever, uh, the pay arrived at in 2008, it didn't get funded for a while. And so the 132, um, I believe was post-2008.

122. 0:48:03

     I was still DA when that salary was put in place.

123. 0:48:07

     Okay. And then This would make the base 206,805. Is that correct?

124. 0:48:15

     The... That would be the amount if there... Yes.

125. 0:48:18

     Okay. So that's like a 59% increase, which is significant. Um, and w- certainly if there's been a lag of 18 years or so since the last one, then maybe not so significant, but all at once it is. And, um-

126. 0:48:36

     It was that way with the judges, too.

127. 0:48:38

     Yeah. The judges, I, I, I wasn't as aware, and, and I guess one of my questions is just how prevalent the issue of DAs leaving is. I think all of us were quite aware of the issue of our judges, because we have prominently chief justices leave, and so that was very clear. And also, I think many of them had, um, CVs where it was unquestionable that in the private sector they could command very, very high salaries.

128. 0:49:08

     And I think in some parts of the state, a $206,000 salary is, is a pretty healthy public salary, too. The, the money goes different lengths in different, different places. Um, so, uh, with that,

129. 0:49:27

     my other question would be if this were to pass, the rank and file individuals who work below them, who do a lot of the work, the assistant district attorneys a- and the like, what would the gap be between those individuals and this? I think that also should be known. Do you, do you have an understanding of that?

130. 0:49:48

     I, I was not at the appropriations hearing, uh, referenced earlier, but it's my understanding there was evidence presented there that there are 100 or more ADAs who get paid more than the state, uh, salary for DAs right now. And so what this does is it reorders it where the, the DA, uh, is getting paid closer to the top of the scale with the ADAs. And, uh, I know, uh, that's one of the things that, uh, recruitment and retention, uh, is something that, uh, this is all about also, and the DAs are here to, uh, talk about that also.

131. 0:50:22

     And I believe Mr. Kelley from Columbus in particular can shed light on moving from private practice to a DA in a major area.

132. 0:50:30

     Okay. Thank you.

133. 0:50:31

     Okay.

134. 0:50:32

     All right. Uh, Chairman Leverett.

135. 0:50:36

     Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'm just trying to work on my frequent flyer miles with the committee today. Um, just one thing. I, I, I believe, uh, uh, Representative Holcomb referred to it as a base. It's not a base, it's a cap. We aren't, we aren't giving any additional money with this bill. We're just setting up a structure whereby we are ensured that, that DAs actually never get paid more than the judges who superintend their courtrooms and supervise their, their trials. So this is a... It's, it's just a cap. The, the, the pay raise has to come from Chairman Gullett.

136. 0:51:07

     Um, and I believe that is being contemplated in some, some kind of fashion. But we aren't, we aren't giving a pay raise here. We are setting up a structure where it's hoped that would happen. Um, but really all you're doing here is saying, "We cannot appropriate more than this for your salary in future years." So you're putting a cap in place. So I, I agree with you. Hefty chunk of money, but we're not, we're not authorizing that here, although I think they would certainly wouldn't have their feelings hurt if we do it over the course of the next year or two.

137. 0:51:38

     And if I can respond to Chairman Leverett, uh, I can confirm that we brought to Chairman Gullett's attention, uh, the DA, uh, this, this pay system and also the fact that there's a Title 17 statute about chief public defenders. And they absorbed over 200 judges in their budgeting, and this would be a number less than half that amount.

138. 0:52:02

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

139. 0:52:03

     All right. Representative Evans.

140. 0:52:07

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leverett raises a question in my mind that, yes, if we pass this and it passes both chambers and the governor signs it, but we don't fund it, we don't fund the state raise, then what we will have done, and there's... And we can't control this unless we put some language in here. If it, the, if the raise doesn't get funded, then that means, though, that we are still capping local government's ability to supplement their DA pay without a state raise, right?

141. 0:52:39

     Going forward, yes. But again, the, no DA would see their pay go down with this bill because of the opt-in and because of some other provisions in the bill.

142. 0:52:48

     Right. But if the... Let's just, under this hypothetical, if we pass this bill and it's signed by the governor, but it's not funded, so then it theoretically could be used in the future. Everybody's, every DA's state pay stays the same. Every current DA can opt out so that their salaries will stay the same. But if a new DA gets elected in a circuit that otherwise is paying a higher locality pay than we're now gonna allow them to pay, they will, they will be prohibited from getting that higher locality pay even though the state pay is not gonna be raised for them.

143. 0:53:25

     Well, the, I, I think what you're saying is partially correct, and I'm, I'm trying to think through. I, I, I believe the limit on supplements a- and conversion to locality pay, it doesn't fully kick in unless we increase the appropriation.

144. 0:53:45

     Okay. I, I would like to check to, to at least make sure that language is in here. Um, and are you able to shed any light on my concern that, um, with the chairman's permission to ask Chairman Leverett a question? Um, my concern, and if it's misplaced, I wanna know, but I just wanna see the language that I can read, because I think right now I'm glad we added the chief PDs in here, but I don't think we are limiting locality pay for chief PDs in here, but we are limiting locality pay for DAs, which means theoretically a chief PD can make more than their elected DA.

145. 0:54:19

     And if that's not true, I wanna, I just wanna read the words so that I can figure that out.

146. 0:54:22

     I, I think it might be true just looking at this, uh, bill, but I, my understanding, well, it's 17... I've got a copy of it here. There is a, a requirement of parity, so I think they would, um, they would not end up making more than DAs. It would be equal, but that's, a-

147. 0:54:43

     Is that county parity or state parity?

148. 0:54:46

     I think it's just parity in... Well, that's, that's, that's, that's what the-

149. 0:54:49

     That's my, that's my concern.

150. 0:54:50

     Yeah. Yeah.

151. 0:54:51

     So I think in trying to add the chief PDs at the last minute, which again I appreciate, I think we have created a situation where if we pass this legislation as it's presented to us today without some amendment to make sure we take care of that, we are gonna set up a situation where chief PDs can legally make more than elected DAs. And I don't think that's the intention, which is why I raise it.

152. 0:55:10

     It is not. Of course, I don't suppose the chief, the PDs would have that much of a-

153. 0:55:13

     They probably don't mind. But-

154. 0:55:15

     They're, they're here to speak on it just like-

155. 0:55:17

     Yeah

156. 0:55:17

     ... the DAs are. They're signed up to speak. Um, they-

157. 0:55:20

     But the language-

158. 0:55:20

     ... they've looked it over

159. 0:55:20

     ... we, it's our job. I mean, it, it's, it's... I'm telling you, it, that, that happens in here. And, and we can either, you can either acknowledge it or we, or we can change it, um, or you can show me the words where it's not true. But I don't think it... It's not smart to just ignore that because of... Yes, they're here, but they didn't write this. We did.

160. 0:55:38

     And could the lady repeat the... Make sure I understand the, the issue that she's raising, 'cause I'd like to-

161. 0:55:45

     Yeah

162. 0:55:45

     ... take a look at the bill while we hear the other side.

163. 0:55:47

     Sure. So when the bill first... We all got calls last week when this ended up on a hearing calendar, and the chief PDs were understandably concerned that there would not be, um, that, that the elected DAs were gonna get paid more, and that's a policy discussion that we, you know, don't have to have now I guess or we, we do. I- it's in here. But I think that was added sort of last minute to alleviate that concern, but, but I don't, I don't think that this bill limits local governments from supplementing their chief PDs.

164. 0:56:18

     But it's very, it very does specifically limit locality pay for elected DAs, which means that counties can continue to supplement as much as they want to public, uh, to the chief PDs, but not to the elected DAs. That's my concern.

165. 0:56:33

     Well, I, and I would say j- just for the record, I don't believe the bill as drafted ever endangered any PD or chief PD pay. I think the, the, the language of the bill was clear in my opinion. Having been the guy who drafted it, of course I think it was pretty good. Um, actually that's not true. I, I took language that the judges had developed and expanded it. And as I usually do, I make a lot more words and take up a lot more paper. But I think it was clear it was only applying to local laws or resolutions or ordinances. It never, it, it, it impacted any, any code provision, including the code provision on parity.

166. 0:57:06

     But we did add that, and it was done last minute to try to address that concern.

167. 0:57:11

     Mm-hmm.

168. 0:57:11

     Um, I, I guess I would say I think that's a possibility, um, if we don't fund the raises, but I understand there has been a commitment to do that. Um, and I suppose that would be my view is that maybe is an issue for... It, let's wait and see what happens, and if we need to address that we can do so.

169. 0:57:30

     But I think regardless of the funding, and as someone who sits on the subcommittee it would be news to me if we had made that decision. I know it's, maybe Greene door has, but our subcommittee has not. Um, regardless of that, my concern is different. It's that this language very specifically says on lines 89 to 91 that we are gonna limit local government's ability to pay certain amount of supplements to their elected DAs. There is no such language on any limitations of local government supplementing chief DA pay.

170. 0:58:04

     That's my concern. So it doesn't matter about the budget.

171. 0:58:06

     Chief DA pay or chief public defender?

172. 0:58:07

     Chief PD.

173. 0:58:08

     Chief PD.

174. 0:58:09

     Yeah.

175. 0:58:09

     Okay. Um-

176. 0:58:09

     And if somebody can find the language-

177. 0:58:11

     Yeah, and I-

178. 0:58:11

     ... that can alleviate that concern, I'm-

179. 0:58:12

     Well-

180. 0:58:12

     ... happy to see it.

181. 0:58:13

     I, I can, I can respond a little bit. The Title 17 statute 17-12-25 about parity of public defenders and DAs, that is relatively new. The DA supplement culture around Georgia in some places has been around for a long, long time. This issue of chief public defender supplements, people can speak to that, but that is, that is not what is addre- this bill is about DAs pay, where you're trying to get the DAs paid like the judges who are getting paid like federal judges.

182. 0:58:46

     And so that's what we're trying to do here is move our DAs forward on state pay. And the chief public defenders, they would track that. They are tethered to the DAs under 17-12-25. So the rising tide is gonna lift the boats on chief public defenders. That's why they're here to talk, and I can't wait for them to get to shed light on this. They're here to explain that.

183. 0:59:10

     Well, this is-

184. 0:59:10

     Uh, this is a common sense practical increase of DAs pay in Georgia to track the judges increase in pay which is tied to federal judges. Getting treated 88% of a federal judge is a good pay system.

185. 0:59:23

     I, I want the DAs to get a raise. I, I, so let me be, let that be clear. I just don't know why at the same time we have to tie the hands of local governments. But 17-12-25, I've got it right in front of me, it says very specifically, "The county or counties compromising the judicial circuit may supplement the salary of the circuit public defender in an amount as is or may be authorized by local act or in an amount as may be determined by the governing authority of the county or the counties, whichever is greater." So the, the, yes, 17-12-25A talks about parity f- on the state part that we control, but this, this section by the words will let counties supplement their chief PDs however much they want to.

186. 1:00:04

     And this bill in front of us does not change that, while it does change the amount that local governments can supplement their DAs. And I don't think that's your intention, which is... I'm not... I'm trying to help. And ignoring what words on the page say does not help. I don't know why, why we won't acknowledge that. I think the bill needs more work. If you want it to do what you intend it to do, then I think it needs more work

187. 1:00:31

     All right. All right. You, you want to go ahead?

188. 1:00:33

     I, I'm gonna try to address that because I, I... So, I, I, I mean, I guess, um,

189. 1:00:43

     so that becomes a possibility, I suppose, if we don't fund a pay raise for DAs.

190. 1:00:52

     I think it's a problem regardless.

191. 1:00:57

     Well, but if, if we fund the pay raise, presumably the, the, the defenders get a pay raise. I, I, I guess

192. 1:01:09

     I'm, I'm, I'm not sure that possibility scares me so much that I feel like we need to amend the bill, um, unless it's... And, and I'm ob- obviously I'm reluctant to hold the bill g- given the time that we're at right now. Um,

193. 1:01:28

     is your suggestion that there needs to be language that would provide that, um, we also make... I mean, 'cause I think we were trying just to touch DAs here. We weren't trying to also take over the, the public defender space. That's probably next year's bill, but we weren't trying to do that in this bill this year. So, uh, I, I mean, while I think that's a possibility, I don't view it as one as that, that's likely enough or dangerous enough to require additional drafting in my opinion.

194. 1:02:00

     In other words, I, I, I suppose that is an issue we don't touch on, but I don't necessarily view that as a, as an imperfection that mandates further work on this bill.

195. 1:02:11

     I, uh, that, that is your-

196. 1:02:14

     I'm, I'm-

197. 1:02:14

     I mean, I, I, I'm sorry that I lost for words

198. 1:02:16

     ... I'm, our lawyer disagrees

199. 1:02:16

     We, we, we are here, we were here originally with this bill, House Bill 1028, wanted to give a raise to the DAs, to the elected DAs. The chief PDs-

200. 1:02:26

     That's not true

201. 1:02:26

     ... were arguably concerned that they wanted to stay in parity, and so language was added in this new substitute to make sure we did that. While I don't have a problem with local governments prioritizing whatever they want to prioritize and use their money however they want to use it, I, I cannot understand a policy rationale that ties the hands of local governments to supplement their elected DAs, but does not tie the hands of local governments to supplement their chief PDs. And when I was questioning earlier what is the rationale why we want to do this anyway, is that we want to treat all state employees the same, and we are setting up a scenario that, again, the, the chief PD's great, and if they can convince their local governments to supplement they'll, their pay, they'll have that opportunity.

202. 1:03:14

     I can't imagine that's good for the morale of the elected DAs knowing that their chief PD makes more than them, and it certainly wouldn't be in keeping with the, um, with the rationale of this bill that I've heard today from those that are proposing it.

203. 1:03:27

     Well, again, we're not in this bill giving them a raise. We hope that happens, but we're trying just to establish uniformity.

204. 1:03:34

     Understood, but whether, whether a raise gets funded or not, this bill limits local government's ability to supplement DA pay, but it wouldn't limit local government's ability to supplement chief PDs. That's my only-

205. 1:03:47

     That, well, and I think that's correct, but I don't, I don't believe that the risk of that happening is as great as... At, at least I don't share that concern with the lady. Um, and I also think we, we, we, we shouldn't let the fact that we can't fix every problem be a hindrance to, to, to trying to fix the problems we know are there and that we're trying to do in this bill. So that's... Well, while I think that's an issue we might need to work on, I don't feel like it's one we need to necessarily address here. I think we ought to wait until we decide to take on the issue of public defender pay again.

206. 1:04:22

     Okay. I guess we'll see if the DAs are fine with their chief PDs making more than them.

207. 1:04:26

     Well, the, the bill will not make them make more. It will... It, it, to your point, it might set up a scenario where that could happen.

208. 1:04:33

     Exactly.

209. 1:04:34

     But, uh, I, I would submit to you it can happen, it could happen right now.

210. 1:04:40

     Sure. It could.

211. 1:04:44

     But I appreciate the lady's eagle eye.

212. 1:04:49

     All right, Representative Holcomb.

213. 1:04:51

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I have, I have a question just to make sure that I understand it because I, I think what Vice Chair Reeves said is that they're effectively going in tandem of the DAs with the public defenders betw- because of the reference to 17-12-25 on line 241. But Chairman Leverett, you seem to have a different opinion that they might be separate. So, uh, do we have clarity on-

214. 1:05:17

     As, as to state pay-

215. 1:05:18

     ... if effectively they're the same or not?

216. 1:05:19

     As to state pay, they are the same now, and this bill keeps them the same.

217. 1:05:24

     Because of line, uh, lines 240 and 241, right?

218. 1:05:27

     The reference to title 17 on 150 to 152 on page seven.

219. 1:05:34

     Page seven. Okay. All right. And, and also on 240-41, right?

220. 1:05:41

     Right.

221. 1:05:41

     Okay. And-

222. 1:05:42

     It probably is true, but that, again-

223. 1:05:44

     In my view, section 6 never did anything to impact public defender pay. But just in the outside chance it does, um, and to bring some degree of, uh, comfort and release to those who were worried it might, we added 240 and 241.

224. 1:06:03

     Got it. Okay. Thank you.

225. 1:06:05

     The last, the last minute addition Representative Evans referred to.

226. 1:06:08

     And Representative Holcomb, uh, it was, it was a long-term effort to get chief public defenders on pay parity with district attorneys. District attorneys have long had local supplements. Um, we'll get to hear evidence today on how prevalent local supplements are for chief public defenders. But, uh, the state pay, uh, parity is retained in this bill.

227. 1:06:33

     All right. Now we get to talk to the folks in the audience here. We have Joe Mulholland in front of us here. Joe, how you doing?

228. 1:06:44

     I'm doing wonderful, sir. How are you?

229. 1:06:46

     I'm good. All right.

230. 1:06:46

     Always good to see you.

231. 1:06:47

     Yes, sir. I got the mic on your left right there lit up, so...

232. 1:06:53

     How's that? That a little bit better?

233. 1:06:54

     That's better. Thank you.

234. 1:06:55

     Good to see you on this side of the dirt, sir.

235. 1:06:57

     Yes, sir.

236. 1:06:58

     Um, thank you all for having me. Um, I have the pleasure some days and the pain some days of serving as the District Attorneys Association president this year. Um, and certainly this is one of these days I don't know which one it's gonna be. Um, but I'm here to address the, uh, committee, uh, as a whole on some of the issues. I wanna answer some of the questions before I even get to, um, to the heart of the matter that I wanted to talk about. But, uh, Representative Holcomb, to answer your question, what's great about this bill is... And I've worked with some good bills and bad bills.

237. 1:07:30

     I worked with Representative Evans on the payday loan legislation many years ago, and that was a good bill. This is a good bill. Um, it's not perfect. It, it could probably, um, use a little bit of tweaking, but it is a good bill. And what's great about it is, is it... And, and you've addressed some of these issues. We haven't had a, a substantial raise in, in, I think since 2015, apro- the, when the Superior Court judges have. And it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a struggle obviously when we go through that and get, and get some raises because you have to go through the whole legislative process. Um, what's great about this bill is, and what's...

238. 1:08:02

     And, and Representative Leverett, you get a lot of credit for this is, and the judge bill too is, tying it into a district court makes it... And, and when I say tie it in, that's not the base. That's the, the max that you can get. Listen, and we'll talk about precedent in a little while, but when you talk about why things are the way they are, the way it's always been in the Gold Dome is this. Look, judges typically make more than the DAs. That's just the way the system's always worked. We don't necessarily agree with it, but at the same time, that's what has happened.

239. 1:08:32

     Um, Supreme Court judges make more than the, Superior Court judges. That's just the system that we've had. Um, I don't think that anyone would argue that a federal district court judge should make less than a Superior Court judge or Supreme Court judge. Obviously, that's why they're saying they're 90% for them and 88 for us. We're making less than the judges, but again, less than a federal district court judge. Um, and what's great about this bill is instead of having to come every 15, 10 years, we can now just go to Appropriations and say, "Look, we cannot exceed the salary whether it's 196, 205, whatever it is," right?

240. 1:09:07

     If that's the max, um, we understand we're not gonna get that in on one big chunk. This is not gonna be a 49, 59% increase over, you know, one time shot. The judges, I think, has taken at least two fiscal terms. I think it was July and January. They didn't get... When, when y'all passed that bill, they didn't get that substantial raise in one big thing. It was... It's, I think, it was over two terms and, and they're still going. And what's ironic about that too is the federal district court judge pay is based on 2022.

241. 1:09:37

     I think they've actually gone to Appropriations, and those that are on Appropriations can t- correct me if I'm wrong, and asking now to, to look at 2024 for that, for that, that, that pay. That it will not exceed that amount. Um, but that's the great thing is, is the legislature and Appropriations can look at the budget and say, "Look, DAs, judges, it's been a tough year. You know, we... Taxes have gone down and revenue's gone down, so we can't provide you this." If it's a year where it's able to do so and the resources are there, they can go ahead and give a raise up to that amount, but it's not a set amount, and that's what I think's so good about this bill.

242. 1:10:12

     You're not saying, "Look, this is what you're being paid, and it's gonna stay at this level." You're g- you're gonna be able to look at it incrementally every year at Appropriations, and I think that's a really good thing. Um, I think it's good for the legislature. I think it's good for the DAs. I think it's good for the judges. Um, so that's one, one thing I, I... And I hope that answers your question. I know it was a long answer, but I, I think that answers it, sir. Um, talking about DAs leaving, and, and I think that was another question that you had. A good friend of mine was the DA, um, down in Peachtree City, Marie Broder.

243. 1:10:42

     Great DA. Fantastic. Was a rock star. Worked up there with, uh, with Layla when she was the DA who's now Judge Layla Zahn. Judge Zahn over in Covington. Um, but Marie was spectacular. To answer your question why this is so important, she recently resigned, and Marie now is going back to her family farm to raise cattle. Now, I know the price of beef is up, but the fact that we have some of our best prosecutors leaving those positions, um, to go take care of the family farm and raise cattle is a concern of mine.

244. 1:11:13

     Um, and she's certainly not the only one that we've lost. We've lost a ton of judges, and that's gonna be an existential crisis if we do not have this bill passed, more so now than ever. Um, the judges deservingly got that raise, and it was needed, and it was done, and it was right. That, however, has created a black hole that's gonna get bigger and bigger because now you're gonna see a lot of DAs, maybe someone like myself that's got 20-some years experience as a DA, if we don't have this pay bill and I have a judgeship available, you're gonna have a lot of DAs that go in those positions.

245. 1:11:43

     So it's only gonna get worse, um, especially if this bill does not pass. Um, and, and so that I think is that, that's a, that's a significant thing. The gap right now, finally to answer your last question, sir, um, is there are three in my office I know. There's over 80 statewide, and there will be over 100 statewide if this does not pass next year where the assistant DA is making more money than the elected district attorney. Now, think about that, you know? Their boss, the one that goes over the trial calendar and assigns everybody to each judge, is now making less than the assistant DA.

246. 1:12:19

     Uh, that's, that's a crisis. That's a problem. If we don't solve that problem, it's only gonna get worse as far as DAs leaving. Um, and, and it's really important. I think that the way I was gonna frame this before is this. Look, people look to you all in the capital for three things. All right? They look for their pocketbooks, they look for their primary education, and public safety. This bill solves a lot of problems that are with public safety, and it solves it on both sides, the DAs and the public defenders. We have some great public defenders that are here today, and I think they're gonna talk to you.

247. 1:12:52

     This bill was always inclusive of them, but just to make sure they understood that, we put that last paragraph in there. To answer Representative Evans' problem, I, I think that, I think that the bill does address, and it says that DAs and public defenders will make the same salary, that that parity under 17-12-25 does exist, and therefore, yes, I think that the supplements will be capped for them just like they are for the DAs. That would be my legislative in, uh, interpretation of that part. Um, but going back to the public safety thing, we had a, a, a, problem.

248. 1:13:26

     We've had a problem in Columbus, and we've had a problem in Athens for a while. We have new DAs that are now taking the helm and making huge changes, great changes. A good friend of mine, Kalki Yalamanchali, has been in trial for the last two weeks, otherwise he'd be here. He went from civil practice, took a huge chunk of change as a pay cut to become the DA, and he has done a hell of a job. Excuse my language. He's in sentencing right now, otherwise he'd be here.

249. 1:13:57

     But he's there in Athens protecting our best and brightest at our flagship institution, and without him, we would have some problems. He took that, that pay cut to become DA 'cause he wanted to serve his community. But if this pay raise does not go in, it's only gonna be a matter of time before Kalki's gonna come home one day and his wife's gonna tell him, "Look, I've worked with you on this for a while, but I can only do so much." And he's gonna have to make a decision. "Do I go become a judge and go back up to there because the DAs don't have the salary parity that the judges have?

250. 1:14:31

     Do I go back into civil practice?" Eventually, he's gonna have to make that decision. I hope he doesn't have to, and if this bill passes, he won't have to, and we'll have DAs like Kalki in Athens, DAs that actually go to work and try cases instead of worrying about going to conferences around the country. That's what this bill does. This is what we need, and I hope that you will pass it. Thank you very much, and I'm here to answer any questions.

251. 1:14:53

     All right. DA Mulholland, isn't it true that, um, it only takes three years experience for someone to become DA?

252. 1:15:00

     And, and that is embarrassingly low. I would, um, I am ashamed to say that I'm the one that probably has the, the lowest. I w- I became the DA when I was three years out down in South Georgia, and it was-

253. 1:15:11

     But-

254. 1:15:11

     ... because we didn't have any ju- any DAs that were qualified.

255. 1:15:14

     But there are exceptions that, that, that, they do well, right?

256. 1:15:17

     W- I, I, I still am learning. I will say that, Stan. I, I, A- and you know this. Um, I certainly am not, I'm not gonna sit here and say I'm the best DA. That's not gonna be my testimony before this committee and the state. Um, but I am learning. Yes, it is, it is a low, low threshold.

257. 1:15:33

     Okay. Also, isn't it true i- in my experience that with the pay raises coming for the judges, there's usually a good number of them that retire?

258. 1:15:44

     You are 100% correct, sir.

259. 1:15:46

     And so we could have a lot of three years coming in to serve as DAs, and I've seen there's good and bad. There's those that can handle it, and then there's those that can't. Isn't that true? Had, had you seen that in your experience?

260. 1:16:01

     It-

261. 1:16:01

     And I can give you the name of one of them if you need.

262. 1:16:03

     I, I, you, you don't need to, but yes, sir. And, and that's the thing is, is you get what you pay for. All right? Let's just face it. We get what you pay for. All right? And if you keep the salary where it is right now, you're not gonna get anybody to apply. I know I was talking to, uh, one of the Senate majority leaders the other day, and we were talking about the applicants that went for, uh, in one of his circuits. There were two applicants for a district attorney's position. Two. Two applicants. If you put a salary that we're talking about, I guarantee you that two will become 20 because when you raised the level of pay for ADAs recently, and thank you all for doing that, it has made a huge difference.

263. 1:16:40

     The amount of resumes that I've gotten just because of that has gone threefold, and that's what you get when you get... You get what you pay for, folks. Ladies and gentlemen, that's exactly the truth, and this needs to happen. If it doesn't happen, we're gonna have even bigger problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

264. 1:16:56

     Yes, sir. All right. Vice Chair.

265. 1:16:58

     Mr. Mulholland, uh, two questions. Uh, the first is can you walk us through how we got from the judge pay increase last year that we worked on for several years, uh, with Chairman Leverett's leadership, how we got from there to y'all being here today asking for this bill? That's the first question. Second question is if, if a county does wanna support a DA's office, other than paying a supplement to a DA, what are the kinda things that a county can provide in the way of investigators and other resources if they wanna put, uh, personnel, uh, to work in, in protecting public safety?

266. 1:17:37

     That, there's no ex- exclusions on that exactly, Mr. Chairman. I mean, uh, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly right. Um, Representative Lewis, there's nothing to prevent them from doing that. So yeah, you may not be able to pay the, the chief district attorney a, a huge amount of salary. This salary is, by the way, folks, 88% of a federal-

267. 1:17:53

     Federal judge

268. 1:17:53

     ... district judge. Correct. I mean, this is a, a substantial salary, okay? I, I, I guess there's a couple of DAs around the state that make a lot more than that, but I don't know them personally. Um, there's 51 of us, and this bill will positively affect, I would venture to say, anywhere between 40 and 45 of the DAs. Um, to get where we got quite simply is, is we went to leadership and said, "Look, you all have taken care of the judges. They are appreciative. It was deserved.

269. 1:18:24

     We're asking to do the same. What is the easiest way to get that done?" We do not wanna reinvent the wheel. This is a good bill for the judges, and we've gone ahead and incorporated DAs to do the same.

270. 1:18:33

     When you say we, how did y'all deliberate, who deliberated, how did y'all make the decision to approach the Capitol?

271. 1:18:38

     The, uh, the DA Association meets every year. We met for the summer meeting, and that's when we have our, typically our, our, most DAs come in there, and it was unanimous. It was unanimous that this is exactly the procedure that we needed to do. Um, now there has been some questions after that, that some of the DAs wanted to reevaluate that. That is a substantial minority of the DAs when we're talking about the 51 DAs. Um, but it was unanimous from the get-go. There, again, it's, uh, this is gonna impact positively 80 to 90% of the DAs. And folks, anything that can affect somebody 80 to 90% in a positive way I think is a good thing.

272. 1:19:11

     Thank you, sir.

273. 1:19:15

     representative Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. DA, for being here. I know it's not a short trip. Um, does your county or any of your counties pay a supplement currently? Supplement for my salary or- Correct ... supplements in general? Yes. I think my supplement is, um- And I don't, I don't, I- Oh, I'll tell you. Yeah. I'm telling you. You can go for it. I, I did- Oh ... I don't, didn't, I wasn't asking you to do that, but go for it. Sure. I think my judges get, like, 20, and I got, like, 13, and that 13 was changed. I think after about 15 years of experience, they gave me, like, eight, and then when I got to 20 years of experience, they raised it to 13 or something, 13,000 or something like that.

274. 1:19:53

     Do you have any... I know you want the DAs to have a raise in their state pay, and I do, too. I want to make sure that is very clear. Um, but do you have an objection to local governments supplementing their DAs, their circuit public defenders, however they see fit? So, Representative Evans, to answer that question, personally, I would love for every DA in the state to be able to get whatever supplement they can. Um, realistically, I think that the reason that they have this, this precedent of setting caps on supplements is because we had a, you know, I know you've been rep for a long time.

275. 1:20:33

     Y'all remember when in Augusta, the Superior Court judges were making more than Supreme Court judges, and that was a problem, and people had a problem with that. And I think that's why you have a precedent where caps were put in place, and I think that's the same reason that, that caps are being put in place in this, is there's a precedent at the capital that Supreme Court judges should make more than Superior Court judges, and maybe the DAs probably shouldn't make more than a federal district judge. I mean, that's, that's just a precedent that I've seen in the past. Personally, I'd love for them to have that, but this, we were asked, and we were asked and, and told, "What is the easiest way to get from point A to point B?" Which is to get the DAs a pay raise, and that was this.

276. 1:21:11

     It was also abundantly clear that if we tried to make it differently, if we tried a tiered system, or if we tried to make it so there was unlimited sup- supplements, that it may not pass. And so we had to look at that as an organization and say, "Look, are we gonna s- have something that we can h- have passed that gets 40 to 45 of the 51 DAs a substantial raise and doesn't affect the ones that can opt out?" Understanding that in the future, those ones would be limited. I don't... I'll tell you, the election in New York threw me for a loop for the mayor, right? I don't know what's gonna happen with this legislature in the next 10 years, and if that point, they wanna go ahead and go ahead and have locality pay unlimited or a tiered system, that's fine.

277. 1:21:49

     But the crisis we have right now with the pay and the pay that the DAs are getting needs to be addressed, and this is the easiest way to get that accomplished. Well, easiest way to get that accomplished, that's what you heard. I mean, I'm not gonna ask you who you heard. You had to, had to have it that way, but, you know, for now, we're here in front of this committee, and, um, not all of us feel that way. And so I'm asking you, uh, I understand what you wanted to tell me about the Supreme Court justices and the trial court. We don't, we don't have that similar situation here.

278. 1:22:19

     We don't have, like, a state, I guess, state DA. I mean, I guess we kinda do with the AG, but that's not the same. Um, so I, I don't... That analogy, I, I, I'm not interested in that. I wanna know, personally, you, um, putting aside what you think you have to do to get this passed or not, do you personally, as a district attorney in the circuit that you're in, do you mind j- your, your circuit pays, it sounds like pays some supplements, some do and some don't, but do you think personally, just because some do, that that means that none should or that they should be capped?

279. 1:22:54

     Uh, personally, no. But that's, again, that's, that's, what my personal opinion means on anything up here means nothing. All right? It, it's what... I'm serving as the president of the DA's Association. Well, I wanted to know what it was, so I- Sure. Sure. Okay. Yeah. And from an association standpoint, um, does the association have an issue with blocking some localities from paying supplements just because some localities don't? The association voted for the bill understanding that supplements would be capped. And we voted- D- does the association have a stance on capping certain counties from paying supplements just because other counties don't?

280. 1:23:27

     Like, as a policy, does the, does the PAC take a position on that? The pa- PAC stays out of these decisions, and that's why the association has made it. Okay. This is our goal. Okay. And I have asked, um, Brock to, to pass out a copy of 171225, and the, the problem that I'm cluing in on about how this bill as written will limit local ability to supplement, um, DAs is not going to apply to local governments trying to supplement- Sure ...

281. 1:23:58

     circuit public defenders in that subsection B. And I know you provided testimony a minute ago that you thought 171225 would cap local governments from supplementing their, um, circuit PDs, and I just wanted you to have the ability to look at, um, subsection B and see if you still stand by that. I stand by it, and I, and I, I point you to subsection A, which says, "Each circuit public defender shall receive an annual salary equal to the annual salary of a district attorney and shall receive any cost of living adjustments that may be given by the General Assembly and the general appropriation acts for which they're eligible." So if- But, sir, just, I, I get that.

282. 1:24:34

     That's our, that's- I get it, but you don't seem to understand my answer ... that's, but look at B. I, I did look at B. B- But I'm looking at A, and I'm seeing that A says that the salary shall be the same. So if you have a cap on a DA, you should have a cap on a public defender. Okay. I don't think that it reads that way at all, but thank you for looking at it. I'll just add that I left the DA's office in 2010, never got a supplement the whole, the 12 years that I served as a DA. And, uh, you know, it's just part of it. There, uh, Lapaha's another circuit that didn't have it, and I'm not sure who else, but I know there's more out there.

283. 1:25:09

     No, and I under- Mr. Chairman, I, I am certain that you deserved supplements when you were the DA, as you do now. But I, I just, I don't understand why we wanna limit circuits that do give those supplements, that do wanna prioritize public safety in the way and have the ability to do it. Um, why, why we wanna stand in the way of that? I just, I just am having a hard time understanding.

284. 1:25:29

     I understand. Well, I, I will say this, uh, Steve Gooch was the county commissioner in Lufkin County.

285. 1:25:34

     It was his fault.

286. 1:25:35

     Yeah. Yeah. Well, I never asked for a, a supplement until one day I mentioned to him, "You know, why don't I get a supplement?" He says, "Well, you never asked for it." So next year, I came back and asked for it, and he said no.

287. 1:25:49

     He might change his answer since he's running for office.

288. 1:25:52

     Yeah, I know.

289. 1:25:52

     It might be different.

290. 1:25:53

     It's not gonna help me now. Okay, any other questions for, um, DA Mulholland?

291. 1:26:02

     Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

292. 1:26:02

     Yeah.

293. 1:26:02

     It was a pleasure. If there's anything else I can answer, I'm glad I'll be here. Thank you.

294. 1:26:06

     Thank you. All right, DA Don Kelley.

295. 1:26:16

     Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Don Kelley. I'm the DA of the Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit, which is Muscogee, Harris, Taylor, Talbot, Chattahoochee, and Marion Counties. I cover the west central part of the state to include Columbus. Um, so I have a very big mix of, uh, Columbus, a fairly big urban area, uh, and rural counties of less than 10,000. Um, in 2020, we had an election.

296. 1:26:49

     Uh, the incumbent, I was working in the office as a, a Assistant District Attorney. I was in charge of the Violent Crime Unit, and I tried homicides almost exclusively and trained young attorneys how to try homicides. Um, I was one of the people who was fired by the person who was elected. Within nine months, he was... Or I guess 11 months, he was charged in nine months, and within 11 months, he was convicted of a felony, sent to prison. And, uh, there was a period of time where, uh, the appointment was open.

297. 1:27:23

     I will tell you, I did not seek that appointment. Um, I was working for Herb Cranford in the, uh, Troop office of the Coweta Circuit, and I just didn't have any interest of t- of going for what it paid, uh, number one, and what I was gonna have to do as DA. Um, I did lobby a friend of mine who was in private practice, who had worked for eight years in the district attorney's office. He and I were young attorneys together.

298. 1:27:54

     We were still good friends. And I had heard that he might, might be willing to come out of private practice and go to work as the district attorney. And I lobbied him to do it, as did many other p- people who heard about that. Um, one of the biggest hesitations he had was the amount of money that he was gonna lose and, uh, frankly, the process of closing down his practice. After he got the appointment, he called me. I was frankly at work at, uh, at Herb's office.

299. 1:28:28

     And, uh, he asked me if I'd come back and be the chief assistant. Um, I, uh, ultimately agreed to do that. Unfortunately, uh, Stacey was, uh, diagnosed with cancer about a year after I came back as chief assistant, and he passed away two years after I came back. Um, I was... The interim was appointed, uh, by, uh, the governor after Stacey passed away and then ran in the '24 election.

300. 1:29:06

     Um, we have to have people who are willing to work in these positions who are experienced professionals. I've been practicing law for 30 years. I worked at the DA's office for two years. I left and went into private practice. I frankly didn't like it, and after about six years, I went back to the DA's office. I have been a prosecutor since 2003, straight through. Uh, when I got fired, I went to work first in Houston County, and then I went, uh, to Troop as soon as a position opened up there because it was a lot closer to my home.

301. 1:29:41

     I grew up in Columbus. I was born in Columbus. Um, and I wanted to be back in Columbus. I did, but I didn't see a path back there. I told Herb, "I don't plan... I'm not, I'm not going back to Columbus." And it all changed because Stacey was willing to take that step. W- We got there. There were in- there were s- individual ADAs who had a caseload of over 1,000 cases, um, they, that were first years out of law school, and they had a caseload of th- 1,000 cases to include murders, armed robberies, rapes.

302. 1:30:19

     Uh, they'd never tried a case, and they had nobody to train them how to try a case. Um, since first Stacey was appointed, and then after I got elected, we've been able to recruit people out of private practice who were willing to take a pay cut. I can think of one person who took a- about a 30% pay cut to come to work with us because he wanted to prosecute. Um, but he wouldn't have done it if there hadn't have been an experienced, professional person there.

303. 1:30:55

     Uh, Stacey had eight years of experience and then 14 years of experience doing criminal defense. I had 30 years of experience total, about 23 as a prosecutor. Um, I was actually able to recruit an assistant US attorney, uh, who chose to, uh, take advantage of the deferred resignation program, and he came back to work as a state prosecutor. He was somebody I worked with also when I first was in the office.

304. 1:31:27

     People, it's, it's not just people running for DA, it's being able to staff our offices. People don't wanna work for someone who's incompetent. They don't. Um, that was one of the problems that the individual who got elected and ultimately convicted, he fired all the experienced people. And when he did that, he thought he was gonna be able to just go out and hire a bunch of pros- a, a bunch of prosecutors who were just, you know, pop-ups who could do it.

305. 1:31:59

     Uh, you know, he couldn't. He could not find people to staff the office. And so it took us, uh, three years to get back to a full staff, um, but w- we were able to do it because people were willing to take that cut. Now, thankfully, you know, y'all, y'all gave state paid s- uh, uh, assistant DAs a raise last year. Thank you so much for that.

306. 1:32:29

     It has helped me in recruiting. I'm sure it's helped everybody else in recruiting. Um, but, you know, d- people wanna know... Uh, one of the great things about prosecution is you don't have to run the office. You don't have to market yourself. The business comes in the door fairly naturally. You get to practice law and try cases. Except for one person, the DA. The DA has to run the office. The DA has to connect with all the law enforcement agencies, all of the local entities.

307. 1:33:06

     Um, a good number of my ADAs are paid either by Harris County or Muskogee County, um, but that's necessary to keep up. In 2021, when I was not there, Columbus had 70 homicides. Last year, we had 28. And I'm not just saying that was the DA's office being staffed, but I think it makes a difference. I think the police doing a better job makes a difference. Maybe the economy makes a better difference, too.

308. 1:33:39

     Um, maybe it's all together. But to go from 70 to 27 in four years is tremendous, and I think that those are the kind of public safety issues we've gotta look at when we talk about who's gonna be the DA. 'Cause it's a, it's a more than full-time job. I guarantee you everybody in this room that's a DA works 50, 60, 70 hours a week. That's just the way it is. Um, and we get paid what we get paid.

309. 1:34:07

     Okay.

310. 1:34:07

     I'll take any questions you have.

311. 1:34:09

     Vice Chair Reeves.

312. 1:34:10

     Mr. Kelley, thanks for... Or District Attorney Kelley, thanks for coming to the capital. Um, you're the district attorney in the Columbus area. You got the Army, Aflac, Callaway Gardens, and Harris County, a big regional city, and then you got several rural counties. You've looked over this bill, and you're in support of this bill?

313. 1:34:27

     Yes, I am.

314. 1:34:28

     Thank you.

315. 1:34:30

     Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you, sir.

316. 1:34:35

     All right. Thank you.

317. 1:34:39

     So Circuit Public Defender Ashley Mc- McLoughlin.

318. 1:34:48

     Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry, I didn't know I was gonna go first. I kind of thought I'd follow my director. Uh, uh-

319. 1:34:54

     I'm, I'm just going down the order that-

320. 1:34:56

     Yes, sir

321. 1:34:56

     ... they, they were signed up on.

322. 1:34:58

     Oh, thank you, uh, distinguished committee members. Um, my name's Ashley McLoughlin. I am the circuit public defender of one of the legal deserts, the Oconee Circuit. Uh, my counties are North, Pulaski, Bleckley, Dodge, Telfair, Wheeler, Montgomery. Um, and I came here today to poor mouth about recruitment- ... and, uh, retention, but based on the amendment to the bill as it stands now, I'm actually in a weird position because I'm here on behalf of myself and my district attorney, Mr.

323. 1:35:33

     Bond, and we both support the bill as amended. And we would ask that you adopt that.

324. 1:35:39

     Okay.

325. 1:35:40

     Thank you.

326. 1:35:41

     Vice Chair Reeves.

327. 1:35:42

     Circuit Public Defender McLoughlin, thanks for coming to the capital. How many counties did you say are in, you're in your circuit?

328. 1:35:48

     Six.

329. 1:35:48

     Six counties. How many of those six counties in middle Georgia, middle and south Georgia, give a supplement to you?

330. 1:35:55

     Um, it's based on a percentage of each. Every one of them gives a supplement. The supplement is very modest. Ranges from $150 a month all the way up to $200 a month.

331. 1:36:07

     Thank you.

332. 1:36:08

     And I'm proud of it.

333. 1:36:09

     And, um, Representative Evans.

334. 1:36:13

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Do you know... Well, let me ask you for your circuit, um, does the DA also get a local supplement?

335. 1:36:22

     Yes.

336. 1:36:22

     And is it higher, the same, lower than yours?

337. 1:36:26

     God, I hope he's not watching. Um, much higher.

338. 1:36:29

     Yeah, because, because they can be, right? County supplements can be higher.

339. 1:36:33

     Well-

340. 1:36:34

     Well, I- you don't need to answer that. Obviously, they are, unless they're violating law.

341. 1:36:39

     Y- yeah, yes and no. Um, he also has a, a support staff that outnumbers mine two to one, eight attorneys to my four. Um, and

342. 1:36:54

     yes.

343. 1:36:55

     Okay.

344. 1:36:55

     It, it, it's, it's, it's, it's more.

345. 1:36:57

     And are you aware if that's true in other circuits as well, where the DA supplement is higher than the circuit public defenders?

346. 1:37:05

     Ma'am, I-

347. 1:37:05

     Or that they're different? Okay.

348. 1:37:07

     Madam Representative, I'm sorry. I don't-

349. 1:37:08

     That's okay

350. 1:37:08

     ... I really don't know.

351. 1:37:09

     No, that's fine. I, I appreciate it.

352. 1:37:11

     I'd be talking out of school.

353. 1:37:12

     No, that's fine. In your, in your circuit at least they're different.

354. 1:37:15

     Yes, ma'am.

355. 1:37:15

     Okay. Thank you.

356. 1:37:18

     How's DA Vaughn doing?

357. 1:37:20

     Uh, great. He's also the longest serving DA in the history of the state, and deservedly so.

358. 1:37:25

     Oh, yeah.

359. 1:37:25

     Um, we work great together, and I would also like to point out that we move cases faster than any other circuit in the state.

360. 1:37:30

     Yeah. And that's the experience side of this. And I am proud of that. Yes, sir. And we work great together. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um, Michael Sarratt. Did I say that right?

361. 1:37:45

     Sarratt.

362. 1:37:46

     Sarratt? Okay.

363. 1:37:54

     This is the circuit public defender in the Paulding Judicial Circuit.

364. 1:37:57

     That's correct. I'd like to thank you all for letting me speak. I d- won't take up much time since-

365. 1:38:04

     Pull that up close.

366. 1:38:04

     I'm sorry, sir. I, I won't take up much of your time since, uh, like Mr. McLaughlin, uh, I'm simply gonna be asking you all to approve this bill. But I would like to address a couple of your issues. Um, when I was given this, uh, a position, which was October of '22, um, I took the salary that the state was offering at the time. I was happy to do it. I left, had been in practice, private practice for 32 years prior to that.

367. 1:38:36

     And like y'all, I didn't take this job for the money. It, it's a calling. None of y'all are getting rich by being here. I, I didn't expect to get rich, but I, I do like the idea of being paid for the time and the effort I'm putting in. Um, that being said, when I got the job, I did look at the time, and this is, I realize, outdated now. But I looked at every supplement of every DA and every public defender in the state at the time, because I wanted to be able to go to my commissioners about a supplement.

368. 1:39:08

     There is no public defender in the state who makes a higher supplement than the DA, and there are way more public defenders who get zero supplements than DAs. This is not to say that the DAs don't deserve it. I... Good for them. Every one of them who, every dollar they make, they des- good for them. I wish we could do that, too. Uh, so I'm not casting any aspersions here. But I will tell you that as of late '22, early '23, that was the case. And, and I, I listened to you, your concern about this bill and, and the language, and I would say you're correct about the language of the bill.

369. 1:39:44

     But I would also tell you that I have yet to see a county commissioner who is gonna wanna go for re-election after giving his public defender more money than he's giving his DA. It, it just won't happen, as a practical matter. I mean, theoretically, I could ski jump in the Olympics. Practically- ... that's never gonna happen. Um, and I think... I'm not making light, and I hope, uh, you don't take it that way. I, I certainly don't mean it that way. But it- it's never gonna happen. There's no way any county is ever gonna pay their public defender a higher supplement than they pay their DA.

370. 1:40:16

     It... But if anybody has any questions, I'm happy to take questions.

371. 1:40:21

     I don't see any. Thank you, sir.

372. 1:40:23

     Thank you very much.

373. 1:40:25

     Tasha Moseley.

374. 1:40:28

     Hello, hello.

375. 1:40:29

     Hiding behind the pole there.

376. 1:40:30

     Oh, always. How are y'all doing today?

377. 1:40:33

     Good. How are you?

378. 1:40:34

     Doing good. I am Tasha Moseley. I'm the district attorney for the Clayton Judicial Circuit. Boy, I've got a lot, so I'ma try to condense it. Basically, I'm one of the unusual ones. I've been prosecuting since 1998. I started as an ASG in Clayton County, moved up and was elected SG in '09, was appointed by the governor in 2019 as DA, and have been DA since. I can tell you right now, I got a bump in pay when I moved up. With this bill, I wouldn't move up.

379. 1:41:08

     If I was still SG, I wouldn't move up. If I'm my chief assistant district attorney, I wouldn't move up. Less money. That's just point-blank. It's less money. Now, I've listened to everybody, and understand public defenders, it's apples and oranges, us and public defenders. We have 100% of the cases. They probably need a raise, too, whereas depending upon what judicial circuit they're in, they might have 75%, they might have 80%, some 100%, because there are no defense attorneys down there.

380. 1:41:38

     So, you know, they do deserve some more money.

381. 1:41:44

     Where I'm coming from is two or three years ago, we gave y'all a scale of saying, "Hey, increase ADA pay and increase DA pay." I think most of you remember that. Because we've had a crisis, not of DAs, but of ADAs. We have perpetually kept openings of 40-plus ADA, state-paid ADA, ADAs for years. For years. Ever since I came into office in 2019, there's been 40-plus ADAs, ADA openings in the State of Georgia.

382. 1:42:19

     What does that tell you? Their pay is too low. That's what we came... And that's... It's kinda confusing to me, because I hear people sitting there saying, "Well, this is gonna help the ADAs. I'll get more ADAs how our pay is coming." I don't see it. I don't see it. Our ADA, states paid ADAs, guys, start off at 72,000 and some change. That's what y'all gave them a raise to. Now, granted, there are 80-something ADAs, based upon the number of years, I think it's 20 or 25 years, that make more than we do.

383. 1:42:52

     There's 82. No if, ands, or buts about it. That needs to be corrected. But that could've been corrected in the three-year tier that we gave you, that you only decided to go with the ADA pay and leave the DAs out. If you go with the three-year term, it solves all problems.

384. 1:43:15

     I heard my, my president of the association said, say that this was unanimous. It was not. Some are we were just as divisive, divided as we are now. There were a group of us that said no. There was a group that said, "If we are dealing with locality pay, let's tier locality pay." 'Cause we understand You know, some people get lo- locality pay and some don't, get supplements and some don't. And we said, "Let's tier it," because this is the problem. You guys are trying to go apples to apples. It's not apples to apples. It's watermelons, honeydew, and plums.

385. 1:43:49

     You've got some counties that are watermelons, that have 300 plus ADAs, investigators, you know, staff. They're huge. Their population is over 400 to 500,000 people, actually a million. When you look at the number of ADAs they have and, and, and, and investigators, the smaller judicial circuits together would never touch them. They would still be smaller. Then you have a circuit like me.

386. 1:44:19

     I'm a honeydew. I've got 104. I've got five judges. I've got a population of 300,000. Then you've got the plums that have an office... I heard my colleague say that the, that DA Vaughn had eight attorneys. That means he's probably got a staff of somewhere close to 20. His general population out of all of his counties combined probably doesn't even equal 100,000. And you're trying to act like we're all the same.

387. 1:44:51

     What differs or differentiates us is the locality pay.

388. 1:44:58

     One of my colleagues, we were up in, in winter conference, and he told me, he said, "I tried four murders last year." I laughed, and this is a judicial circuit that has eight counties. I laughed because I said, "I can't tell you the number of times in 2025 that I tried four murders in one week." And in fact, when I look- went back and looked, it was six times. I just finished two, and I'll start two more on Monday.

389. 1:45:29

     And you're telling me that we're all the same, that we should all make the same as a base pay and locality pay. No, ladies and gentlemen, you get what you pay for. No, the most... The point I was making earlier about me moving up is because I was the most qualified as the SG. I knew how to run the office. I knew how to run the office as a prosecutor, so I was the most qualified. My SG or my chief assistant, whenever I walk away from the game or my county says, you know, if they decide to run against me, we're going to vote them in, will be more qualified than somebody coming in from the outside.

390. 1:46:08

     You get what you pay for. If you take the locality pay and make the ca- the locality pay, you get what you pay for. You're basically here in those bigger judicial circuits that can pay. The incoming will make less than those who are there right now. Why would you take less money for more headache? You get what you pay for. What you don't want to happen in the larger judici- judicial circuits is what you saw happening in Athens-Clarke County, in Columbus.

391. 1:46:41

     Imagine if that happens here. You get somebody because the qualified people don't want it, and you get somebody that doesn't know how to try anything or has never run a prosecution office, and you've got to come down here and be down here at nighttime, and you expect if somebody mugs you that they're going to know what to do. You don't want that.

392. 1:47:03

     Boy, I had a lot written down because I was taking notes. So ADA pay, increase our ADA pay. That's how we, we close the gap. We get those 40-plus vacancies that we have run for the last, since I said 2019, since I was here, eight years. That's how we get that. You've got to increase the ADA pay. I would like to see something that increases the ADA pay. Let's go back to our scale. Year number two, I think PAC has it in their budget that we would get the AD- the DAs would get an increase.

393. 1:47:34

     It's not significant, but it would pay us more than what our ADAs are making right now. Those 25, no, 82 ADAs that we said are making more than what we make, it would solve that problem. Um, boy, I'm trying to get it all in.

394. 1:47:55

     I think Joe said that somebody, I think, you know, we talked about it or they talked about it, and somebody told them to follow the judge's pay scale. Why are we following the judge's pay scale? The whole point of y'all doing the judge's pay scale is because the superior court judges, and correct me if I'm wrong, made more than the Supreme Court judges of the, of the State of Georgia and the Court of Appeals in some judicial circuits because of their locality pay, right? And that was the whole point of getting the judges in line so that the Supreme Court stayed high, Court of Appeals next highest, and then the trial, the superior court judges would be the third highest because that's really how their ranking is.

395. 1:48:34

     Well, tell me who's above us. Who's above the DA?

396. 1:48:40

     No one. The closest you can say is the attorney general, and he makes a whole bunch of money, so we're nowhere close to getting close to him. There is nobody above us, so why are we trying to put us like the superior court judges? There's no reason. And you can put our pay where we stay without touching locality, where we stay where we are, because guess what? The counties are not going to give us that money where we make more than the superior court judges because they know the minute they do that, they've got a fundamental problem.

397. 1:49:15

     Ladies and gentlemen, we're not all the same. We're not. When you're in, have a bigger judicial circuit, you've got more problems than you want. And let the locals pay us for what we do. This last time I had A gang case where my victims and my witnesses were from Tennessee, and this was during the ice storm and the snowstorm. I'm telling you right now, there wasn't a Saturday or a Sunday or the Monday when the state was closed down that I wasn't working, because my victims and my witnesses were petrified to stay here in Atlanta because it was gang, and they wanted to go back home.

398. 1:49:57

     And so I am on the phone at 1:00 in the morning talking to my investigators to ensure that they have made it home safely from taking our witnesses home and or picking them up, and you're telling me that my locality pay should be capped? That Clayton County can't pay me what they think I'm worth, and that I'm only worth 20,000 at the most or 10%? As you stated, there is no salary at this particular point in time in this bill, but you cap us at 88% of the j- the federal judicial judges.

399. 1:50:32

     Who is gonna want this job after I leave? Right now in, you know, Cha- G- GTP, whatever it is, it's pretty good. It takes some things and it makes it into, to scales, and we're just running some numbers. But I wanna give you, give you a little numbers. Let's just say the base, new base pay is 188. Use 188. For my colleague down in the Cordele Circuit, who has 16, um, employees, who doesn't receive a supplement, under the new, new pay, if he gets the 188's, uh, base and, um, the whole supplement, he would get approximately $52,000.

400. 1:51:18

     And that means like a 38.4% jump in pay. Me, I don't mind telling you my supplement's only 45-5. I would get, there would be a $25,000 change, $800, $25,800. I'd get a 14.25% increase. The DeKalb Circuit, where, and she doesn't mind me, me saying this, her supplement is 92,000. If you do what you're planning on doing, she would lose $21,200 with a negative of 9.30.

401. 1:51:55

     So that means once she leaves, 'cause she wouldn't opt out. She wouldn't, she wouldn't opt in. She would opt out. The new person coming in would make less than what she makes right now. And the same from, basically for me. The new person would only get a little bit for what we have to do, deal with. My colleagues in my, in the other judicial circuits, yes, we all prosecute. We all have murders, but they ain't got the number of murders that I've got. They've not, they don't have the number of child molesters that I have.

402. 1:52:28

     They don't have the number of rapists that I have. There is a difference. There's watermelons, there are honeydews, and there are plums. You consume one quicker than the other because they're bigger. And what I'm saying is you leave our locality pay alone. If you wanna do something to help me, increase my ADA pay, follow the three-year plan that we ask for, and increase it incrementally. And do that until we can get some consensus, 'cause right now there was, there isn't a consensus.

403. 1:53:04

     And if you go back and read, uh, former District Attorney Broder's resignation, it wasn't for money. It was for health. So we're not gonna, I'm not gonna sit here and let y'all believe it was because the money situation. She put in her resignation letter health reasons, 'cause this job is stressful as all get out. I've got more gray hair. My hope that it's not as gray as yours by the time I retire. But every time I look, I've got a new gray hair, and they're growing in my eyebrows because of the stress of this job.

404. 1:53:35

     But I just wanted to say thank y'all for this, for allowing me to speak.

405. 1:53:39

     Okay. I have a question for you.

406. 1:53:41

     Yes, sir.

407. 1:53:43

     Uh, Representative Holcomb.

408. 1:53:44

     Yes. Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you for your presentation. Um, I agree with you on increasing salaries for the ADAs. I, I think that's a real barrier of, um, of people entering the profession and also staying on the lower ones. But the most interesting thing that you said that caught my attention was that if this went through, then the salary f- for your successor, assuming if you were to opt out, would be less than the solicitor because of the supplements.

409. 1:54:19

     Yes, sir.

410. 1:54:20

     Do you have an understanding as to how many other jurisdictions that would be true?

411. 1:54:25

     Speaking to my colleagues, it would be several. I think it's pretty much all of Metro Atlanta and some other bigger cities. And when I say bigger cities, I'm talking like Macon-Bibb, um, Augusta. S- well, Savannah doesn't have a SG. But, um, in those cities because of the fact that the locality pay is not capped for those that are underneath us. And if I remember last year's judge's bill, didn't y'all just suspend the, what I call the train that, that whatever? So right now as of July 1, because and the reason why I ask that is because I watched this last board meeting or two board meetings before, and our superior court judges are trying to uncouple our state court judges and the solicitor general, and I think they accidentally somehow did the juvenile court judges and they should not have done that, but they did do that in probate.

412. 1:55:15

     So you've got superior court trying to uncouple because they realize as of July 1, state court, SGs, probate will make more than they will because of how it's coupled, 90%, plus they keep, there's no cap on their locality pay. I don't think the, the, the board is gonna increase their ca- their locality pay. It's gonna stay the same. Their supplement's gonna stay the same, 45, $50,000. But when you take 90% of whatever the judges are making and you've got a $50,000 locality pay, you've just gotten above your superior court judges Thank you.

413. 1:55:57

     All right, let's see. Um, Chairman Leverett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good to see you again. Good to see you. I met you a couple weeks ago when we were- Yeah ... up here, so. Um, so, uh, I just want... You w- you- your testimony earlier, you made some statements that I may have misunderstood. I think you've since said things that make me realize you're aware of this, but you're aware that you as an i- current DA, if this bill were to go in effect, can not, simply not opt in if you make more currently than the, whatever our state pay is.

414. 1:56:30

     Correct. I- I'm, I'm very much aware of that, but this is the deal. Let's just say you continue to increase the base pay of the DAs, then at some point in time, it will actually benefit me to opt in, but the dates that you have as a max, I am absolutely screwed. But if I opt in now or, you know, January 1st of 2027 or January 1st of 2028, I am losing money because you have capped my locality pay at 20-something, 20,000 whatever, whatever it is, or 10% of whatever the base pa- uh, base salary is, which means I lose money.

415. 1:57:07

     So I've got to make a decision right now. It's almost like I have to be a, a seer. I've got to make the deci- see if you guys are gonna raise the base pay of the, of the DAs above 188. You see what I'm saying? Is this gonna be something that appropriation every year for the next couple years does that, or will it be, you know, you do it this year, and then five, six years down the road it might be increased, and right now it's not beneficial to, to opt in, but five years down the road when I can't opt in, it is beneficial?

416. 1:57:40

     So that's where a good majority of us, not majority, but a good number of us are stuck at because we don't know if the, if the base salary is gonna increase to a point where it's beneficial for us to- Right. So I, I think the thought was by setting the num- the date where it is, we're gonna give you a chance to make that realistic determination based on projections of what we intend to do with DA pay. But I understand the point. We can't predict the future. Yeah, you can't pre- Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, but I just, I wanted you to understand that we're not changing your pay because we're, you, just like the judges, you've got that, uh, ability to opt, not to opt in.

417. 1:58:18

     I mean, you've got- Right ... affirmative, take affirmative action to opt into this pay structure, so if it's not financially beneficial to you, you don't have to. Yeah. Um, and at some point, I hope we do continue raising DA pay to the point where you wish you had opt in, but of course, you still have the ability to get supplements from your county if you're still in the old system. Right, but it's, it's... But my whole point is whoever comes behind me, I'm not really worried about me. Understand, I'm not. I, I'm, I've, I, I have been blessed, you know, um, and I'm an economics major from Southern Methodist University, so you know, SMU gave me a good degree.

418. 1:58:54

     And so I am worried about who comes behind me. That's my fear. Because if you get, if the SG salary keeps going up, and I know I've spoken to several DAs around here- When you say SG, you're talking about solicitor general? Solicitor general, yes, sir. I'm sorry. So that's the person who prosecutes misdemeanors- Yes, sir ... and misdemeanors. Yes, sir. And I think there's, what, 30 SGs around here in the state of Georgia. They all go to state court, I guess, where they would- Yeah, they're, they're predominantly state court. So if you get the SGs, and let's just say, 'cause I know that some colleagues just listening to them vent over dinner or whatever, some of their S- SGs are already asking for local legislation to increase their base pay and also their locality or supplements.

419. 1:59:40

     So based upon what they have been seeing, their SG... And I understand you guys have no control over supplements or locality pay or, or the salaries of the SG, but look at what is happening. You're gonna have the SGs making more than your DAs, and you then have a hierarchical problem. So why would the next logical person that would be DA come in the DA, why would they come up to be, you know, why would the SG leave the DA's office for lesser pay and more headaches?

420. 2:00:13

     That's what I think the, those of us who are opposed to this are sitting here saying. We understand what our, what our brothers and sisters from smaller jurisdictions are saying because their jurisdictions aren't giving them locality pay. But cost of living is cheaper. Caseload is cheaper 'cause, I mean, it's smaller because some of those individuals don't have, the ones that do have a part-time SG, that doesn't, they're not affected by that. But those who have to handle the SG, when you talk about caseload, 'cause like one of them said, "I have 700 or 800 cases.

421. 2:00:49

     My people have 700 or 800 cases." I said, "Well, how many are misdemeanors versus felonies?" The vast majority are misdemeanors 'cause there are more misdemeanors on the, on the books than there are felonies. So when, when I sit here and say that my people are handling 700 to 800 cases, and understand I've got three assigned to each courtroom, and I've got five, five courtrooms, those are all felonies, and those are all defendants. Not case numbers, but defendants, and we're talking murders. I've got 240-something murders, and I've got 32 that are unindicted that we're dealing.

422. 2:01:24

     That was the count that I took a week ago, so we probably got some more since then. That's what I'm dealing with, and if you're, that's where those of us in the larger jurisdictions are sitting here saying, "We aren't the same." What we're dealing with, let our locals pay us what they think we're worth because they understand what could happen because they have seen what could happen if somebody is not qualified and doesn't understand how to run an office.

423. 2:01:54

     And imagine if that happens in this area where y'all are here three or four months out the year, and my jurisdiction has Hartsville, Jackson. What happens if somebody doesn't understand how to prosecute these felonies or comes, come in because the pay is such that they're not paid what they're worth?

424. 2:02:15

     So, and I, I appreciate that concern. So I, I, I would just note that y- y- you're contemplating that we do nothing else to, to DA pay for a long time.

425. 2:02:30

     No, what I'm contemplating is the three-year study, the scale that we gave you, that handles the-

426. 2:02:36

     We gave it to this committee

427. 2:02:37

     ... Well, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm, I'm, I'm not gonna lie, I don't know which committee got it, but Appropriations last year or the year before, 'cause I think you moved on it last year but it was given the year before, and I honestly don't know the numbers so I'm not even gonna sit here and try to tell you, but I, I think, and Pete can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the DA salary in year three capped out at, like, 182 or 188, somewhere around there, with the ADAs under, you know, going underneath us with a significant increase.

428. 2:03:07

     But it was a three-year step process, like, you know, so we wouldn't get there in one big jump. But in a three-year time, um, time period, I think we got to 182 or 188. So that's what I'm saying, is if you wanna give us something where, to give us a raise or give us money, start with year one, because that's what, what you did with the ADAs. You gave them year one, and that's what put them above us. And I think in the PAC budget, they kinda addressed that, of giving us not 188, but giving us something that gets us above those 82 ADAs that make more money, and let's go with that, and every year, two years, whatever y'all feel comfortable with, give us our increases until the point that we are close to what our brothers and sisters in the southeast are making.

429. 2:04:01

     You're, you're talking about DAs now?

430. 2:04:02

     Yes.

431. 2:04:03

     Well-

432. 2:04:03

     DAs and ADAs. And A... Because if you move us together, you won't have the problem. The problem came when you, when you uncoupled us to our ADAs. You gave them an increase and you kept us stagnant, which caused 82 people, I think it was 82, to make more than us. But if you had kept us together and gave everybody that increase on January 1st, we wouldn't be having that 82 people problem making more than us.

433. 2:04:27

     Well, and I've, uh, again, that, it, it, we're, we're inextricably talking about appropriations here.

434. 2:04:34

     Yes, yes, sir.

435. 2:04:34

     And I understand we, the, it's tough not to do that-

436. 2:04:36

     Yes

437. 2:04:37

     ... when we talk about the issue. But, but technically the bill before the committee-

438. 2:04:40

     Yeah

439. 2:04:41

     ... doesn't appropriate anything.

440. 2:04:42

     I understand.

441. 2:04:43

     It does change the structure, though, and I understand you have objections to the structure.

442. 2:04:46

     Yes, sir.

443. 2:04:46

     I respect those. But, but I, I, I think to assume that we're going to condemn your successor to a cheaper salary assumes that the appropriation for DAs will never change.

444. 2:04:58

     I'm just going off history, sir.

445. 2:05:00

     Well, and, and, and-

446. 2:05:00

     That's, that's, that history-

447. 2:05:01

     ... that may be the case-

448. 2:05:02

     Yeah

449. 2:05:02

     ... but we're doing something about it now.

450. 2:05:04

     But that doesn't mean that you're gonna do something every year or every two years or every three years. You can do something right now and sit there in Appropriations and say, "Okay, we think the ADAs or the DAs are good," and five years down the line, you know, not do anything. I walk away from the game and the person coming in makes, makes less money. That's, that's the point. We, we are dependent upon y'all. And no offense, but y'all haven't done anything since I got in in 2019 that has been significant.

451. 2:05:35

     So why would I trust? You see what I'm saying? This bill is not gonna help, and I've got to trust Appropriations to keep continually doing stuff, and y'all don't. And so that's where, that's where the concern comes in. That's why no on this bill. Let Appropriations do the three year step one, two, three. It gives us time, because it wasn't unanimous. As a DA's associate, I've seen three different versions.

452. 2:06:01

     Well, and I don't believe-

453. 2:06:02

     Yeah

454. 2:06:03

     ... believe the previous witness said it was unanimous.

455. 2:06:05

     Yes, he did. Mulholland said it w- it was unanimous. The vote was unanimous. And-

456. 2:06:08

     My recollection is you said it was the vote of the association, but it was not. There was difference of opinion.

457. 2:06:13

     We disagree, respectfully disagree. He said it was unanimous. The vote, this vote was unanimous. It was not.

458. 2:06:18

     Well, perhaps I didn't hear that, 'cause I was aware it was not unanimous.

459. 2:06:21

     Yeah.

460. 2:06:21

     So.

461. 2:06:22

     Yeah. I just think he might have misspoke.

462. 2:06:23

     Okay. So, um, w- w- so we have the, the issue of the structure, and you mentioned one thing, too, about the linkage. There is a section in this bill that suspends the linkage. I guess, is your... Is, are solicitors in your circuit paid based on a percentage of your salary, or are they just paid by a salary set by the local government?

463. 2:06:44

     No one is linked to me. They're all linked to the superior court judges.

464. 2:06:48

     Okay.

465. 2:06:48

     So my superior court judges are trying to uncouple.

466. 2:06:52

     Well, and that was part of the, the mechanism in the, in the bill with the judges last year, was to give folks time to deal with that issue as they-

467. 2:07:00

     Right

468. 2:07:00

     ... appropriated the local government.

469. 2:07:01

     Right.

470. 2:07:01

     So, um, and I, to your, your position that we're not all the same, I, I mean, I, I understand that, that position. I think, um, to the extent you have additional staff, though, you, you do have people to manage, but you have more people to assist you with the task that other DAs might be doing themselves on an individual basis.

471. 2:07:23

     I mean, I have a minor caseload. It, when I say minor, minor, but you know, yeah, I have, I have 27, when I'm fully staffed, 27 ADAs that are, that are in the courtroom. But they handle those, but there are other things that I must handle like this. I'm here. That-

472. 2:07:39

     Yeah, I'm totally understand

473. 2:07:40

     ... I'm completely appreciated

474. 2:07:41

     ... and I appreciate it.

475. 2:07:41

     Yeah.

476. 2:07:41

     I appreciate

477. 2:07:41

     Yeah.

478. 2:07:41

     You taking the time away.

479. 2:07:42

     But, you know, I'm going to the board meetings. I'm doing things that my ADAs can't and nor would I put upon them, because like I said, you know, I've got 200 and some odd murders that I need for them to be concentrating on.

480. 2:07:54

     I understand. You need s-

481. 2:07:54

     Right

482. 2:07:54

     ... you need staff. Yeah.

483. 2:07:55

     Right. Exactly.

484. 2:07:55

     I, I acknowledge that. I j- I just was, was noting while I agree that you're different, I don't I, I could see an argument that that would not necessarily indicate that more money should be paid to the people with bigger

485. 2:08:08

     Well, I'm not asking you to pay more money. I'm asking you whatever, whatever the salary is, whatever, whatever base salary the state says. Knock yourself silly. If you say, "We're all 160," I'm good. Leave my locality pay alone, because let Clayton County say, "Tasha, I either agree with what you're getting, I'm gonna reduce what you're getting." Let them. It's their money. It's Clayton County's money.

486. 2:08:30

     Well, uh, and it is their money, but they are an instrumentality of the state. And I think, again, this is the, I think the policy of the bill that we passed last year for judges was trying to ensure more uniformity across the state on, on that pay.

487. 2:08:43

     But even at... Respectfully, I think that was crazy, too, because the... No, I mean, um, I mean, I, I'm just-

488. 2:08:50

     No, I mean, no, you're in, you're, you're entitled. I hear you

489. 2:08:50

     ... I'm, I'm... They were, they were, they had been going on for years, and I think they got to a point they got scared and they got tired. Well, I'm not scared and I'm not tired. When, when you sit there and you have somebody tell me that... I have grand jury every week. Some jurisdictions have four grand juries a week. When I have a colleague tell me that they have grand jury twice a year, that means their judges and their judges only meet, their one or two judges, meet four times a month, but my judges are on the bench every day of the month?

490. 2:09:25

     Do you see how that really... You're, we're all getting paid the same, b- and we're, but we're not doing the same type of work. You, you see, one, one group is doing more than another. Not diminishing anybody's thing, but when you diminish the locality pay, you diminish their worth. And I understand why you had to do it, because some locations were giving them so much money that they made more than the Supreme Court, who is the top court, who should definitely be getting paid most. And then the, the Court of Appeals, then the tr- then the, the Superior Court judges, but we're not like them, and people keep...

491. 2:10:02

     That's why this bill is so disheartening, because you keep, "We did it just like the, the judges bill." Well, I, we're not like them. I've got five. It's one of me. Every time you add on, you diminish how many cases they deal with, but not me. No DA. Every time... And if you think about it, every time a new judgeship comes up, where are you putting these new judgeships? In the larger jurisdictions. Why? Because the crime numbers are so high.

492. 2:10:35

     But why are we bent on treating us all the same? You're not adding judges to the smaller judicial circuits, because their crime rates are not the same. The judges are not handling as many cases. Well, I just told you I have three to four prosecutors in each courtroom, and they ha- they have 700 to 800 cases a piece. Right there, if it's three, that's 2,100 cases one judge, to 2,400 possibly. Everybody's not doing that, and that, and that's probably a... I'm a, I'm a honeydew.

493. 2:11:06

     I don't even wanna know what the watermelons are carrying.

494. 2:11:09

     Well, but that, that is done by the Judicial Council to make sure that judges have roughly the same caseload-

495. 2:11:15

     Right

496. 2:11:16

     ... throughout. So, uh, uh, I mean, I, I appreciate y- your, your position. I think I just have a disagreement with you about, um, as a state, what the state policy should be.

497. 2:11:27

     That's why I love disagreements. That's why I love America. We can disagree to, uh, agree to disagree.

498. 2:11:32

     Yes, ma'am.

499. 2:11:32

     The beauty of it.

500. 2:11:33

     Thank you for your testimony.

501. 2:11:34

     All right.

502. 2:11:34

     Thank you.

503. 2:11:34

     Thank you for your time.

504. 2:11:36

     Representative Evans.

505. 2:11:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam DA.

506. 2:11:39

     Yes, ma'am.

507. 2:11:40

     Um, this is very helpful. Um, you mentioned the solicitor general's, the issue that, you know, the solicitor general under this situation would not wanna move up and take your job 'cause they're gonna take a pay cut, and that's a recruitment issue for you.

508. 2:11:54

     Yes, ma'am.

509. 2:11:54

     Right. What other... I, I think there are other positions in your office that would also be affected, because they could continue to receive supplements and make more than the DA in the future, and could you just enlighten us to what all those positions are?

510. 2:12:07

     Right now I have two, I've got one chief and just one ADA, senior ADA, that makes more than me w- based upon the number of years, okay? To get people to come work for me, because the state salary is so low, I had to supplement those salaries. And so if I keep the supplement the same, and which I don't take money away from people 'cause they earn it, um, and they deserve it, if you increase those, those salaries, they will continue to go above me.

511. 2:12:37

     Even if you put this in, it doesn't do anything about the supplements that our ADAs get. A lot of counties, judicial circuits give the ADAs, state paid ADAs, supplements. And so they're supplements, and trust me, when, when they go in, when, when the SG's office goes in, says, "I want more money," and I, and they usually give it by supplement, guess what they do? They increase everybody's supplement. So there's gonna come a point in time where their supplement is gonna put them, regardless if you pass this bill, it's gonna put them above, still gonna put them above the elected DA.

512. 2:13:12

     And so that would create a further recruitment issue, 'cause not only would the solicitor general not wanna move and become the DA, but all of the, the, the most experienced assistant district attorneys within your office would also not wanna move up because it would be a pay cut.

513. 2:13:25

     Correct. Right now I've got two that would, if this goes into effect, it would be a pay cut.

514. 2:13:30

     Okay.

515. 2:13:30

     Yeah.

516. 2:13:31

     Thank you.

517. 2:13:31

     You're welcome.

518. 2:13:33

     Vice Chair Reeves.

519. 2:13:34

     Madam District Attorney, thanks for coming. I had a case in Clayton County, uh, last summer, uh, at, uh, you probably remember, the day the air conditioner was out-

520. 2:13:42

     Oh, Jesus. Yeah

521. 2:13:42

     ... on one of those.

522. 2:13:43

     Yeah.

523. 2:13:43

     So tried a jury trial-

524. 2:13:44

     We brought it on the court

525. 2:13:44

     ... with the air conditioning out. Uh, that, that was interesting. But, uh, all right. So in Clayton County, the solicitor general was tied to the superior court judge's pay-

526. 2:13:53

     Yes

527. 2:13:53

     ... before the judge bill.

528. 2:13:55

     Yes.

529. 2:13:55

     The judge bill suspended that. Has Clayton County made a decision through local legislation or a local ordinance on what to pay the solicitor general going forward after that suspension?

530. 2:14:07

     As of right now, it's coming ... They're now talking about it.

531. 2:14:10

     Okay.

532. 2:14:10

     They, they are talking about it. Because like I said, my chief judge, um, uncoupled. Because let me ... This is how Clayton County has interpreted, interpreted that, is that it was just suspended for till July 1st. They didn't interpret that as they have to go back and redo anything.

533. 2:14:29

     All right.

534. 2:14:29

     They've got it, their interpretation listening to the, the board meeting is that come July 1st, the state court judges will get 90% of the superior court judges, and my SG will get 90% of the state court judges, plus whatever their supplement is now.

535. 2:14:45

     And that's the local deliberation, local decision based on local funds?

536. 2:14:50

     Yes. Yes, sir.

537. 2:14:51

     Thanks.

538. 2:14:51

     You're welcome.

539. 2:14:53

     Okay. Thank you very much.

540. 2:14:54

     Thank you. Y'all have a good one.

541. 2:14:59

     Okay. Um, we're running a little long, so if, I'm, I've still got several speakers to go. And if y'all can kinda get to the point and move it along, that would help us. Uh, Joshua Larkey.

542. 2:15:24

     If you would introduce yourself and-

543. 2:15:26

     There you go

544. 2:15:27

     ... get, get into that microphone right there.

545. 2:15:28

     All right. Yes, sir.

546. 2:15:32

     All right. All right, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Uh, I am Joshua Larkey. I'm the circuit public defender of the Waycross Circuit, and I will try to be brief. Uh, I know we're running, running a little bit behind. So, you know, my role here today was originally gonna be to discuss what our agency's concerns were about the bill as originally drafted. But I can say, um, that with the amendments to the bill, we are fully satisfied. Those have been, um, addressed, and we would thank, uh, Chairman Leverett for his efforts in that regard. And we appreciate the, um, opportunity to work with the District Attorneys Association to resolve those concerns.

547. 2:16:06

     Um, with those being resolved, I can say that GPDC and myself and my district attorney were all fully in support of this bill. Um, you know, um, what this bill and the ... Well, and let me just say this. We, we certainly appreciate the continued, um, commitment of this committee to pay parity as a concept, both the CPDs and the APDs. Um, you know, what this bill and the other funding bills that, um, this committee has considered this year are really about is recruitment and retention.

548. 2:16:38

     And we've heard from the, um, districts attorneys today about the challenges that they face in that regard. And I can certainly tell you that, um, you know, public defenders, particularly rural public defenders, certainly have those same challenges. And, um, pay parity, the types of increases we've seen in this bill and others, um, go a long way towards addressing those. So we thank you for that.

549. 2:17:00

     All right. Vice Chair Reeves.

550. 2:17:01

     Thank you for coming. You've got six-

551. 2:17:02

     Yeah

552. 2:17:02

     ... six counties in your circuit, right?

553. 2:17:04

     Correct. Yes.

554. 2:17:04

     How many of those counties pay supplements to the public defender?

555. 2:17:07

     So I ... This is the first year, starting January 1, that I do receive a supplement. Um, the district attorney officer receives a supplement. I think initially, um, my supplement was the same, but I do believe that hers has increased. So I don't know that for sure, but I think it's increased. But I have not ... Traditionally, the district attorney in my circuit did receive a supplement and the public defender did not. But as of this year, we, we do receive a supplement.

556. 2:17:34

     Okay.

557. 2:17:34

     Okay. And, uh, Representative Holcomb.

558. 2:17:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

559. 2:17:38

     What's your caseload?

560. 2:17:39

     My personal caseload or-

561. 2:17:41

     Yes.

562. 2:17:42

     Uh, I don't know the exact number. It's probably in the nature of 250 for me personally. I think our office average is about 350.

563. 2:17:49

     Wow, okay. Thank you.

564. 2:17:50

     Something in that ballpark.

565. 2:17:52

     All right. And Representative Evans.

566. 2:17:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, did you ... I, I, I apologize, I think I missed. Are you in a leadership position for the-

567. 2:18:02

     I am

568. 2:18:02

     ... Association of PDs?

569. 2:18:04

     No, ma'am. I'm the circuit public defender for the Waycross judicial circuit. Um, I'm here with Ms. Ali, our executive director, who I think you will hear from later.

570. 2:18:12

     Okay.

571. 2:18:13

     But I have sort of been involved, particularly in addressing this bill and some of the concerns that we have. So I think I can say that, that we are in support of it at this point.

572. 2:18:21

     Okay. Um, I'm, and I'll, I'll ask this question. You may not be able to answer it, but maybe other speakers can. Um, I understand the sentiment that was shared earlier that, uh, DAs, local supplements to DAs are, are generally higher than-

573. 2:18:38

     Yes, ma'am

574. 2:18:38

     ... public defenders. Um, I want, and I, and I understand that as a political issue, local governments, if, if we cap DA supplements, even if we don't cap public defender, um, supplements, which this bill currently doesn't do-

575. 2:18:53

     Right

576. 2:18:54

     ... um, that they may do that on their own. But obviously we have no control over that. Um, what I'm trying to figure out is if there are any localities right now that are paying a higher supplement to their, um, chief public defender, or, or paying a local supplement to a chief public defender that is higher than $20,608 and 5 cents, which is what we're capping the DAs at in this bill. And it may not be you, but there may be other people that can answer that for me.

577. 2:19:20

     I think there may be a, a small number that do, but that would be, again, a very small number. And, you know, I would be surprised if we end up in a situation if this bill does pass where you have CPDs with higher supplements than DAs. My sense is, and I don't, I don't know, this is speculation, that, you know, if the DA supplement is adjusted, that almost certainly the CPDs would be as well. But I, you know, that would be just speculation on my part.

578. 2:19:46

     Okay. Thank you.

579. 2:19:46

     I know it's unusual that any CPD receives a higher supplement than a DA-

580. 2:19:51

     Okay. Thank you

581. 2:19:51

     ... in my experience.

582. 2:19:55

     All right. Thank, thank you.

583. 2:19:56

     Thanks, sir.

584. 2:19:58

     Representative Evans, did you-

585. 2:20:00

     No, I was just

586. 2:20:00

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, David DeLuges.

587. 2:20:05

     No, he's on another bill.

588. 2:20:06

     Another bill? Oh, I'm sorry. Different-

589. 2:20:07

     Different. Different

590. 2:20:08

     ... different bill. Yes, sir.

591. 2:20:09

     Yeah.

592. 2:20:09

     All right.

593. 2:20:10

     But I look forward to it.

594. 2:20:11

     Everybody else is on this bill. Let's see. Kristen Waller.

595. 2:20:29

     Hello. Hello, and if you can, please keep it short. Yes, sir. I'm Kristen Waller. I'm the circuit public defender in the Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit. Our concern in signing up was the plain language of this statute in our learned knowledge, um, would have taken away pay parity with the amendment we supported. Okay. So I've been the circuit public defender in the Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit for, since May 1. I have five judges. Um, I started with the statutory minimum number of attorneys, which was very hard, and I was the only trial counsel for four counties.

596. 2:21:08

     Um- How many APDs do you have? How many assistant positions do I have? Or how many assistants are filling them right now? How many assistants do you have? Um, I think the total number of assistants is 11. Um, however, we're not there. Um, I struggle to recruit. Uh, my husband is actually the dean for career planning at UGA Law, and he tells me that no one wants to come to my office.

597. 2:21:38

     So I hope to change that by them getting to know me. Mm-hmm. Um, but I am going to Mercer and the other law schools throughout the state. Um, I've closed 717 cases since May 1. Um- That's good. Oh, thanks. I don't see my senior in high school, and I tell her if she feels neglected, that she has to tell me that so that I can give her time. So. Okay. Um, Vice Chair Reeves. Ms. Waller, good to see you again. Nice to see you. And thank you for coming.

598. 2:22:09

     Mr. Barksdale is your DA, right? Yes, he is. Okay, he came to the retirement bill in support. Uh, appreciate you. You're in support of the bill now- Yes ... right, as amended. And, um, h- how many of your counties? You've got eight counties, you said. Yes. How many of them pay supplements to the chief public defender? None. Thank you. I'm just trying to get them to cover the administrative staff that I need and the budget requests that I've made. I actually warned a Morgan County, um, commissioner of that this morning. Okay. Thank you.

599. 2:22:39

     All right. Thank you. One more. Uh, Chairman Leverett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a very quick comment. Ma'am, after just having seen you before this committee the last four minutes, I just have no doubt in your recruiting capability, so I wish you Godspeed. Thank you. I don't think you need it, but you're gonna be great. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. Ali, you're next on the list.

600. 2:23:15

     Good afternoon. Good afternoon. And I'll make it brief because everything has been said. Now, ooh. Okay. Yeah, I think that chair has- It's low ... the bottom's about dropped out of it. Oh, yeah. Okay. Uh, Chairman Leverett, uh, good to meet you. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Thank you so much for all you've done for us. It's a pleasure to meet you. Uh, Judge Gunter, of course- Yeah ... good to see you, and, uh, to all of you, uh, good afternoon. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of HB 1028.

601. 2:23:49

     My name is Omotayo Ali. I am not a prosecutor. I am the public defender, but, uh, it is precisely in my role that I am in support of this legislation. Uh, and that's because a strong justice system requires... I have a lot to say about retention, recruitment, but everything has been said, so I'll just go to, briefly, to, um, other things that I could just say to you. Please. Uh, that a strong justice system requires strength on both sides of the courtroom. I know prosecutors, they have the responsibility, they manage heavy caseload, as we do.

602. 2:24:22

     I've been doing this for 36 years. Uh, they make life-altering decisions, and they ensure justice is not only pur- pursued, and that's the goal, uh, but done ethically and lawfully. And when we under-invest in that function, we risk turnover, which we've been struggling with, uh, inconsistency and delay, all of which undermine public, uh, confidence. Uh, and I'm very clear that this is not undermining HB, um, 1391, which we thank you, and I really am glad to, to see, to meet you today.

603. 2:24:56

     Uh, and, um, both measures can and should stand together. Across our state, prosecutors face recruitment challenges similar to those affecting us as well. Uh, law school debt is quite high. I hear all the attorneys talk about how much they have to pay and how many jobs they have to have after they leave us, uh, at the end of the day. And private sector is not, uh, really playing with us. They're very competitive. And so I'm really happy to hear that this is going on today, that you're being, you're considering increasing the pay for prosecutors.

604. 2:25:30

     It is a pleasure to hear that, and we're in full support of it. I want to particularly thank Pete Candelakis, I don't know if he's still here, uh, for always bridging the gap between us and the, and public defenders. Um,

605. 2:25:47

     uh, supporting this bill is consistent with our longstanding position that our justice system must invest equitably in all core constitutional functions. Uh, sustainable funding across prosecution, defense, and other court ensures balance, integrity, and public trust. HB 1028 is a recog- recognition of the seriousness of the work that prosecutors and public defenders do on behalf of the state of Georgia. For those reasons, I respectfully urge your support.

606. 2:26:20

     Okay. Any questions?

607. 2:26:24

     I see none. Thank you. Uh, oh. Okay. Well, you all have a good evening. Nice to meet you. Pleasure. Joshua Marky

608. 2:26:37

     I think he's still- He's gone? All right.

609. 2:26:39

     Larkin.

610. 2:26:42

     Oh.

611. 2:26:43

     He's where?

612. 2:26:44

     There's a Larkey and a Markey.

613. 2:26:45

     Larkey and a Markey. Okay, gotcha. Um, Gina Bernard.

614. 2:26:52

     What?

615. 2:26:58

     Who's got 18 flashing over there?

616. 2:26:59

     Chairman Hitchens.

617. 2:27:01

     Chairman Hitchens, you, you got the button on the mic?

618. 2:27:05

     Sorry about that. I was sitting over here coughing and-

619. 2:27:10

     I didn't know if you wanted to say something.

620. 2:27:13

     I did.

621. 2:27:15

     Good afternoon.

622. 2:27:17

     Good afternoon.

623. 2:27:17

     Good afternoon.

624. 2:27:18

     Tell us what's your name and-

625. 2:27:19

     My name's Gina Bernard, and I'm the circuit public defender for Rockdale County.

626. 2:27:22

     Rockdale. All right, thank you.

627. 2:27:24

     And as other CPDs have said, the reason that I'm here is because of how the bill was originally written. And with the amendment that has been made, and we worked pretty hard together collaborating, we are in support of it. I am in support of it. I am a former prosecutor. I started out as a prosecutor before going into defense work, and I know all too well how the pay between, and the, the pay between defense and prosecution has always been very different.

628. 2:28:01

     But thanks to the Pay Parity Bill 1391, I believe it is, that helped recruitment. I started in Rockdale in December of '23, and I'm still trying to recruit. Thanks to the Pay Parity Bill, I'm able to get more people, but it's still difficult, but we're working on it. So we are in support of the bill, and I hope that you'll pass it. And thank you so much for the work that you've done, Representative Leverett.

629. 2:28:32

     Okay. Representative Evans.

630. 2:28:35

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before you were... You said you're in Rockdale now?

631. 2:28:39

     Yes.

632. 2:28:39

     Before you were, were in Rockdale, where were you?

633. 2:28:41

     DeKalb and... I was in the Stone Mountain Conflict Office, which is DeKalb and, at one point, Fulton.

634. 2:28:47

     Do you know, do you remember if the, um, the local supplements for the circuit public defender in DeKalb were equal to the, uh, local supplement for the DA, the elected DA?

635. 2:28:58

     I do not know.

636. 2:28:59

     Okay.

637. 2:29:00

     So I wasn't a, I wasn't a circuit PD. I was a conflict PD.

638. 2:29:02

     Okay.

639. 2:29:03

     I don't know.

640. 2:29:03

     Okay.

641. 2:29:04

     But I know the, in Rockdale, it is not the same.

642. 2:29:06

     Okay. And I probably should have asked the, um, the representatives of the association, but the, if, if my reading of 1712-25 is right, combined with this bill, local supplements for, um, circuit public defenders are not capped, whereas elected DA, the supplements would be capped. And I just wanted to know if you have any objection to, um, the local supplements for elected DAs not being capped.

643. 2:29:36

     No, I don't have any-

644. 2:29:36

     Yeah

645. 2:29:36

     ... objection to that.

646. 2:29:37

     Okay. Thank you.

647. 2:29:38

     You're welcome.

648. 2:29:39

     Okay. Vice Chair Reeves.

649. 2:29:41

     Um-

650. 2:29:42

     Help, ma'am

651. 2:29:42

     ... Public Defender Bernard, Bernard.

652. 2:29:44

     Oh, I'm sorry.

653. 2:29:45

     Um-

654. 2:29:45

     Still have a question.

655. 2:29:46

     Thank you for coming to the capital.

656. 2:29:47

     No problem.

657. 2:29:47

     You're, you're in Rockdale County on I-20, Metro Atlanta.

658. 2:29:50

     Yes.

659. 2:29:50

     Fast-growing county.

660. 2:29:51

     It is.

661. 2:29:52

     Um, what is the supplement, uh, if any, that Rockdale County gives chief public defender?

662. 2:29:58

     9,000.

663. 2:29:59

     9,000? Okay. Thank you.

664. 2:30:00

     You're welcome.

665. 2:30:01

     Okay. All right. Thank you. You're-

666. 2:30:05

     Am I good?

667. 2:30:05

     Her-... Yeah, you're good. Herb Cranford, come on up.

668. 2:30:10

     If y'all are okay with it, I'll spare everyone, unless there's any particular questions. I'll withdraw, if that's, is that allowed?

669. 2:30:17

     Yeah.

670. 2:30:17

     I'm good with that.

671. 2:30:19

     Can I, can I call him up for one thing?

672. 2:30:20

     Okay.

673. 2:30:24

     District Attorney Cranford, I think we, we do need to get a little bit more light shed on deliberations after the judge bill was passed, and how y'all brought this bill to the capital. What were the deliberations, the discussions with the 51 DAs in Georgia?

674. 2:30:39

     Okay. Yeah, so, so my, my recollection, which, which I think some people that have testified have had, had a different recollection, is, um... And, and I'm the budget chair of the DA's Association, so I'm, I'm kind of in these weeds as much as anybody, is, um, we did have a discussion in our July meeting. We have quarterly meetings. Um, an alternate proposal to what the judges did was proposed that would have capped supplements at the same 10%, but would have had three tiers of elected DA pay based on office size.

675. 2:31:10

     You know, a small, medium, large, so to speak. I don't know what the population, or, or if it, it was based on population or ADA size, I can't remember. Um, so there were DAs in favor of that, um, different proposal, but, but as I recall, and, and, and I'd have to check the minutes, but I'm pretty sure it reflects this, the ultimate vote in the July meeting was unanimously in favor of the proposal we presented. Um, we had meetings in October where, um, doing away with supplement caps was discussed.

676. 2:31:44

     And then at the December meeting, there was, you know, uh, 14, 15, uh, DAs, um, that did want to change our proposal to you all to take out the 10% cap on supplements. Um, so where we ended up was not unanimous. Um, though, though my recollection, with some confidence, is that we, we started out that way in, in July.

677. 2:32:12

     Thank you.

678. 2:32:15

     Okay. Representative Holcomb.

679. 2:32:16

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. What's the disparity in terms of population served by the DA that has the most populous jurisdiction to the smallest jurisdiction? I'm just interested in context.

680. 2:32:28

     Yeah, I, I used to know this pretty well when I was working on my circuit split. I will say, um, I always use the AOC numbers, so those are readily available.

681. 2:32:36

     Mm-hmm.

682. 2:32:37

     Um, but When I had a five-county circuit, I had the number five population at, like, 375,000. Um, I'm certain the Atlanta circuit, Fulton County, has the highest. Um, I don't know between, you know, Cobb, Gwinnett, DeKalb, um, but, but I mean, somebody here, if, if you can Google it, you know, Fulton's probably got, what, over a million people. You know, DeKalb maybe, like, 750 f- if I remem- remember correctly.

683. 2:33:03

     What about the smallest? Do you have an understanding of that?

684. 2:33:05

     Uh, if I recall correctly, I think the smallest is, is around or even maybe under, like, 150,000.

685. 2:33:13

     Okay.

686. 2:33:14

     Yeah. Um-

687. 2:33:14

     All right. Thank you.

688. 2:33:16

     And, and, and I do think, um, maybe relevant to that question is, you know, running the offices can be very different. Some offices are really big, a lot of employees. Um, other offices get no county funding, and so in some offices, the DA is having to try every murder and go to every murder scene, things like that. But, but they don't have 100 employees to deal with employee issues. You know, um, for example, I don't have my own, um, public information officer, whereas some offices my size do, you know?

689. 2:33:47

     Um, so it, it's, it's hard to compare apples and oranges. I think what I testified in front of the Appropriations Committee, as one who used to have a caseload that had... Was the fourth-highest in the state and the number five population, the best metric for, quote, unquote, "difficulty", in my opinion, and people would definitely probably disagree, is the number of resources per case. You know, how many ADAs do you have per case? How many DA investigators? How many victim advocates do you have? I, I... That's been my experience. When, um, when we, when we reduced my office size, my job got easier 'cause I had two less counties.

690. 2:34:24

     Um, the, the, the cases per ADA is about the same, and that's no more easy because my office is smaller. That's my personal experience.

691. 2:34:34

     Vice Chair Reeves.

692. 2:34:35

     Mr. Crawford, do you know right off the number of ADAs some of the circuits with larger populations have?

693. 2:34:42

     Um, I, I, I've, I've been told this. I, I don't say, I can't say I've seen anything official, but, um, I think the, the largest offices, I, as I understand it, have over, like, 100 ADAs. Um, and, and this is where it gets, um, very different depending on where you are. I... Again, I had the fourth-highest felony caseload in five counties. I didn't have nearly the number of serious violent felonies the top four offices had, particularly the top one and two offices. Um, but I had 23 ADAs handling the fourth-highest felony caseload.

694. 2:35:16

     Um, and, and I, and I would say that that presents a certain difficulty that, you know, having much less cases per ADA doesn't present.

695. 2:35:26

     And I, I think, uh, someone mentioned earlier several hundred, and I think that would be Fulton. I think Gwinnett's around 100. And I believe we have DA Boston here. We can get the-

696. 2:35:34

     Mm-hmm

697. 2:35:34

     ... DeKalb number. But, uh, uh, with population and caseload, you have more resources and personnel available, right?

698. 2:35:43

     I, I, I think that's right. I mean, I always did a comparison to Gwinnett when I was trying to split the circuit because, um, we had very similar caseloads. I had, with five counties, like I said, 23 ADAs. They had, um, if I recall correctly, 60, 70. Um, they had, like, 50 DA investigators. I think I had eight, you know? And, um, so that, that was my argument for, "Please help me out and break this thing up." Yeah.

699. 2:36:09

     All right. Thank you.

700. 2:36:11

     All right. Thanks.

701. 2:36:12

     Sherry Boston.

702. 2:36:20

     Oh. Someone sign me up.

703. 2:36:22

     Yeah.

704. 2:36:25

     Um, as you all have pointed out, y'all know I'm, I'm Sherry Boston. I'm honored to serve as the DeKalb County, um, District Attorney. Prior to being the DA, which I've been since 2017, I served for six years as the solicitor after being appointed by Governor Perdue. Um, so I've had the distinct honor of serving as both the solicitor and as the district attorney, um, and understand the dynamics of running those offices.

705. 2:36:55

     And let me just say when I was solicitor and ran the solicitor's office in DeKalb, um, that was a staff of over 100 people just for the solicitor's office. So while I was running, at that time, the second-largest solicitor's office, that was also a solicitor's office that was bigger than many district attorney's offices. Um, and so I say that to say is that when, um, the opportunity came for change in DeKalb, um, I was uniquely qualified, taking that six years of experience running an office of 100 people, to now running an office with over 300 people.

706. 2:37:33

     Yes, I have... I can, I can answer some of these questions. I have 100 ADAs. I have 10 judges. Um, but I want... Of that 100 D- ADAs, only 12 of those ADAs are state-funded, state-paid ADAs, right? Based on the formula, I have everything I'm supposed to have, right? Um, I wanna be clear, right? Um, and I also wanna say that I am speaking in my role as DA of DeKalb. Um, because you all know I serve as the chair of the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council, and they do not take a position.

707. 2:38:07

     So I just wanna be clear on that 'cause that's been asked several times. So the county of DeKalb has given me the ability by increasing those ADAs to do the work that we need to do. We couldn't do it with just the state. I, I, I think we could all agree that that would not work in DeKalb County. There wouldn't be enough people to do the work. Um, and so, um, I am grateful and appreciative that I have a board of commission that hears me when I need more resources, and they have given me those resources over the time that I've been DA.

708. 2:38:43

     Um, and they have compensated me. Y'all have heard the numbers. I'm not embarrassed to say it 'cause it's all open records, you know. I make the highest supplement than any DA in the state of Georgia. But I also have, um, one of the largest offices, and, um, DA Cranford is right. Every DA office is different. Um, I don't think, uh, I didn't go to Southern Methodist University, so I don't think I can land the compquat, plum, and watermelon like my colleague, um, DA Mosley did so well.

709. 2:39:16

     But what I can say is, is that the reason that I have concerns about this bill, and I have raised this from the very beginning that we started talking about this is, and this isn't about me. As you all pointed out, grandfather option is there for someone like me. I am thinking about my predecessor. And the next person that steps into this role, which I, let's be clear, I have no intentions of staying in forever, right? I just don't. Um, and nobody should.

710. 2:39:47

     I am building something that I hope I will f- that you will find it better than when I gained it, and I'd like to think that I've done that so far since 2017. But my predecessor, um, if I left tomorrow and this bill passes, would make... I'm sorry, successor. Thank you.

711. 2:40:07

     No, that's okay.

712. 2:40:07

     My successor

713. 2:40:08

     Big law office having image.

714. 2:40:11

     My successor would, would make less than I do today and be challenged with the same exact challenges I have running this office today, if not more. Right? 'Cause every day life is changing in these offices. Um, J. Tom Morgan and Bob Wilson and Gwen Keys Fleming, all people that supported me when I ran for this, my, uh, that were DA, they'll all tell me every time, "Sherry, the office you're running is not the office that we were asked to run, and we're frankly glad you're not." So I just want this committee to really consider that there are a lot of issues, and DA Mosley said it right.

715. 2:40:50

     I am not opposed to a, a DA increase. My colleagues, all of us, everybody, including the people that come after me, deserve to make a salary commensurate with the work that they're doing in public service. Let's be clear, right? We're talking about public service work. Um, and today, um, if I left, my solicitor under this bill would make less than me and less than what she's making. My chief assistant district attorneys, I have three of them, each one of them could run this office well, and between the three of them has over 90 years of prosecution experience.

716. 2:41:30

     All would make less today. They make more than, right now as chief assistants, I'll tell you what the, exactly their salary is. $215,000 a year is what I pay them, because that's what it takes for me to have that type of quality experience running an office where I receive over 10,000 felony cases a year, most of which are serious violent felonies. So I, I, I don't...

717. 2:42:01

     I wanna solve a problem, but I don't wanna create another. So I would respectfully ask that we consider going back to the drawing board and finding a way to create a bill that meets the needs of all DA offices and not just some, because I don't want... When I leave, I wanna leave this in the hands of someone that I know is ready to lead and ready to continue to work to keep DeKalb County and the greater part of Atlanta safe. And right now, none of the folks working for me, nor the SG, would be interested in taking a pay cut to do the job that I'm doing right now every day.

718. 2:42:40

     So I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much.

719. 2:42:43

     Vice Chair Reeves.

720. 2:42:44

     District Attorney Boston, thanks for coming to the capital. Um-

721. 2:42:47

     You're welcome

722. 2:42:47

     ... on the solicitor in DeKalb-

723. 2:42:49

     Mm-hmm

724. 2:42:50

     ... how is their pay established under the new judge bill?

725. 2:42:53

     So, uh, as you noted, the freeze has changed everything in counties. This is, as I understand it and what I've seen in county commission hearings, is the state court judges, the solicitor, the, um, probate court judge, and the associate magistrate court judges that were all tied to the superior court judge, they've now untethered and they're going to the county commission to create a scheme, and I mean that in the nicest way.

726. 2:43:22

     Right, right. Yeah.

727. 2:43:23

     Right?

728. 2:43:23

     Yeah.

729. 2:43:23

     To create their-

730. 2:43:24

     A, a-

731. 2:43:24

     ... their pay-

732. 2:43:26

     A framework, a structure

733. 2:43:27

     ... a pay structure- ... um, that is devoid of the superior court, right? So they were all tied to the superior court judge. Um, I was tied to the superior court judge, which is how I ended up with mine. So I'm on an island unto myself now, which, you know, I don't hate, right? Um, but they are going before the commission. So they're gonna create, they're gonna reconstitute that structure and, and they are, 'cause they're all 100, they're 100% paid by the county, so they can do that.

734. 2:43:58

     Um, and so the county, um, will look at that. And I will say, um, no offense to all the amazing public defenders in the room, but I have the best circuit public defender in DeKalb County. Uh, we already have pay parity, um, because my county understands the importance of that, and that's what I mean about why it's important for locals to be able to do that. Um, my public defender is a little different because she actually covers all classes of courts, so she, she's handling everything from traffic all the way through superior court.

735. 2:44:36

     So she and I have very similar jobs. She's got more things to deal with, right? I've got a lot more felony cases, but there is that parity, and my county recognizes that. And they worked really hard, a couple legislative sessions, my local delegation, shout out to them, to making sure that everybody in the DeKalb system had a level of fairness in pay because we are all working together to keep the public safety system going well in DeKalb. So that, that locality really matters.

736. 2:45:07

     We have resources, but, ah, also our commission and our CEO have understood that it's not fair to have all these things going here to there.

737. 2:45:17

     But bottom line, solicitor generals right now, that's pending, that's uncertain. The county is deliberating on what to do following the judge bill last year.

738. 2:45:24

     Correct.

739. 2:45:25

     All right.

740. 2:45:25

     I think that's... I, everybody's doing that right now.

741. 2:45:27

     And you shed light on something that, um, I didn't, um, catch earlier. You've got prosecuting attorney's counsel. That's Mr. Skandalis, Mr. Smith. They do, you know, assignment of conflict counsel and other legal matters and things like that. But there's the District Attorneys Association of Georgia. That's a separate organization, right?

742. 2:45:48

     Correct.

743. 2:45:49

     All right. District Attorneys Association of Georgia discussed this issue about pay, right?

744. 2:45:54

     Correct.

745. 2:45:55

     All right. Is there anything different about how that happened other than what you heard from Mr. Cranford earlier? Do you have a different explanation of those deliberations that led to this bill?

746. 2:46:04

     No, Mr. Cranford was accurate. I did hear someone say unanimous earlier, and that's never been the case. I was vocally opposed from the very beginning once I ran the numbers. And the proposal that DA Cranford mentioned to you was mine. I drafted it. Um, there were a lot of proposals that we drafted and discussed along the way. Um, but where we landed, um, in October before session started was, and there are, 15 DAs that were opposed to this particular proposal going forward and wanted to go back to the table in an effort to bring you all a unanimous proposal, and that was, um, that vote was, was lost.

747. 2:46:44

     Um, so I, I, I, again, I, I... This is an important issue, but I don't want us to create a situation of problems that we have already fixed in other places. And I, I firmly believe that we could come to some level of unanimity on this if we could have more discussions about locality. So, um, more than anything, I would ask you consider to give us the opportunity to draft something where you have 51 DAs, and I've never seen something like this before, all the public defenders coming in and saying yes, too, which I appreciate.

748. 2:47:20

     Um, but it would be nice to have that level of comfort that everyone feels like this is fair to everybody and the people that follow us. And I think that's really important because at the end of the day, we want public safety now, but we also want public safety in the future.

749. 2:47:36

     All right. That's all the questions. Thank you.

750. 2:47:39

     Thank you.

751. 2:47:41

     All right. Uh, we've ha- had a very thorough discussion about this bill. What's the will of the committee?

752. 2:47:48

     Motion to pass.

753. 2:47:49

     Second.

754. 2:47:51

     All right. Representative Evans.

755. 2:47:57

     I've got a, I've got two proposed amendments. And then depending on how that goes, maybe some discussion.

756. 2:48:06

     All right.

757. 2:48:07

     Um, the first amendment is just an issue of fairness. Um, if we're gonna cap, I don't think we should cap anybody's local settlements, but if we're gonna cap DAs, I think we gotta cap circuit PDs, too. And so on line 87, I would propose inserting between the word attorney and by the words or circuit public defender.

758. 2:48:38

     Okay. Do I hear a motion on the amendment?

759. 2:48:43

     I, I move it.

760. 2:48:44

     I second.

761. 2:48:46

     Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.

762. 2:48:52

     Aye.

763. 2:48:52

     Any opposed? All right, we have that.

764. 2:48:55

     And then I have another amendment. Um, thank you, Committee. Um, under Section 7, line 243 currently reads, "This act shall become effective on July 1, 2026." I propose an amendment that would make line 243 read, "This act shall become effective when the annual salary from state funds for each district attorney increases at least 50% from the level as of June 30, 2025." And the purpose of the amendment is so that any restrictions on locality pay do not go into effect until we can ensure that there is an across-the-board state raise.

765. 2:49:39

     Since this committee can't control that, um, that's just an issue of, of fairness as well, in my opinion, and I would move that as an amendment.

766. 2:49:47

     Can we get that raise back?

767. 2:49:48

     Can you-

768. 2:49:48

     Sure

769. 2:49:49

     ... read that one more time?

770. 2:49:50

     Line 243, "This act shall become effective when the annual salary from state funds for each district attorney increases at least 50% from the level as of June 30, 2025." And I did that 'cause I'm assuming that's the end of the last fiscal year.

771. 2:50:14

     I'm, I'm trying to think how this works then. Uh...

772. 2:50:22

     It, if I might, Mr. Chairman, just to elaborate. So my understanding is that we don't actually need a bill to raise DA pay, that we could do that through appropriations. We're doing this so that we can have some control over locality pay. And so my point is, unless and until we appropriate funds to increase the state pay, that we really don't have any reason that we should be controlling locality pay because it sounded like we wanted to increase, we didn't want it... There's thought from the DAs and perhaps from others on this committee that there are those under this gold dome that don't wanna increase the state pay until we have some kind of control or handle over locality pay.

773. 2:50:59

     And so my point is, unless and until we appropriate state funds for a raise at, at a level that we've been discussing here, that we not mess with locality pay. But once we do that, then we have. representive Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, to the representative, um, I believe you said annual pay inside that amendment? When the annual salary. Ah, annual salary. And the question I have for you, do you intend that really to be total compensation because you're trying to take in what the current base is plus the locality, or did you mean it to just be annual salary?

774. 2:51:37

     Annual salary from state funds. From state funds. Mm-hmm. Okay, so that way- So that way it doesn't- Right ... add up. I thought my understanding was that today we have effectively the same, and then the same annual salary, and then there's localities that effectively bring that up based on supplements, correct? Correct. So you're saying that once that base pay moves up by 50%, then it kicks in? Once the state pay increases by at least 50%- Mm-hmm ... then we take control of local pay. Right. Okay. I guess my counter would be why not just consider it, because I- I guess maybe it's my bias, but after listening and frankly running a business, I understand we're trying to put, it seems to be, some square peg into a round hole and basically treating all 51 the same, and they all have 51 of the same challenges, at least as the way that I see it.

775. 2:52:26

     And it would seem as if... I like your amendment, but I'm just wondering if it should be total comp, just because of the fact that if you take into account the salary plus the s- the supplement, uh, we take that as where they're sitting as of 2025, not just their annual pay. My- my... I don't, I don't wanna do this bill at all. Okay. Um, but if we are going to do it, I, my... The stated purpose for doing it is that, you know, we control our state funds, the local control their local funds, and we are, we are basically, I think, saying that with this bill, we will increase state DA pay if locals stop big supplements.

776. 2:53:09

     And so I just don't want us to make that policy decision to stop local supplements unless and until we put up money. I would rather move this to not pass, but I, but I can read the room, and I don't think that's gonna happen. Okay. And my... I was thinking in terms of your intent, and again, I'm not gonna a- at all try to read your mind, it just felt as if total comp going up 50% across the board, because maybe someone who's making, you know, I'll say 50,000 as a supplement all the way down to 1,000 as a supplement, having that put in and then increasing by 50%, I think that is- I- ...

777. 2:53:41

     a conversation that does, I think, change the game in terms of then, I'll say restricting supplement. But just the base pay, again, I- I- I think I see your point, and I think, I- I think we're on the same page. Um, I don't wanna touch local pay. And if, and if we did nothing, the locals can keep doing what they're doing. It's only if we pass this bill that we would be putting a cap on local pay. Correct. So I- I- if this bill doesn't go in... Is, unless and until a co- under my amendment, unless and until the state increases the state portion of the pay by 50%, the locals can keep doing whatever they wanna do.

778. 2:54:16

     Which would make sure that our, um, larger, busier circuits would still be able to enjoy a different pay rate, 'cause I agree. I... These jobs are not the same. No. Yeah. No. I'm- Which is the real point of my amendment. I'm thoroughly convinced of that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

779. 2:54:35

     Okay. All right. Any further discussion? Um, just I moved the amendment, not sure if there was a second. Okay. Second. Second. All right. You have something else you wanna say? No. Oh, okay.

780. 2:54:53

     All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the amendment... Dart, let me ask this. Do y'all understand what she's proposing? You- you need to hear it again? Apparently not. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. A- any opposed? No. No.

781. 2:55:15

     Division. Okay. Show of hands, all those in favor.

782. 2:55:24

     Okay, all those opposed.

783. 2:55:29

     Okay. Um, it fails. All right, anything else? Any others? Any other amendments by anybody? All right, I have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. No. All right, let's raise the hands. I should've done that in the first place. All those in favor.

784. 2:55:56

     One, two, three, four, five, six. And those opposed. I don't see any over there. One, two, three, four, five. Okay. Six to five, um, bill passes out. So go back up the rules. All right. Uh, let's see.

785. 2:56:17

     Representative Jones, how quickly can you go?

786. 2:56:22

     If I could- I'm sorry. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, if you'd be so kind, if I could take literally three minutes, and you can put me on a timer to do this. I, of course, am not asking for any action. I'm actually asking for some help. Okay. If, if that would be appropriate for you, sir. That's fine. All right, let's take three minutes. Okay. Do you want me, do you want me to go sit in the hot seat? Yeah, yeah. And that'll give everybody time- Yeah ... to get out the door here.

787. 2:56:51

     And that mic is live right there. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I truly am on a three-minute hot seat, if that's okay with you. Um, you want to wait until the door shuts? 'Cause even my voice, I'm not sure is carrying. Yeah. All right.

788. 2:57:11

     All right.

789. 2:57:31

     Now.

790. 2:57:32

     Go ahead.

791. 2:57:33

     Okay. And the vice chair can put me on a timer. Uh, member- members of the committee, uh, members of the committee, I'm rather passionate about this resolution, uh, basically embodying, uh, parental rights inside of our Constitution. I think it is something that it should be placed there as opposed to just in statute. A few years back, uh, Chairman Bonner had a effectively a Parents' Bill of Rights, but that sits within the statutes. I think we need to elevate effectively the parents' fundamental right to direct a child.

792. 2:58:04

     However, I do think that we need to place into the amendment, and you will see on lines 10 and 11, we talk about it not being construed to authorize or excuse child abuse or neglect or limit the authority of the state to protect the health and safety of the, of the children. And clearly on line 13, it does not allow for euthanasia. The question before me, and I'm just... I, I don't know in my 10 years I've ever done this before with, with the committee. I'm not comfortable with, to protect the health and welfare or the health and safety of the children.

793. 2:58:37

     And I was gonna come to the committee and, and I don't mean to use your forum, sir, as a way to wordsmith in the next 90 seconds, but maybe the ask to the committee could be if they could maybe brainstorm what would be a better phraseology to start line 12, because I do think it's a little too broad, and in terms of interpretation. At the same time, I wanna make sure that we put a collar around this so that all citizens of Georgia understand there is a fundamental right, but ultimately if you are doing something to your child in addition to abuse or neglect, that the state does have the responsibility to be able to step in, maybe through DFCS or any other type of state organization.

794. 2:59:17

     So that really, sir, is the ask. I am very passionate about this. I've been trying to get the wording right now for about three months, and I still haven't been able to get it right, even with legislative counsel. And by the way, they've been very supportive. Uh, but we still can't get it right, and that would be my ask, sir, and that's really it.

795. 2:59:33

     Okay.

796. 2:59:37

     Come on. Oh, good gentleman.

797. 2:59:39

     Yeah. Y- tell you what, why don't you just come up and join, uh-

798. 2:59:44

     Thank you

799. 2:59:44

     ... Representative Jones here, Chairman Jones. And, uh,

800. 2:59:52

     before you get started, I've got, uh, Repre- Representative Holcomb to ask a question.

801. 2:59:57

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, th- this is not my, my area of the law, but has, hasn't the Supreme Court, um, both at the federal and at the state level, um, said that there's a fundamental right for parents? And, and within those cases, have you examined to see what type of language exists there?

802. 3:00:22

     So, yeah, Representative Holcomb, uh, absolutely. SCOTUS has in fact, uh, in several cases, has referred to that. The challenge is, is we're seeing around the country, I'll just say pressure points put, basically trying to test the electric fence to see exactly where the electric fence, I'll say, is weakest. And my thought is, is endowing it into our Constitution potentially lifts it up just a little bit from the statutes, and I think that's something that's important for us as the Georgia Legislature to be able to say to our parents, "Look, this sits at the constitutional level." Though I will completely acknowledge, Representative Holcomb, that SCOTUS has in fact made those opinions.

803. 3:01:00

     My challenge is, is I'll basically, is the testing of the electric fence.

804. 3:01:03

     But in, in what context is it being... I- I'm not following this in terms of like what's happening across the country.

805. 3:01:09

     Sure. So we're seeing the testing of the electric fence for-

806. 3:01:11

     Okay

807. 3:01:12

     ... using, and I don't know if that's the right metaphor or not. I'm not quite as good as the, the, the Clayton DA with metaphors. Uh, but I do believe that what we're seeing is, for instance, we've seen in Virginia in terms of some of the challenges in terms of a parent making the decisions on certain healthcare, in terms of child welfare, at least in my mind, and then that challenge being taken by the state in terms of the state sometimes interjecting. Uh, we've seen the same thing in Minnesota. We've seen the same thing in California. And basically what we're trying to say here is we'd like to endow it into the Constitution. And again, completely understanding that SCOTUS is going to, I guess, rule the day, but I'm still concerned in terms of the ability for SCOTUS to move and at the same time endowing it into our Constitution.

808. 3:01:52

     Okay. Is there a specific healthcare issue that's being addressed?

809. 3:01:56

     Well, m- it doesn't seem that way. It seems as if it kind of banters across the line. Like I said, it's, again, it's like testing the electric fence, like which area could they possibly find a crack in there that would allow the state, in a sense, to take, I'll say, precedent over the parents without, of course, w- with, with absence of abuse and neglect, et cetera. So that's really what, what the concern is. But it has been poked around in a myriad of different healthcare issues.

810. 3:02:22

     Okay. Thank you.

811. 3:02:23

     Okay. Mr. D'Olivas, you wanna join in?

812. 3:02:28

     Thank you. For those... Is my...

813. 3:02:29

     Yeah, go ahead. It's on.

814. 3:02:31

     It's on. All right. For those who don't know me, my name's David D'Olivas. I'm the f- I'm an attorney licensed in Georgia since '84. Hate to admit how old I am. Um, and I founded the National Association of Parents, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. We go by Parents USA. Working nationally, and I filed amicus briefs in SCOTUS, Idaho, Wisconsin, ap- appeals around the, the country. I actually am one of those who believes that because SCOTUS and the Georgia Supreme Court have addressed the issue, if you're gonna have a constitutional amendment, it needs to be buttoned up very tightly.

815. 3:03:07

     Otherwise, we tie the hands of our Supreme Court of Georgia, and I don't wanna see that happen. Um, it is a fundamental constitutional right. As recently as, uh, June of 2025 in Muh v. Taylor, the US Supreme Court refers to parents' rights as fundamental. So what does that mean? If the members of the committee have received my in advance language for an amendment to this resolution, if it's going to be proposed, and I have some extra copies here that I can distribute ...

816. 3:03:40

     slide around. Look, you, you come last. Let's see if everybody... Does everybody have it or not?

817. 3:03:45

     No.

818. 3:03:46

     Oh. I brought a few extras, but I didn't... Oh, sorry.

819. 3:03:53

     That's okay.

820. 3:03:53

     Do something silly.

821. 3:03:54

     No, no.

822. 3:03:55

     Um, let's see.

823. 3:04:01

     Another cop here's working back there, so.

824. 3:04:08

     I'll hand one to you. Um, here.

825. 3:04:09

     Pass that around.

826. 3:04:17

     Okay. Do you need that for you?

827. 3:04:18

     No, I ha- I have one here, but I'll-

828. 3:04:20

     Okay

829. 3:04:20

     ... I'll share it.

830. 3:04:21

     For the record, this doesn't count against my three minutes, correct?

831. 3:04:24

     Correct.

832. 3:04:24

     Okay.

833. 3:04:26

     I, I've actually tried to use the same line numbers and refer to it in this way. Uh, that, th- the wa- and this is language, not my language. This is George Supreme Court and US Supreme Court language. "Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, care, and control of their children." That doesn't seem controversial. "The state shall not infringe upon the right unless it demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that a parental action or decision," this is language from the George Supreme Court, "a particular decision of the parents, has caused or is reasonably likely to cause serious physical harm or long-term emotional harm." So we're not talking about best interest of the child.

834. 3:05:06

     That's one of the fallacies of our government. We keep talking about best interest of the child. It's not up to the government to make things best for children. It's up to government to protect children from harm. Otherwise, we're, the government's gonna inter- intervene and provide, what, nice cars and clothing and everything else in the world for kids. I exaggerate for illustration only. I do not make light of this. "And that the infringement by government," I didn't, uh, uh, by government it's in for, "That the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate and compelling government interest." That's the operative language.

835. 3:05:41

     Government doesn't have the license to do whatever it wants once it determines there i- there is a legitimate and compelling interest. It then needs to tailor the remedy in the most narrow way possible to achieve that and not exceed it. And this is, again, in federal cases, state cases. This is not my language. This also is SCOTUS language. "A parent shall be presumed," a- actually George Supreme Court as well, "to act in the best interest of the parent's child." And then I go on and use the same information or same language of, "This shall not be construed to authorize or excuse child abuse or neglect as defined by law," which is important, because that allows the George Supreme Court to strike a particular law as, uh, unconstitutional, if the language is too vague, it's ambiguous.

836. 3:06:30

     And that, uh, recently came up in the, the so-called Childhood Independence Bill, SB 110, last year. Um, I testified in favor, but against it at the Senate hearing. I don't know if members of the committee heard, subsequent to the passage of that particular bill that omitted some limiting language that I really encouraged, um, Mallory Shirley, a mother in Atlanta, was investigated by DFCS because her child rode an electric scooter three-tenths of a mile to the local park.

837. 3:07:03

     It made news. And another, you know, I, I don't know that we, we... I don't pa- particularly think we should be governed by whether news about Georgia is good or bad. That isn't what should govern us. We should do what's right. But the language in SB 110 didn't go far enough, so the definition of neglect does no longer include leaving a child unsupervised, unless it's particularly dangerous or at risk. So, and the, the worry I have is the particular resolution is framed.

838. 3:07:34

     Of course, parents are gonna jump all over and go, "That's wonderful. I love it. It's great." But they don't know what I know, which is until we limit government, government will take advantage of any opening, and that happens every day. And I'd like to, um, invite the... Well, I'll just stop, uh, take any questions.

839. 3:07:54

     Mr. Chairman, again, like I said, I would never intend or expect there to be action on this today. I'd like to read that.

840. 3:08:00

     Mm-hmm.

841. 3:08:01

     I came here looking for help.

842. 3:08:03

     Mm-hmm.

843. 3:08:03

     Um, it seems as if this gentleman may be able to assist me.

844. 3:08:07

     Okay.

845. 3:08:07

     And I appreciate that. So that's what the committee process is for, and, uh, I'm perfectly fine just-

846. 3:08:12

     Can you be here on Monday?

847. 3:08:13

     Uh, I can be here whenever the chairman directs me.

848. 3:08:16

     Okay. We're gonna have... What time's our hearing on Monday?

849. 3:08:21

     Sometime in the morning.

850. 3:08:22

     Sometime in the morning.

851. 3:08:23

     Does that mean 11:59 AM?

852. 3:08:25

     I, I will, I will make an announcement tomorrow, um, before we check out of here, so.

853. 3:08:31

     All right. All right.

854. 3:08:32

     Just be prepared.

855. 3:08:33

     Right before 11:00 AM.

856. 3:08:35

     Yeah.

857. 3:08:36

     All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

858. 3:08:36

     Yeah, and we'll only have a short time in the morning.

859. 3:08:39

     Yeah. Oh, thank you.

860. 3:08:40

     Another question?

861. 3:08:41

     All right, uh, another question, Representative Hall.

862. 3:08:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just r- really quickly is what you, um, provided sort of maps with my understanding of this, but again, this is not the area. I've read some of the cases. Can you help the committee out and maybe provide, like, the key, um, main cases that we can take a look at before Monday as well? That would be helpful.

863. 3:09:05

     I, I think I can do that. I actually, when I sent an email in Tuesday, I did include a recent case, um, George Supreme Court, uh, called, it's called Venticinque v. Lair. It's a case in which I appealed on behalf of Ms. Venticinque pro bono.

864. 3:09:20

     Oh, okay.

865. 3:09:20

     Um, the Supreme Court issued its opinion and included a lot of this language. It-

866. 3:09:26

     I think we got it right

867. 3:09:26

     ... yeah, the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Peterson and, and Justice Bethel, um, about constitutional rights. It's, it's also in as far back as Clark v. Wade. And, uh, so the answer is there's a ton of cases, um-

868. 3:09:41

     Okay. And the language is all, um- Very similar, right? It, it's the same. It's the fundamental right of parents, legitimate interest of government. What is that? So we have those things to define by courts, 'cause if you put legitimate compelling interest, sometimes the challenge is government says, "Oh, it is." We go, have to go to court to determine whether or not our appellate courts agree that it's a legitimate compelling interest. But that language is necessary. Narrowly tailored, I'd like to think everybody understands and heard or knows of that, or it's easily, easy to understand as in once the...

869. 3:10:17

     One of the cases was this Georgia sheriff who decided everybody who was on the sex offenders list had to put a sign in their yard that said, "Don't trick or treat here." And the 11th Circuit came in and said, "Yeah, you can't do that." Because even if you have an interest in protecting children from being harmed, A, does this help? And the answer, no. And B, is it the least restrictive manner in which you can seek to accomplish the goal of protecting children from harm? So yes, you can protect children from harm, but if you're gonna do it, you have to do it in the least restrictive means possible.

870. 3:10:48

     It doesn't mean you, again, take over and you decide to do whatever you wish, you wish to. Government- When I say we, I mean government. Mm-hmm. And that's on all levels, from DFCS, law enforcement, to, um, the state acting through education and everything else. Okay. Thank you. Yes. But again, not my language. These are- Representative Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, and both to you, thank you for being here, and also to Chairman Jones. Do you have a, um, an age that you have in mind to limit this to? 'Cause technically the way it's written, it's just once I have a child, it doesn't matter how old they are, I have control over them, and I'm assuming that's not what you meant.

871. 3:11:24

     No, that's actually what I mean. Up until adulthood? Yes. That in, that I have control, I have the right to control my child even when she becomes an adult? No, after 18. I, I'm sorry. Um, I, I, I think the legal definition of child is minor, and I th- it's already defined, is it not? If 18, emancipated, uh, joins the military. Mm-hmm. So once your child is emancipated, 18 years of age, um, whatever else is already within, uh, our Georgia statutes or in the law, um, that's, that applies- Okay ...

872. 3:12:00

     to a child. And I'll look, 'cause I'm not sure if that is- I, I- ... child or minor or- ... apologize. I, I- Yeah, yeah. Okay ... didn't understand your question. I just wanted... I didn't think that was what you meant. Um- No, I, that, that... Yeah, my child's 19. I assure you- Right ... he no longer is within my control in whatever way. And if it's the, if it is meant to be what I would think of as a minor, that would be someone under 18. Correct. I was curious how you or the chairman would, would envision this working with, um, the fact that, for example, the age of consent in Georgia is 16, and the right of, of a parent to control a child that's reached the age to be able to consent, um, how that child would have...

873. 3:12:41

     How do you envision this working with a child being able to go and seek access to contraception or get tested for STDs, um, or o- or otherwise take control of things that recognize the fact that a 16-year-old can consent to sex, whether their parents want them to or not? Right. And that's an internal family matter, and that's one of the areas where I think government oversteps. That's between the child and the parent. The government can say, "You legally can consent at 16," which therefore makes it not a crime. That doesn't affect... The parent can't prevent that from happening, nor should they have that physical power.

874. 3:13:15

     That's, again, a family dynamic. Mm-hmm. So it's not inconsistent or incongruent in my view to have, um, again, language that the Supreme Court and Georgia C- uh, Supreme Court have used repeatedly, uh, that parents have that right. But in the exercise of that right, they're limited, of course, by the realities of you can't control where your child is at all times. You can w- So the age of consent, whether it's to buy tobacco, consensual sex, or get a tattoo, um, I think that's 16 or 17, uh, before you can get a tattoo without parental consent.

875. 3:13:55

     I- If, let's just... I agree. You can't be with your kids all the time, and once, i- if we continue to have the, the age of consent as 16, um, the parent can't stop the child from going out and having sex. But according to this, I fear that the parents could prevent the child from going to seek contrace- contraception, because there would be this situation where doctors would be concerned about whether they could provide care that might conflict with the parent wishes, even though the parent can't control some of those decisions.

876. 3:14:26

     But we're gonna be limiting a child who's reached the age of consent from taking steps that they might see necessary to protect themselves with those choices. Your concern is valid, and, and we already have conflicts. HIPAA, I believe, allows children going to a pediatrician at a certain age to exclude their parent. Mm-hmm. That is in conflict, and how that gets resolved, I think, is up to the courts. But this particular... Again, remember, I said I didn't think a constitutional amendment had to be done. Although I'd like it, it doesn't have to be done because our courts have already said these are the rights.

877. 3:14:59

     So the constitutional amendment that's being proposed through the HR is, um, duplicative, if you will. But if it's gonna be there, it needs to be complete in the language. But y- So if the child goes to a pediatrician, 15, 16, 17 years old, pediatrician wants to prescribe, the mom or the dad, either one, objects to that, that is the tussle that, again, I think is gonna end up being resolved by the courts because HIPAA is in there to begin with. Mm-hmm. The other thing I would ask you to, since y'all are gonna be working on language, a concern I have is, um-

878. 3:15:32

     You know, we don't legislate for the ideal scenario. I mean, the ideal scenario is you have loving, caring parents who are making great decisions for the child and they have open communication and all that. We have to legislate for the worst-case scenario, and the worst-case scenario, unfortunately, is not, not every parent is acting with the best interest of their child in mind. And so I fear, and this is what I'm asking with the language, if you come up with something better, is we are putting children at risk because we are saying in the Constitution that we are at all times gonna, almost all times, going to defer to a parent, and that absolutely is not always in the best interest of the child.

879. 3:16:10

     And, and that's the situation where we need the legislature. We don't need the legislature for loving parents that are trying to do the right thing.

880. 3:16:18

     Okay. Um, without this sounding confrontational, when you say best interest, you already are inconsistent with preventing harm to a child. The state should not be worried about the best interest of the child. The state should be worried about protecting children, absolutely. Protect them from abuse, pr- protect them from harm. So in the case where the parent is not adequate, not a fit parent, or they are a fit parent, but they're causing harm, this language is the same language that currently exists in the law.

881. 3:16:48

     That's m- that's really what I'm emphasizing.

882. 3:16:50

     Mm-hmm.

883. 3:16:51

     It already is there. Whether it's in the Constitution or simply by Georgia Supreme Court and US Supreme Court decisions, we all still have to comply.

884. 3:16:59

     Then why would we need this language?

885. 3:17:01

     I, I think I started by saying-

886. 3:17:03

     Okay

887. 3:17:03

     ... we don't necessarily need it. If we're gonna have it, by golly, it needs to be accurate and complete. It, the, what had been proposed, due respect to whoever-

888. 3:17:11

     Maybe that's a question for Chairman Jones then.

889. 3:17:13

     It is. What existed before didn't include the language that SCOTUS and Georgia Supreme Court has used, and I don't wanna tie the hands of our Georgia Supreme Court. I wish they had the capacity to come testify and say, "Don't do that," or, "If you're gonna do it, do it this way." And I'm not suggesting I'm speaking on their behalf, but I agree. I don't know that we need it. If we're gonna have it, it absolutely needs to be inclusive of this language that has been repeatedly used by both supreme courts.

890. 3:17:43

     Thank you.

891. 3:17:46

     Okay. I don't see any further questions. Thank you, gentlemen. Come back on Monday. Well, I'll let you know. All right.

892. 3:17:54

     Well, first, I may have to fly to New York between now and Tuesday.

893. 3:17:59

     Oh.

894. 3:17:59

     I flew in on a 3 a.m. flight.

895. 3:18:02

     Yeah.

896. 3:18:02

     I flew in on a 3 a.m.... And then-

897. 3:18:03

     All right

898. 3:18:04

     ... the bill that-

899. 3:18:05

     Something that's like-

900. 3:18:08

     Okay. Um, um, what is it? 1042?

901. 3:18:11

     Yes.

902. 3:18:12

     All right, 1042.

903. 3:18:14

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I represent to you House Bill 1042. This is the Judicial Security Bill and Real Estate Title Bill. Uh, it's LC 49-2701, uh, with... This got recommitted from rules because we kept the door open and, uh, judicial council spoke to a, an additional title insurance, uh, company and got a good idea, uh, which is in lines 116 through 125 on pages five and six of the bill.

904. 3:18:47

     This, this added a se- a subsection J, which provided a limited exception for the confidential information for attorneys, title examiners, title insurance companies to review the, uh, the information to be able to verify the judge's identity. Um, after this was drafted, uh, there was one more, uh, notation. Uh, I would request an amendment on line 119, um, after protected, uh, s- strike personal and add personally identifiable information.

905. 3:19:19

     So it would read, "Contain protected personally identifiable information." That would, uh, keep it consistent with the rest of the bill that used that terminology in other parts of the bill. So this allows title examiners, attorneys, title insurance companies, upon making a certification, to be able to review the record. I appreciate the judicial council and, uh, First American Title Insurance Company crafting an amendment, uh, because a previous amendment was too broad. It would've gutted the, uh, uh, the whole confidentiality.

906. 3:19:51

     This, uh, protects judges' address, uh, for purposes of judicial security, uh, while allowing attorneys, title examiners, and title insurance companies to do real estate closings and loans.

907. 3:20:04

     Any questions?

908. 3:20:07

     Move to pass.

909. 3:20:09

     I got a motion. Do I have a second?

910. 3:20:11

     Second.

911. 3:20:11

     Second.

912. 3:20:11

     I got a second. Any further discussion?

913. 3:20:14

     Amendment.

914. 3:20:14

     Amendment.

915. 3:20:16

     Okay. Do I have a second on the amendment?

916. 3:20:21

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, on line 119, we can strike personal and insert personally identifiable.

917. 3:20:31

     Okay. Any discussion?

918. 3:20:35

     On what line?

919. 3:20:36

     119.

920. 3:20:37

     119.

921. 3:20:38

     Strike personal.

922. 3:20:44

     Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.

923. 3:20:49

     Aye.

924. 3:20:49

     Aye.

925. 3:20:49

     Aye.

926. 3:20:49

     Any opposed? All right. Amendment's on. Any further discussion on the bill as amended? All those in favor say aye.

927. 3:20:58

     Aye.

928. 3:20:59

     Aye.

929. 3:20:59

     Aye.

930. 3:20:59

     Any opposed? All right, bill's out.

931. 3:21:02

     All right. Thank you.

932. 3:21:04

     All right. Mr. McDonald.

933. 3:21:12

     Thank you, Chairman. May I bring my emotional support clerk up with me?

934. 3:21:15

     Yes, sir.

935. 3:21:19

     I think everybody wants to table your m- your bill.

936. 3:21:23

     Wow. Oh. Oh, boy. This chair sucks. It's total crap.

937. 3:21:33

     Right.

938. 3:21:33

     Well, yes.

939. 3:21:34

     It doesn't seem to deter you.

940. 3:21:36

     I th- I'm on the edge here. Yeah, you keep me on ... No, Mr. Chairman, uh, Representative Stacey Evans, my favorite bulldog, and committee. Um, I guess I can go. You haven't called on me yet.

941. 3:21:47

     Yeah, go ahead.

942. 3:21:48

     All right.

943. 3:21:48

     Go.

944. 3:21:48

     Thank you. I appreciate it.

945. 3:21:49

     Take off.

946. 3:21:49

     All right.

947. 3:21:49

     Don't wait on me.

948. 3:21:50

     All right. Have a ni- Uh, I bring you, uh, today House Bill 1021. Uh, this is on behalf of the Georgia Superior C- C- uh, Superior C- Sup- Superior Court Clerk's Co- Co- Corporative Authority.

949. 3:22:03

     That's even worse.

950. 3:22:04

     And the ...

951. 3:22:07

     I'm so tired. I've had a rough legislative day. It's, uh... I was, I was, I was coming here for mercy and hope, so I do g- hope I get that.

952. 3:22:13

     Oh, you came to the wrong place.

953. 3:22:14

     Oh. And, uh, basically, um, Mr. Chairman, committee, uh, this, the, the, the Superior Court Clerk's Corporative Authority has been working on, since 2004, on the same amount that, that... They, they, their, their, their job is to collect these fines, uh, every annually. And they collect up to about $95 million in fines. Um, and they, uh, through the, through the Superior Court, State Court, Juvenile Court, Magistrate, Probate, Municipal, and Mayor's Court, Police Civil, et cetera. So all they're asking, uh, because we've required as a legislature for, for more training and, um, and more on them to raise their, from $500,000 to a million for their operating costs.

954. 3:22:57

     It helps with administrative services, technology. Uh, as, as Georgia's grown, uh, over the past years, this, this fund for the, um, the C- GSCCCA, you can say that easier, um, it, it's gonna help them in their operations annually. So basically, it's just a asking for another half a million. They are, they are over about, uh, they distribute this between 13 organizations annually.

955. 3:23:23

     Okay.

956. 3:23:23

     This, all this $95 million.

957. 3:23:26

     All right.

958. 3:23:27

     And it's reimbursements. It's, they submit, uh, after they've, they've done the work. It's reimbursement money.

959. 3:23:33

     Okay. Uh, Representative Kelly. That's what I was, that's what I was just trying to get clarity on. Where does the-

960. 3:23:39

     Uh-

961. 3:23:39

     ... the money come from? How, who, where does the half million dollars come from? Where would a million dollars come from?

962. 3:23:45

     Give me a second.

963. 3:23:45

     Yeah, go.

964. 3:23:46

     Um, good afternoon. I'm Rachael Rice. I'm the Executive Director at the GSCCCA. So we collect all the monies from the courts, and then out of the designated funds, we can, uh, retain up to 1, 1%, up to $500,000, um, to recoup our costs. So up until 2024, we were able to stay at or under that cap. Um, since then, we obviously don't retain more, but our expenses have exceeded that. So it's just a retention out of the funds that we then distribute.

965. 3:24:18

     Um, the lion's share go back to state general treasury.

966. 3:24:22

     And I, and I do think, uh, Representative Kelly, that if they do not need the million, they do not, they... Get it? Everything's a reimbursement, so if they only need 600,000, that's all that will, will go to them.

967. 3:24:33

     Representative Kelly, if you have any more comments, can you pull that other mic, uh, 17? I think that's all I got. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry. Oh. You got something? Chairman Leverett.

968. 3:24:46

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just qui- So just to make sure I understand, so when I go to file, uh, real estate documents, I now do that electronically through a portal that I think is on the GSCCCA. Well, actually, my assistant does it. I never get involved in- ... such constructive things, but she does it for me. And so I, I pay the recording fee, and then there's also, I think, like a, an additional convenience fee or surcharge of, of 3% or something that's on top of that. So do you then collect all that money and remit to the clerk their portion of, of that, like the $25 fee?

969. 3:25:21

     Uh-

970. 3:25:21

     So that's a little separate from this.

971. 3:25:23

     Okay.

972. 3:25:23

     But yes, we collect the filing fees, and any costs on top of that are simply to recoup our banking costs. So that 3.5% processing fee is dependent on your method of payment. There are other methods where you don't have to have a processing fee. It's just whatever we get because it's... We don't collect any money for that for us internally, but that's separate from this. This is straight fines and fees, like civil filing fees or criminal fines for traffic violations or whatever. We're the central repository for all 1,100 courts.

973. 3:25:55

     Okay, okay.

974. 3:25:56

     So we collect those monies, track that data, and then we disperse the funds in accordance with that.

975. 3:26:01

     So these are not the, the real estate filing fees.

976. 3:26:03

     That's correct.

977. 3:26:03

     We're talking about a different pot of money or a different stream of, of money.

978. 3:26:06

     Yes, sir.

979. 3:26:06

     Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

980. 3:26:10

     All right. I don't see any other questions. What's the will of the committee, or do y'all have anything else? Uh, you got a third person up here.

981. 3:26:16

     Let me just do pass.

982. 3:26:17

     All right. What's the will of the committee? Motion to pass. We got motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Bill passes.

983. 3:26:31

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

984. 3:26:32

     And we're done.

985. 3:26:32

     Appreciate it.

986. 3:26:33

     We're adjourned.