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

Transcripción

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

1. 0:06:40

   All right, ladies and gentlemen, I need to call us to order. Uh, this is what I get for putting so many bills on the calendar. So we're going to be full in here. Uh, you know, if you can find a seat, good luck. I hope it works out for you. But, uh, let me call on, uh, Vice Chair Reeves, if you would open us up.

2. 0:07:01

   Let us pray. Dear Lord, we thank you so much for the people of state of Georgia. Pray that we will keep them in mind, uh, every hour of every day, the next couple weeks between now and sine die. Pray for your blessings on this great state. In Christ's name we pray, amen.

3. 0:07:13

   Amen. All right. Uh, let's see. Senator Brass.

4. 0:07:20

   Aye.

5. 0:07:20

   Come on up.

6. 0:07:24

   I got either mic is hot, so you can go with that.

7. 0:07:31

   Now, we, uh, we left it... I don't, I don't know where we're at now, um, but you were gonna make some changes or-

8. 0:07:37

   Yes, sir

9. 0:07:37

   ... work with some folks that wanted some.

10. 0:07:39

    Yes, sir. We've-

11. 0:07:40

    Now, what LC are we working on now?

12. 0:07:42

    I believe we're on 492828S.

13. 0:07:46

    Okay.

14. 0:07:48

    Okay. So I tell you what, let me kind of quickly go through and just tell you the changes generically-

15. 0:07:58

    Okay

16. 0:07:58

    ... and then we'll go back through the bill, if that's okay.

17. 0:08:00

    Yes, sir. Ready?

18. 0:08:01

    So because I've got notes on when I left here. So, um, in definitions, we, uh, you know, there was, there was comments that there w- we weren't including COAs, so we wanted to make that clear. Um, there was actually a, um, something that I had not even heard of yet, but a common interest community. So we looked up common interest community, which actually in code does not, uh, include HOAs. I believe... Is that right, Michael? COA.

19. 0:08:31

    It did, it did not include the HOAs. It did include the, the, uh, co-ops. And so in our original draft, we did not include the co-ops either, 'cause I'd never, to be honest, never even heard of a co-op.

20. 0:08:43

    Right.

21. 0:08:44

    So, uh, so we have come back and restructured that. We are now calling it just owners' associations. And under owners' associations we're including, including COAs, POAs, HOAs, co-ops, and then we even included the common interest community to include all of that as well, or some of that as well. So we're covered there. Also, under definitions, we heard from, I believe it was from Caroline.

22. 0:09:15

    She had suggested that, um, the way we had, uh, listed out dues and fees and assessments, it was a little confusing because in a lot of your governing documents, you have, uh, what's called the, they have assessments broken down in three different areas. So we added that definition. Uh, or really there's three definitions under assessments. So you now have regular assessments, and that's your, pretty much your dues.

23. 0:09:46

    And I'm on page three. I said I was gonna go through my notes, but I'm going back to the bill now. Um, we have special assessments, and that's your, um... That would be the cost, like your operating cost that, um, maybe if you have a repair. Wait, hold on. I'm on line 55. It, it's an assessment imposed on owners for costs which are not included in the owner's association regular operating budget, and which may include but not limited to legal costs, common areas.

24. 0:10:20

    So that would be like your common area, the pool needs updating, whatever. And then you have special assessments, and your special assessments are gonna be your fees and your fines, things of that nature. Um, and so the, all those assessments are defined under starting at line 50 through 65, it looks like. Um, then we wanted to make sure we were clear on what was being, uh, registered with the Secretary of State's office.

25. 0:10:54

    Uh, we had financial statement, we had, uh, the officers, and we had the bylaws, and then of course, the address of where the association is located. And, um, so we also wanted to include all governing documents. So there's my friend. And- Sorry ... sorry, I hear you coming, baby. No problem. Figure the joke.

26. 0:11:25

    Here I come. Senator Jones is my emotional support friend. So, all right, so going back, we've got, um... Where was I? Sorry, I got a little... Oh, governing documents. We, in the original bill, we had, we had defined governing documents. We actually never used it in the rest of the bill, and so we wanted to make clear, uh, that those were included in your registration. Um, moving on.

27. 0:11:58

    Okay, put in registration. Let's see. Uh, over on, I don't know the new line. The old line was 194. I'm calling this the Holcomb amendment. We changed that where it says, "And A recommendations." Uh, we got our, our English fixed there, and, uh, I believe it says, "And any recommendations of action to be taken by the Secretary of State." Um, moving on.

28. 0:12:34

    In the Bill of Rights, we've got what I'm calling the Kelley amendment. That's where we struck through the satellite dish language, so there's no confusion there. Um, going into the order of payments, the priority of payments, where we have dues, fees, fines, all that, that's now listed out as you're, as we have defined the different assessments, it's listed in that. And then we also added in that, um, there's no way that, that a association can deny someone paying their dues.

29. 0:13:06

    And I felt, I thought that, that the, the purpose for that is if we're taking away the f- the fines and fees from counting towards those, towards that foreclosure, anyone that's a predatory-type practice, um, that is... If maybe they were fining and feeing someone to try to get to foreclosure, um, now I've... My fear is they might shift to not accepting their dues so that those dues get over that 4,000 or over that 12 month.

30. 0:13:38

    And, um, so we've added language in for that. And in the, in the language that got a little dicey on the fo- foreclosure, we've added the words "at least" back in. And so now that reads... Let me get to that. That now reads, "At least the lesser of $4,000 or an amount equal to 12 months of regular assessments," that's dues, "as such term is defined, uh, in code section 43-17A-1, in arrears but not less than $2,000, provided however that no specific assessment," meaning the fines and fees, "um, shall be included in the calculation of the amount of such lien." So I think it...

31. 0:14:31

    I think that makes it clear that the... It's only your dues. It's $4,000 unless you have refused to pay your dues for 12 months or something equivalent to 12 months. But if that's the case, it, that amount has to still be at least $2,000.

32. 0:14:51

    Mm-hmm. Okay.

33. 0:14:52

    So, um, and Representative Evans, going back to our conversation the other day on, um, a mechanism to make people, um, collect their dues and getting rid of foreclosures, um, I'd actually put in a bill last year I dropped that was gonna kinda lay out, that laid out the outline of, of what was to come, which is this bill. Um, I actually had the idea that, uh, that if the banks were to roll dues into the mortgage payment, just like we do taxes, then it takes all of that off the table.

34. 0:15:31

    Um, the only thing is I knew if we forced banks to do that in this bill, we would have the banks probably come out against this. And so I decided to hold off on that, and I'm gonna keep working on that, on that part, trying to figure that out. I also think, um, I also think that the HOA dues should be included in when they're calculating your debt-to-income ratio. Uh, you know, there are, there are cases where people can afford a home, but they may not... You add in that extra monthly, um, rent, so to speak, and they may not be able to afford that.

35. 0:16:07

    So we need to start calculating that. So that's a, again, that's a separate issue, a separate bill, and, um, I'll be looking at that for next year. Would love y'all's help on that. Um, but anyway, so that's the thing. And then on the stay for the foreclosure, it was brought to my attention if, um, you know, we, we had the way that language was structured, if you... The judge puts a stay, and that stay starts the moment the complaint is filed. Um, and so the, the foreclosure proceedings have to stop.

36. 0:16:40

    And once you get to the end, if that complainant, and in this case would be the, the owner of the property, uh, if they were just refusing to pay their dues and they're in foreclosure, they could get to the end of that proceeding and then just file a new complaint and then continue out a new stay and then really game the system. So we have gone back and added language that essentially under, um, under that proceeding you only get, you only get to do it one time and, and it's a 90-day.

37. 0:17:14

    Mm-hmm. Okay.

38. 0:17:16

    So I think that will, will help, um... It helps protect the homeowner to make sure, you know, they've exhausted all their options. Um, and again, if you're, i- i- moving forward, if you're in foreclosure, it's only be- gonna be because you're not paying your dues or, uh, your, I forget what we call them, whatever assessments and, um, regular assessments. If you're not paying your regular assessments, then, um, that's the only way you should end up in foreclosure moving forward.

39. 0:17:48

    Um, but you're, you know, if you've essentially lost every step along the way, you can't just go back and keep, keep doing this.

40. 0:17:56

    Right.

41. 0:17:57

    So I think that protects, um, I think that protects the associations as well.

42. 0:18:04

    All right.

43. 0:18:07

    Vice Chair Reeves.

44. 0:18:09

    Chairman Brazz, was there one more amendment that came late in the process, uh, about corporate records that's a friendly amendment?

45. 0:18:15

    There was, and I, um, I think I understand. I'll let you explain it.

46. 0:18:19

    Sure.

47. 0:18:19

    And I, I'm, I think I agree with it, so.

48. 0:18:21

    Appreciate you working, uh, with us on that. It's AM 49-0315, uh, in your packet. It provides on line 307, uh, to say, "Laws of this state and the governing documents, period. Such accounting records shall be the finalized balance sheets, budget, and profit and loss statements for the past three years." That was an idea that came from both a, uh- An HOA officer and an attorney, uh, in my district who, um, has not had any problems. She's not the subject of any of the te- uh, testimony that we've heard.

49. 0:18:53

    Really?

50. 0:18:54

    And this is something that just clarifies the corporate records, 'cause it's really broad under general, uh, principles, but HOAs have pretty much the same records, and this focuses on getting that information exchanged and not having some sort of confusing, um-

51. 0:19:09

    Clearly defining the financial records piece of what they're gonna have to upload into the system, and I, I think that's, that's needed and, and makes it clear, so thank you for that.

52. 0:19:19

    Okay. All right. Uh, Rep- Representative Evans.

53. 0:19:25

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Um, I just wanted to talk to you about a couple of amendment ideas, and I think we're on the same page in that you don't oppose these, but I wanted to just ensure before I make them when we get to the-

54. 0:19:39

    Mm-hmm

55. 0:19:39

    ... appropriate time. Um, one is to, um, add a bill that this committee passed, um, House Bill 1221, which says that before an association can collect, uh, as- attempt to collect attorney's fees, it's, it's gotta give notice to the party, um, of those fees and, and an opportunity for the owner to pay before the association keeps racking up attorney's fees, um, sort of a- along the similar lines of what your bill is attempting to do, which is to work on fairness for the owners and not let people get trapped in these excessive fee cycles.

56. 0:20:14

    And I just want... I, I'll offer that, and I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page, that you don't oppose that amendment.

57. 0:20:20

    No. Uh, uh, generically speaking, no. I've... This is first I've seen the, the verbiage, so I'll look at it and process it. But, uh, on the surface, certainly sounds legitimate and-

58. 0:20:32

    Okay. Thank you. And then-

59. 0:20:32

    ... and needed

60. 0:20:33

    ... Clark is passing them out to committee members. That's a bill that this committee passed unanimously a couple weeks ago, just didn't make it out of rules. And then my, um, my second amendment that I would like to make and wanna get your thoughts on is, um, in section three, we had talked about this briefly last time and, um, I know you wanted me to make it at the committee table, which is fine. Which would be to make the notice period on the, on the foreclosure to be 90 days instead of 30, and to make sure that the notice includes a statement that the owner would have a right to cure, um, and if they did pay what was due before the end of that 90-day notice period, that the right to foreclosure would cease.

61. 0:21:17

    Yeah, I think I'm good with that too.

62. 0:21:20

    Thank you.

63. 0:21:24

    Okay.

64. 0:21:28

    All right. Any other questions from the committee? What's the will of the committee?

65. 0:21:35

    Move do pass.

66. 0:21:36

    Second.

67. 0:21:36

    Second.

68. 0:21:36

    All right, got a motion and a second. And I know we got a couple of amendments. Um, Representative Evans, I think you just talked about one.

69. 0:21:45

    Um, yes. The, I'll do the first, um, proposed amendment that I would move is in section three, on line 358 to replace 30 with 90, and then at the end of line 367 between the word thereon and the period, insert, "And shall state that upon payment of such amount prior to the 90th day following receipt of the notice will eliminate the right of foreclosure." I think Buck has that typed out, but if I need to repeat it for the committee, I can.

70. 0:22:24

    I'll get it later.

71. 0:22:26

    And I, I wanna give credit where credit is due. I had come up with some language, and, uh, legislative council helped me make it better and more official.

72. 0:22:36

    338. Okay. I was looking at the wrong line.

73. 0:22:39

    No, no, no.

74. 0:22:39

    Oh.

75. 0:22:39

    Lines have changed since this.

76. 0:22:43

    Okay.

77. 0:22:47

    All right, does everybody understand the amendment? Any questions?

78. 0:22:54

    All right, I've got a motion. Do I have a second on that amendment?

79. 0:22:57

    Second.

80. 0:22:57

    Okay. Have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of, uh, Evans' amendment say aye.

81. 0:23:05

    Aye.

82. 0:23:06

    Any opposed? All right. Evans one amendment, should say.

83. 0:23:09

    Evans one. And then for Evans two, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would move that, um, we create a new section four and renumber the other sections accordingly, and that would be to insert from LC492719S, which committee members should have, between lines nine and 24.

84. 0:23:37

    Unless legislative council tells me it should go further, but I think that's all we'll need.

85. 0:23:42

    That's just all the laws that you just-

86. 0:23:43

    Is that, is that the right to cure?

87. 0:23:44

    He's gotta give notice.

88. 0:23:45

    That is the, um, bill that we passed to, um, require notice of attorney's... uh, a chance to pay before you start racking up attorney's fees-

89. 0:23:53

    Yeah

90. 0:23:53

    ... by the HOA.

91. 0:23:58

    And I would move that.

92. 0:24:00

    His mic.

93. 0:24:01

    Oh, I'm sorry. You're on.

94. 0:24:03

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would recommend also that we include the substance of lines one through six of that, uh, bill, uh, to incorporate it into the title of this bill. And with the committee's permission, uh, I can, I can do that in the substitute, but it would capture the substance of this title and add it to the title of the, of SB 406.

95. 0:24:24

    I move what he said.

96. 0:24:25

    Yeah.

97. 0:24:28

    All right. Uh, let's see. Okay. Representative Holcomb.

98. 0:24:34

    Thank you. I, I have a question which could lead to an amendment, and it's to follow up on a point that I raised the other day, and this is with the intent to be helpful, and it's on the term arbitrator, because that has a very specific meaning.

99. 0:24:49

    Mm-hmm.

100. 0:24:50

     I'm wondering if it might make more sense to change that to the term hearing officer, because then it wouldn't implicate- the rules that are typically associated with arbitration, because what I think you'd wanna avoid would be whether there's any confusion, whether this forces under the existing arbitration rules, which have finality and otherwise, and, and just kinda make it clear that they're two separate things.

101. 0:25:16

     Uh, I mean, as long as the binding piece of their decision, um, stays, I, I think that would... I mean, I mean, or you could add another word in right before arbitrator and they'd be a special H-O or special OA arbitrator. I don't know. Um, however, I see, I, I understand your concerns, and I think if y'all are the lawyers, I'm not. So if that's, if that's needed, I'm, I'm, I think I'm okay with that.

102. 0:25:49

     But, but I suggest-

103. 0:25:50

     But I do want some, some arbitration laws need to apply.

104. 0:25:55

     Well, I think what you've outlined is a good system, and it, and it seems like the hearing officer makes more sense because they make a recommendation and then that can go to the secretary of state who can modify, um, and adjust and approve it, and ultimately be, um, be amended. So that would be my recommendation, would be to just change the word arbitrator to hearing officer throughout.

105. 0:26:16

     I'm gonna give y'all a few minutes to decide that. I wanna take care of Stacey too, and get that amendment.

106. 0:26:21

     Oh, she had more?

107. 0:26:22

     Yeah, she-

108. 0:26:22

     Oh.

109. 0:26:22

     Oh, no. Just-

110. 0:26:24

     She had one, she had one more to go, and I, I'm gonna let y'all think about it if you wanna write it out so that he can see it, uh-

111. 0:26:31

     Does it-

112. 0:26:31

     ... while we're doing this

113. 0:26:32

     ... delete anything if we do that?

114. 0:26:34

     All right. All right, vice chair.

115. 0:26:37

     Representative Evans, on the, the main bill, the effective date is next year. Um, on, uh, 1221, it was this year. Um-

116. 0:26:47

     I think we-

117. 0:26:47

     ... it seems like 1221, um, is more limiting. Could probably stay this year. Just wanna make sure the effective date made it in if you wanna keep that this year.

118. 0:26:56

     It ... Is that, is that okay to have two different effective dates for two, for different sections?

119. 0:27:01

     I would think so.

120. 0:27:02

     Okay.

121. 0:27:02

     Yeah.

122. 0:27:03

     But it's-

123. 0:27:03

     If so, then, then yes, I would move it. Thank you.

124. 0:27:06

     All right.

125. 0:27:06

     So the motion would be to add the, um, the, from LC492719S, which was House Bill 1221 that this committee passed, um, information from lines one through six, which legislative council will put into the preamble, and then to add lines eight through 27 as a new section four to renumber the sections, and I would move that as an amendment.

126. 0:27:32

     Second.

127. 0:27:33

     Okay. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Vice chair.

128. 0:27:38

     I've got an amendment ready at the appropriate time. Another amendment.

129. 0:27:41

     Well, I wanna take care of this one first.

130. 0:27:43

     All right.

131. 0:27:44

     All right. Seeing none, uh, all those in favor of the Evans two amendment, say aye.

132. 0:27:50

     Aye.

133. 0:27:50

     Aye.

134. 0:27:51

     Any opposed? All right, we've got Evans two. Um, before I jump to you, I'm gonna go back to Representative Holcomb, and do you have it laid out? And I-

135. 0:28:05

     Yes, yes, Mr. Chairman. It'll be very simple. It'll just be a find and replace of the word arbitrator and replace it with the word hearing officer.

136. 0:28:12

     What line are you on?

137. 0:28:13

     Um, it starts on 250, and then 255, 257, 259, 261, 264, 272. There may be a couple of other places, so I, I would just suggest doing a find replace. But it's not changing any of the substance, it's just changing the terminology of arbitrator to hearing officer.

138. 0:28:36

     All right.

139. 0:28:37

     And real quick, Mr. Chairman.

140. 0:28:39

     Yes.

141. 0:28:39

     Um, we had arbitrator in the, earlier in the, um, appeals process to the, um, rejection of the registration. We had changed that in this sub, and I think we named it, what? Investigator? Referee. So, um, and I think now I understand arbitrator's decisions are not appealable, and we are making it appealable-

142. 0:29:05

     It appealable

143. 0:29:05

     ... so this would make perfect sense.

144. 0:29:08

     Okay.

145. 0:29:08

     I now understand it.

146. 0:29:09

     Thank you.

147. 0:29:10

     I, I had to get it in non, layman's terms over here, so...

148. 0:29:13

     Is that what you were-

149. 0:29:15

     I actually have clarification about the prior amendment, so I'll hold until then.

150. 0:29:18

     Oh, all right. Okay. I'm gonna cut you off then. All right. Any further discussion? Do I hear a motion?

151. 0:29:28

     So moved.

152. 0:29:29

     Second? Second. Any further discussion of the Holcomb amendment? All those in favor say aye.

153. 0:29:37

     Aye.

154. 0:29:37

     Aye.

155. 0:29:37

     Any opposed? All right, that one goes on. All right, Vice Chair Reeves.

156. 0:29:44

     Uh, Chairman Gunter, I have an amendment. Um, it's AM, labeled AM490315. It has the specific financial records for the past three years.

157. 0:30:01

     And that would go on replace line 307.

158. 0:30:03

     307. Correct. It was a friendly amendment.

159. 0:30:06

     Everybody have a copy of the amendment?

160. 0:30:11

     All right. Any discussion on the Reeves amendment?

161. 0:30:16

     So moved.

162. 0:30:17

     All right, got a motion.

163. 0:30:18

     Second.

164. 0:30:18

     Second. Got a second. All those in favor say aye.

165. 0:30:23

     Aye.

166. 0:30:23

     Aye.

167. 0:30:23

     Any opposed? All right, that one's on.

168. 0:30:26

     He has clarification on this.

169. 0:30:28

     Okay. Clarification from-

170. 0:30:30

     Thank you

171. 0:30:31

     ... council.

172. 0:30:31

     Um, on, uh, Representative Evans' amendment two, I just wanted to clarify, we are gonna do the, uh, bifurcated effective dates. We're incorporating.

173. 0:30:39

     Okay.

174. 0:30:40

     Thank you.

175. 0:30:43

     All right. Is that it?

176. 0:30:46

     Oh, that was the one part I did not cover, come to think of it, is, um, per Representative Hong's re- uh, recommendation, we did add, uh, an effective date of January 1st, 2027.

177. 0:31:02

     Okay.

178. 0:31:08

     Okay. And that was a change that's already in this, uh-

179. 0:31:11

     That, that is in 492828S.

180. 0:31:15

     All right. Um, any further discussion of the bill? Do I hear a motion as to the bill as amended?

181. 0:31:23

     Motion to do that. Second.

182. 0:31:25

     All right. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

183. 0:31:31

     Aye.

184. 0:31:31

     Any opposed?

185. 0:31:35

     The bill's gone. Thank you, sir.

186. 0:31:36

     Mr. Chairman, thank you all to this committee. I think we got a good product here. I'm excited about it.

187. 0:31:42

     I think so. All right.

188. 0:31:46

     All right.

189. 0:31:49

     Thank you.

190. 0:31:52

     Can I get your blue sheet?

191. 0:31:53

     Chairman.

192. 0:31:54

     Can I get your blue sheet?

193. 0:31:56

     Uh-

194. 0:31:56

     Like, like you usually have

195. 0:31:56

     ... Randy, when you want me to come sit him, we're ready for him. We want you to come sit and he'll run down-

196. 0:32:01

     Okay, hang on. Um, let's see. What's he got?

197. 0:32:06

     They're soft.

198. 0:32:06

     I

199. 0:32:09

     have his.

200. 0:32:11

     They come in a five pack.

201. 0:32:14

     542.

202. 0:32:14

     Yeah, but, um, let's see. We got Kilpatrick's bill, too. Is she, is she here?

203. 0:34:29

     Chairman Brass. Who's, who's carrying your bill?

204. 0:34:36

     Uh, Representative Martinez.

205. 0:34:38

     Martinez. Okay. Very good. That's fine. That's fine.

206. 0:34:45

     I got my shirt on inside out.

207. 0:34:48

     He'll need some coaching.

208. 0:34:50

     I'll help him out.

209. 0:34:53

     Okay.

210. 0:34:54

     I don't care.

211. 0:34:54

     Yeah. All right.

212. 0:34:59

     I got some questions.

213. 0:34:59

     Okay. Let me, uh-

214. 0:35:02

     Military bill.

215. 0:35:04

     All right, next up is, uh, Senate Bill, uh, 542, and this will be a full hearing on this one as we've not had a hearing on it before. So, Senator, good to have you with us.

216. 0:35:20

     Good to be here, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you.

217. 0:35:23

     Well, you can get started and, uh, tell us about your bill.

218. 0:35:27

     Yes, sir. This, this bill, um, addresses an issue that we're all aware of, that I think a big part of our community, um, is very uncomfortable discussing at times. But, um, as the victims continue to, um, line up every year, every month, we realize it is a problem within our communities that must be addressed. And what I'm talking about is sexual abuse that is conducted by members of the clergy.

219. 0:35:59

     Uh, the bill describes, and, and, and I would be remiss if I didn't thank, uh, Michael Walker from, uh, Ledge Council, and, uh, Pack, and others for working on this, uh, putting it in its own code section to avoid any confusion with other, uh, codes and, uh, being very clear on definitions. But, um, what this does is this creates, um, 16-6-5.2, which establishes, um, a criminal offense when an individual...

220. 0:36:44

     Hang on just a second. I'm, I promise I'm not having a stroke. I'm looking for a, uh, particular line.

221. 0:36:50

     Can you tell us the LC number you're on?

222. 0:36:51

     Oh, I apologize. Yes, ma'am. Um, LC 492835S as in Sierra.

223. 0:37:02

     If you notice in here, it identifies exactly what a clergy member is. It's any person, whether licensed or unlicensed, who represents himself or herself as a minister, pastor, priest, rabbi, imam, or other spiritual leader of an organization claiming to be a faith-based organization in this state or any other state, or any person who provides or purports to provide spiritual guidance, pastoral counseling, religious instruction, or spiritual direction to another person in a relationship of trust, confidence, or dependency. And what we have seen is, over and over, some of them on the front pages of our newspapers, others throughout the state in podcasts or, um, through other means of media and social media, that this continues to happen where individuals primarily draw in adult females who are in some of the, um, most tender moments in their life, whether it's a divorce, whether it's something else, uh, happening in their life that has them distraught, and they go looking for guidance and therapy from someone in the faith community, and that individual takes advantage of them, uh, during that time and uses it to manipulate them, and many times this leads to, uh, multiple types of sexual contact, whether it's touching, uh, intercourse, or other types of, um, sex.

224. 0:38:20

     And so what we have done in the past in other professions, uh, such as, uh, uh, in education and in law enforcement, is, is we have, uh, established guardrails to protect, uh, citizens from individuals who choose to use their power and position to manipulate, especially in, in, um, in sexual relationships. And so that's really all this legislation does. Uh, the offenses... Excuse me. The, uh, the recommended punishments are listed out, um, based on whether it is, uh, touching or intercourse and such, and, um, starts out with an aggravated m- misdemeanor all the way up to a felony.

225. 0:39:05

     And I'm happy to answer any questions, and I know there are witnesses in the room. But- The state of Georgia tends to lead on many things and we tend to follow on others, and I think this is an opportunity for us to let those know, and the pastor today in the Senate was my pastor, and he is someone that my wife and I trust beyond measure. But, um, even though he knows we trust him, he supports this legislation, he himself admits that within the spiritual community there has been a continued erosion of trust based on these individuals being able to conduct themselves this way, mistreat, and again I want to emphasize this, 99.9% of these are adult females.

226. 0:39:50

     They manipulate them, they assault them, and they walk away under the lie of consent, and it never is a, is a consent in these situations. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

227. 0:40:01

     All right. Got, uh, is it Representative Hong? Is that you? 14. Oh, Chairma- Chairman Smith.

228. 0:40:08

     All right. Uh, thank you. Whit Robertson, you've already been in here earlier this morning, so.

229. 0:40:13

     Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you.

230. 0:40:15

     Uh, yes, sir. I'm, I'm glad not to be, uh, a result of this torture here at present to you. Uh, real quick, i- i- if I recall correctly, the privilege, uh, for clergy members in the evidence code, and I don't expect you to know this answer, this may be a question for all of us to ponder, but, uh, you've included imam here.

231. 0:40:37

     It-

232. 0:40:37

     I don't believe that we include those within privileged clergy, and so the state of Georgia's evidence code doesn't even recognize imams within it.

233. 0:40:48

     And, and I appreciate that, and I'll take any advice from the esteemed, um, attorneys on the committee. I, I do think that they would be included in some of the expanded, uh, definitions as you go through the code. So if, if it's, if the committee feels that that particular word is, needs to be struck, then I, I would, um, respect that opinion. And at the same time, I would also, uh, respect any thought on adding it to the code so that it would be there as others are.

234. 0:41:20

     Okay. I, I just, I didn't know if that'd been discussed over in the Senate.

235. 0:41:23

     No, sir, it had not.

236. 0:41:24

     Okay.

237. 0:41:29

     Any other questions? Any other questions for the author? Representative Holcomb.

238. 0:41:35

     Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this is intended to potentially help both adults and children, correct?

239. 0:41:46

     No, sir. The primary-

240. 0:41:46

     Okay

241. 0:41:46

     ... focus of this is adults. We already have laws currently that protect children from sexual exploitation, whether it be, um, a clergy or any other adult or anyone. This, my primary focus here was on, um, very clear, adult females was my primary, primary focus.

242. 0:42:05

     Okay. The reason why I'm asking is on line 2526, it defines sexually explicit conduct shall have the same meaning as set forth in code section 16-12-100.

243. 0:42:17

     Yes, sir.

244. 0:42:17

     16-12-100 is titled Sexual Exploitation of Children: Reporting of Violations, Civil Forfeiture and Penalties. So I wanted to just make sure of the universe of folks that we're looking to protect here.

245. 0:42:33

     Right. And again, I, I'll lean into the expertise of the committee. If, um, it, it, there... I, I do not mind, it doesn't bother me, and it may be extra protection when a child is exploited by a member of this group, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I'm just saying my primary focus, the, the group that tended to be left out, were adult females. Um, and as you, and as I know you know as a learned attorney, that children cannot give consent.

246. 0:43:05

     So that, that's the, uh, line there because consent has always been used as a defense in this misconduct.

247. 0:43:11

     Okay. And then my other questions are it, it has a first and second degree, and the first degree is for engages in sexually explicit conduct which gets us to that definition in 16-12-100.

248. 0:43:25

     Which... I, I apologize, sir. Which line are you on?

249. 0:43:27

     Sorry. Line, um, 3031.

250. 0:43:30

     Right. And I'm just... I've, I've looked over this sub probably for the last 20 minutes, so 30 and 31?

251. 0:43:37

     Yes, sir.

252. 0:43:37

     Yes, sir.

253. 0:43:38

     It is, it seems to me like sexually explicit conduct for the, the first degree, which usually the first degree is the worst, um, meaning more significant and more severe-

254. 0:43:48

     Correct

255. 0:43:48

     ... and that can include both actual or simulated acts. A- and then the second degree seems to be engages in sexual contact excluding sexually explicit. So I wanna just make sure that I understand that because the second seems to be like touching-

256. 0:44:06

     Right

257. 0:44:06

     ... which I might infer would be worse and perhaps first degree as opposed to not touching which is incorporated in the first according to this definition if that makes sense.

258. 0:44:20

     Legislative counsel.

259. 0:44:22

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, if I can, 'cause it would help to address the second question, I'd like to address the first question first and that is even though the definition of sexually explicit conduct is included in, uh, code section 16-12-100 with the catchline that the representative mentioned, we're not, that definition is not limited to minors. We're, we do this routinely in the code where we will point to another place in the code in order to incorporate a definition that already exists in the code, and we do that for purposes of continuity.

260. 0:44:54

     So even though, uh, that code section deals with minors, the definition is a standalone item that we're essentially wanting to import here by reference.

261. 0:45:04

     Thank you, sir.

262. 0:45:04

     It's accomplished the same thing.

263. 0:45:05

     Can I ask a question on that?

264. 0:45:07

     Sure.

265. 0:45:07

     So would that mean that that could apply to both adults and children?

266. 0:45:11

     In this code section, yes.

267. 0:45:13

     Okay. Thank you.

268. 0:45:14

     And we could accomplish the same thing if we just copied the definition from that code section and pasted it here.

269. 0:45:19

     Here.

270. 0:45:19

     We're just doing it via reference rather than doing that.

271. 0:45:22

     Understood. Thank you.

272. 0:45:23

     Um, the second question, um, there's a, the, the e- effort here is to distinguish sexually explicit conduct includes sexual intercourse. So the second degree is essentially contact that is not the more egregious brand of conduct. So if it's the egregious conduct, that would be first degree. Other contact that doesn't amount to conduct would be second degree. So the, the explicit conduct is first degree. Contact that is not conduct would be second degree.

273. 0:45:55

     Okay. And that's from 4A and 16-12-100?

274. 0:46:01

     That is part, but it includes the rest as well.

275. 0:46:03

     Gotcha.

276. 0:46:03

     Yeah.

277. 0:46:04

     Okay. All right. Thank you.

278. 0:46:07

     Thank you, Representative. Thank you very much.

279. 0:46:10

     Vice Chair Reeves.

280. 0:46:12

     So Senator Robertson, basically what this is doing is you're adding to the existing statute about, uh, psychotherapy, school, foster care, jails, hospitals, other things where people have custody of a person and a fiduciary duty, and you are adding in, uh, uh, clergy to that, uh-

281. 0:46:33

     Initially, that's what we were doing, and, and then once it got to ledge counsel, they separated it out to a, to a section of its own so as there not to be any confusion between the two.

282. 0:46:43

     But it, the same principle. If somebody-

283. 0:46:45

     The same pr- the same principle, just-

284. 0:46:46

     ... places their, um-

285. 0:46:47

     Trust

286. 0:46:47

     ... care and trust, uh, that should not be abused. And, you know, one thing I'd like to point out, there are many professions and licenses in Georgia where sexual relationships with patients or clients, that's prohibited. So in addition to this criminal statute that exists for other contexts, there are licensing and regulatory, uh, prohibitions. So this, uh, this is something I'm surprised not alr- not already in law. I appreciate you bringing it up.

287. 0:47:14

     Chairman Reeves, that means a lot. Thank you so much.

288. 0:47:17

     Okay. Any further questions? What's the will of the committee?

289. 0:47:23

     Nope.

290. 0:47:24

     Nope. I'm sorry, I got people-

291. 0:47:25

     We got testimony.

292. 0:47:25

     Forgot, this is-

293. 0:47:26

     Oh.

294. 0:47:27

     That's why he's sitting here.

295. 0:47:28

     He's doing a good job.

296. 0:47:30

     All right. Um, let me s- call up Kim Nunes. Hope I'm saying that right.

297. 0:47:39

     Mr. Chairman, I do have printed testimonies for everybody on the committee.

298. 0:47:43

     All right.

299. 0:47:43

     If I can pass these.

300. 0:47:47

     Sorry.

301. 0:47:48

     Can you give Mike those?

302. 0:47:59

     Thank you.

303. 0:48:02

     Mm-hmm. Yeah.

304. 0:48:03

     Okay.

305. 0:48:07

     Thank you.

306. 0:48:12

     Thank you, Chairman Gunter and members of the committee. My name is Kim, and I'm here today as a whistleblower and advocate for adults who have been victimized by clergy, asking you to support Senate Bill 542. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. While I was not personally abused by clergy, I was directly affected by clergy abuse and the absence of laws protecting those who were. I spent 13 years working for a faith-based organization, nonprofit here in Georgia, that reached close to 10,000 churches globally.

307. 0:48:52

     In the spring of 2024, I learned that our founder was involved in what was then described as an inappropriate relationship, and I made the decision to disclose this information to an executive within our organization. After coming forward, it was soon abundantly clear that this was far from an inappropriate relationship, and what initially seemed like an isolated incident was actually a decades-long pattern of predatory abuse.

308. 0:49:31

     This was a man who used his position and charisma, reputation, and spiritual authority to groom, manipulate, exploit, and bribe women, and he was supported by others along the way. Over the last two years, I have attempted to bring his predatory behavior to light, but have been met with resistance and dead ends because of the networks he's created.

309. 0:50:02

     Those same networks that were supposed to hold him accountable only helped further protect him and his false image. A peer review study found that about 85% of whistleblowers experience severe psychological distress, including conditions like anxiety and depression, and I can attest to both of those. My experience as a whistleblower was extremely isolating and deeply depressing, slowly turning my world very small.

310. 0:50:37

     Hearing the hurt and pain that these women went through took an emotional toll with the weight sometimes too heavy to carry. My experience also exposed the significant gap in the law that too often protects the abuser rather than the abused. Senate Bill 542 helps address this gap by recognizing the unique power clergy hold and trust placed in spiritual authority. It clarifies what anyone who has been victimized by clergy abuse will tell you.

311. 0:51:13

     True consent is impossible with an unequal power dynamic, especially when language is used to disarm, manipulate, and then silence. This issue extends beyond my personal experience. It reflects the broader need for legal protection in Georgia that addresses the power in trusted relationships, which is why I'm here today to respectfully urge you to support Senate Bill 542 and help bring accountability, protection, and justice to Georgians who need it.

312. 0:51:49

     Thank you for your time and consideration.

313. 0:51:53

     Thank you. I see no questions.

314. 0:51:59

     Uh, Ruth Ma- Maho- Horta. Excuse me.

315. 0:52:02

     Mahotara. Thank you. That's a hard one to say.

316. 0:52:09

     Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of SB 542. My name is Ruth Mahotara. I'm a lifelong Georgia resident, and I was one of the whistleblowers in the Ravi Zacharias abuse crisis. For eight years, I served as spokesperson for RZIM, an international religious organization based right here in Alpharetta, Georgia. In that role, I witnessed firsthand how allegations that a prominent religious leader, my boss and the founder of our organization, committed s- sexual abuse, and those allegations were mishandled internally.

317. 0:52:43

     When a woman came forward in 2017, her name was Loriann Thompson, um, she alleged abuse by our founder. The response was not a formal investigation, but rather it was containment and cover-up. A financial settlement was reached, and a nondisclosure agreement prevented her from speaking. I was asked to publicly defend that outcome. At the same time, I was raising concerns internally, but I was disbelieved, reprimanded, and even suspended from my job.

318. 0:53:13

     After Zacharias's death, multiple women came forward with independent allegations. Finally, there was a subsequent third-party investigation in which I became a key witness, and that substantiated a long-term pattern. Ravi Zacharias was a serial sexual predator who had harmed many women around the world for decades. What's relevant for this body is not only what occurred, but why it was able to occur without any meaningful legal consequence. These cases involved adult women, as Senator Robertson explained earlier, is a pattern, and that is precisely where the legal gap exists under current law.

319. 0:53:53

     What I witnessed firsthand and what survivors have consistently described is not a series of consensual relationships, but rather exploitation of the spiritual authority, women seeking counsel, guidance, or prayer, and instead encountering manipulation, coercion, and abuse. When Loriann Thompson and her husband, Brad, confronted Mr. Zacharias regarding his conduct, he responded by filing a federal, a, a civil, um, RICO lawsuit against them, initiating a heavy-handed campaign that nearly destroyed them in both legal and public forums.

320. 0:54:28

     And this is the reality that many victims face. When they come forward or try to come forward, the consequences are often immediate, public, and severe. "There's a reason we are referred to as survivors," Loriann once told me. "Many don't make it." Many people have heard the voice of Ravi Zacharias through the years. He was someone who Vice President Mike Pence once referred to as the C.S. Lewis of our time, but few have heard the voices of his victims. So in closing, I'd just like to, um, spend a moment, um, reading a couple portions of a victim impact statement from Loriann Thompson herself.

321. 0:55:07

     She says, "RZ appeared to be one of the safest, most well-respected, and honorable persons in whom to confide and seek wise counsel. His position as a global representative of the gospel was one of extraordinary and unquestioned trust. I simply had no reason to suspect that he had nefarious intentions. Having met and come to know RZ was one of the most traumatizing, soul-destroying, faith-crushing seasons in my life. He tore down everything I had built: my marriage, my faith, my mental and physical health, and ultimately my entire career path.

322. 0:55:44

     The consequences of trying to hold RZ to account was that my husband and I were widely publicly humiliated and vilified, all while abusers not only demand silence, they enforce it. Powerful people who target, groom, and exploit others must be held accountable." Loriann Thompson's vivid words reflect a reality that is difficult to fully capture in statutory language alone, but one that the Georgia legislature has the ability to recognize. SB 542 would establish this necessary legal boundary for clergy that I believe, and, and many of us here have already said, is long overdue.

323. 0:56:22

     I urge this committee to please support this legislation and to firm that, affirm that here in Georgia, positions of authority, particularly those grounded in profound spiritual trust, must be exercised with integrity and must never be used for exploitation. Doing so is essential not only for the protection of vulnerable individuals, but also for restoring public trust in the institutions intended to serve them. Thank you.

324. 0:56:51

     All right. I see no questions for you. Thank you.

325. 0:56:54

     Thank you, Chairman.

326. 0:56:57

     Haley Swenson.

327. 0:57:07

     Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Haley Swenson, and I am a survivor of adult clergy sexual abuse. I'm here not only for myself, but for countless victims whose stories follow the same exact pattern. This type of abuse does not begin with force. It begins with trust, trust that is placed in a spiritual authority figure.

328. 0:57:37

     In my experience, what began as spiritual guidance became years of manipulation, isolation, and sexual exploitation, all framed as something I was told just to trust. "This is just from God." Scripture was twisted from Genesis to Revelation to convince me that this is God's will.

329. 0:58:02

     That is the nature of this abuse. Authority is used to groom, boundaries are slowly eroded, and what feels violating is framed as obedience. This is not consent. This is coercion through power. Georgia al- Georgia law already recognizes this principle with teachers, with law enforcements, and with therapists, but SB 542 simply is just adding clergy.

330. 0:58:36

     Predators do not hide in dark alleys. They hide where trust is the highest, and often that is in religious spaces, and that same trust can be weaponized without consequence. In my case, it took over 35 journalists and publications to shine light on the darkness 'cause at that time, there was no current legal path to justice or accountability.

331. 0:59:11

     Y'all, we have an opportunity to change that for the next generation.

332. 0:59:19

     Other states recognize adult clergy sexual abuse, but Georgia does not. And I recently heard this said, but justice should not depend on your zip code. SB 542 does not target faith. It protects it by ensuring spiritual authority cannot be used for exploitation.

333. 0:59:48

     As a survivor, in my experience, the name of God was used to cause harm. God didn't harm me, but someone defiled the name of Jesus. And we have an opportunity to show that our God, who we prayed to when we started this committee, cares about the vulnerable, the oppressed, and justice. Protecting the abused must matter more than protecting bad actors in institutions that choose silence.

334. 1:00:26

     So I urge you to pass this bill and to take a historic opportunity to change this, to protect those that we still have time to protect. Thank you, Chairman.

335. 1:00:42

     Thank you, Ms. Swinson. I don't see any questions for you.

336. 1:00:48

     Chuck Wills?

337. 1:00:56

     Good to see you.

338. 1:00:57

     Good to see you.

339. 1:01:00

     Hello, my name is Chuck Wills, and I'm here today as a survivor of clergy sexual abuse. I attended Kanakuk Kamps for over a decade, and from the moment I got off the bus upon first arrival, I was targeted. The person who abused me didn't come to me as a stranger. He came to me as someone I was taught to trust, a spiritual authority, a leader, someone who spoke for Jesus Christ. I was six years old when the abuse began. When someone holds that kind of authority over you, it changes everything.

340. 1:01:32

     It changes how you understand right and wrong. It changes how you feel allowed and what you feel allowed to say no to, and it changes whether you even recognize what's happening to you as abuse. What happened to me was not just misconduct. It was abuse of authority, and that is why I'm here. In Georgia, we already recognize that certain roles carry so much power that consent cannot be treated the same way. This applies to a therapist, a teacher, a cop. This applies because we understand that authority distorts consent, and right now, clergy are not clearly included in that same protection, and this is a huge gap.

341. 1:02:12

     SB 542 does something very simple and very necessary. It says that spiritual authority should not be an exception. It says that when authority is used to exploit someone sexually, it should be treated for what it is. This bill is not about attacking faith. This is about protecting people from those who would use faith as a tool to harm them. Without laws like SB 542, too many survivors are left without protection and without justice.

342. 1:02:46

     I'll leave you with a quote from Senator Randy Robertson, who I'll admit did not, I did not know he was gonna be sitting right next to me when I was giving this testimony.

343. 1:02:54

     Neither did I.

344. 1:02:57

     But a few days ago, he said, "There are clergy members who have weaponized their position and power to initiate unwanted sexual advances and relationships with members in their congregation, and it will continue to be my mission to keep places of worship and places where you can freely and openly express your beliefs without worry of manipulation and sexual exploitation." The abuse that happened to me in the past happened-

345. 1:03:21

     But what could potentially happen to others in the future could begin to end today. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Dr. Holly Haynes.

346. 1:03:47

     Good afternoon. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for your time. My name is Holly Haynes. I have a doctorate from Harvard University in human development and psychology, and I've spent 25 years studying and teaching how trauma reshapes the brain, the body, and the human spirit. I also have a personal connection to Haley Swenson as I was there at the institution where she unfortunately underwent her sexual abuse. I am here today though because the science is unequivocal.

347. 1:04:20

     Clergy sexual abuse inflicts a category of harm that Georgia law does not yet recognize, and it must. Georgia already recognizes that certain authority relationships make genuine consent impossible. Under code 16-6 5.1, teachers, probation officers, and hospital workers cannot claim consent as a defense when they exploit that authority. The science shows that clergy hold equal or greater power, yet they are not covered.

348. 1:04:53

     SB 542 closes that gap. Let me tell you what the research tells us. Sexual trauma physically rewires the brain. It fragments memory, disrupts the fear circuitry, and takes the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for rational thought and speech, offline. That is why 94% of survivors develop PTSD symptoms within two weeks, and why the average age of disclosure for childhood sexual abuse is 52 years old.

349. 1:05:25

     Delayed reporting is not a choice. It is a neurobiological inevitability. But when the abuser is a member of the clergy, the damage goes further. Peer-reviewed research now documents a distinct category of injury called spiritual harm, described by survivors and researchers as, quote-unquote, "soul murder," quote-unquote, "spiritual rape," and devastated spirituality. These are not metaphors. Survivors are robbed of their relationship with God.

350. 1:05:56

     They are estranged from the sacraments, the rituals, and the communities that once gave their lives meaning. A comprehensive review from the journal Traumatology found that abuse by a religious authority member rivals the severity of abuse by a parent. 93% of survivors in one study met criteria for major depressive disorder. There was this, a study that came out just yesterday from the Journal of American Medicine that also says sometimes these early pieces, these early types of trauma, will also make treatment impossible.

351. 1:06:31

     They become treatment-resistant, especially in relation to major depression. The most current neuroscience from predictive processing theory, interpersonal neurobiology, and stress disease research by Dr. Gabor Mate confirms what survivors have always known. You can separate the body. You cannot, sorry. You cannot separate the body, the mind, and the spirit. Trauma is a whole person event. And clergy abuse only, is only one form, is the only form of exploitation that attacks all three dimensionalis- dimensions of this simultaneously.

352. 1:07:08

     The model of safety is shattered in the brain. Neural integration is broken, and the body absorbs the cost in chronic illness, autoimmune disease, and a lifetime of suppressed pain. The power differential here is not just professional, it is perceived as divine. Clergy are believed to speak for God, to mediate access to the sacred for some, and to hold authority over the soul itself. When that authority is used to exploit, the survivor does not just lose trust in one person.

353. 1:07:39

     They lose their framework for understanding the world. They can lose their connection to God. And because of the shame and spiritual confusion that accompanies this betrayal, they are the least likely to come forward and the most in need of legal protection. SB 40 T- 542 does not create new territory. It simply expe- extends to people under spiritual authority the same protection that the state already ha- has determined that power demands. The science supports it.

354. 1:08:10

     The survivors deserve it. I respectfully urge your support.

355. 1:08:18

     All right. Dr. Haynes, I have a question. Um, from the research and everything, uh, uh, I would imagine that some of the victims have committed suicide? Yes. How often does that happen? I do not know the numbers right now of, uh, of suicide, of suicidality, uh, but they are fairly high. Uh, one of the reasons for that is that people feel shamed, uh- Right ... into silence. And, uh, silence is probably the biggest weapon, uh, that is used. There are a lot of, uh, there's a lot of research as well within Christian psychology, um, that speaks to that, that within churches in particular, uh, we don't discuss it.

356. 1:08:58

     Uh, we don't want to discuss it. And then because of what has happened, people feel that they need to keep it silent, and then as a result, uh, also don't feel that they can share it with counselors, uh, therapists who they ha- they go to. And so while that number is not, I won't say it's like 70%, um, that number is far lower in terms of suicide, suicidality. Any one person who takes their life is too many. I, I agree. Thank you. I see no other questions. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.

357. 1:09:29

     Justin, uh, I gotta get this name right, Mattis? Did I do it right? Justin Mattis?

358. 1:09:34

     I don't think I did.

359. 1:09:35

     He is? He says 5:42. Oh, I'll go to Mike Griffin. There he is.

360. 1:09:53

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my name is Mike Griffin. I'm the Public Affairs Representative for the Georgia Baptist Mission Board. And, uh, I've been down here, this is my 19th year, and 13 years with the Georgia Baptist Mission Board, and now full-time the last six years with them. And I pastored 35 and a half years here in the state. And, um, you know, Georgia Baptist, uh, we are the largest faith-based organization in the state. We represent, uh, 1.4 million members that we have, uh, in our churches, uh, 3,400 or more churches that we do have.

361. 1:10:31

     And we just want everybody to know that we do support Senator Randy Robertson and this bill, SB, uh, 542, and we do agree with adding clergy to this section of the law. We think it's important. Uh, Georgia Baptist has supported legislation like the, uh, 2015 Hidden Predator Act. We probably were the only denomination that did that. Uh, we also supported the 2018 Hidden Predator Act that included civil suits even against churches. Now, that didn't pass, but we did come in and weigh in on that.

362. 1:11:06

     Uh, one of my areas of ministry with Georgia Baptist has to do with child protection policy. And while many, uh, while my main area is dealing with sex abuse related to minors, we also oppose any sex abuse related to adults as well. I, um, work with Greg Love. Our convention is connected with Ministry Safe. And just over the last three years, I've done 18 classes all across the state in our SPARK conferences, uh, over the last three years dealing with child sex abuse.

363. 1:11:37

     And I know this is more than that, that we're dealing with here, but I, I'm very much familiar with what is going on in this particular area. Um, we do believe that this legislation is needed in order to educate those in our churches and institutions regarding the responsibility of maintaining protection over both minors and adults related to sex abuse. This bill can be used as an educational tool, uh, to remind people of the responsibility that we have to protect others. Accountability, criminal charges, we believe are needed to be a part of our laws regarding all sex abuse, and we do not believe that consent can ever be used as some type of exemption or excuse.

364. 1:12:20

     And so we're very much in support of this legislation, and we think that it will make a big difference. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

365. 1:12:27

     Thank you.

366. 1:12:28

     Mm.

367. 1:12:28

     Appreciate you coming.

368. 1:12:32

     No problem.

369. 1:12:32

     All right.

370. 1:12:37

     All right, that's all the names I have on the list. Um, I'll leave that with you.

371. 1:12:43

     Uh, Chairman Gunther?

372. 1:12:44

     I'm sorry?

373. 1:12:45

     I, I, my, I responded to Summer. I don't know how to get-

374. 1:12:49

     Okay. Your name's... Come on up

375. 1:12:50

     ... Bagwell. Okay.

376. 1:12:51

     Come on up.

377. 1:12:52

     Me too, Mr. Chairman.

378. 1:12:54

     All right.

379. 1:12:54

     Please. After her.

380. 1:13:00

     I should have realized that- ... talking to you before.

381. 1:13:03

     No, that's okay.

382. 1:13:04

     If you would introduce yourself and-

383. 1:13:05

     Sure

384. 1:13:06

     ... give us a, your statement.

385. 1:13:11

     Um, Chairman Gunther and members of the committee, thank you for taking the time to hear our testimonies today. Uh, my name is Kelly Cooper Bagwell, and I am an ordained clergy member in Georgia. I'm also a survivor of clergy sexual abuse.

386. 1:13:32

     In most situations, when adults engage in sexual relationships, the law assumes consent, but our laws already recognize that consent can be compromised when there is a serious imbalance of power, and that is why Georgia law places boundaries on sexual relationships involving, as you've heard from other people, teachers, therapists, foster parents, and other authority figures. SB 542 simply applies that same principle to clergy.

387. 1:14:04

     When someone goes to a pastor or a priest or a rabbi or a spiritual leader for help or guidance, they're often in moments of deep vulnerability, grief, crisis, marriage struggles, questions of faith, or trauma.

388. 1:14:25

     In those moments, the clergy holds enormous power and influence over a person's spiritual and emotional wellbeing. When that authority is used to obtain sexual contact, it is not a consensual relationship between equals. It's an abuse of spiritual power. It's exploitation rather than consent. As both a minister and a survivor, I want to say clearly that this bill is not an attack on church or on religion.

389. 1:15:03

     It is a protection for the people who trust us with their most personal struggles. When SB 542 closes a gap in Georgia law, it will allow prosecutors to hold clergy accountable when they exploit a pastoral, counseling, or spiritual authority relationship for sexual purposes. Healthy faith communities should welcome this kind of accountability.

390. 1:15:34

     It protects congregants. It protects the integrity of ministry. It protects the sacred trust people place in spiritual leaders.

391. 1:15:48

     Authority without accountability invites exploitation. I'm going to say that again. Authority without accountability invites exploitation. And SB 542 helps ensure that that never happens in Georgia. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

392. 1:16:15

     Thank you for coming.

393. 1:16:16

     Mr. Chairman.

394. 1:16:17

     All right. Yes, sir. Come on up.

395. 1:16:29

     Thank you, Chairman Gunter. I, I arrived, uh, a little late and it was standing room only, and my hands were messed up in a kitchen accident. I didn't have a chance to sign in. My name is Thomas Weaver. I'm sure many of you have seen me around the capital over the decade. I rise, too, in approbation and support of Senator Robertson's effort, a friend and colleague from across the marble on this legislative measure. I don't have the substitute in front of me, but I've heard enough to be able to share my concern. I would ask that the committee lean in to these concerns. Whenever you define a crime and a fixed punishment, which is something the legislature certainly has a right to do, you're putting real people potentially in real prisons.

396. 1:17:05

     So I would ask and invite and beg leave of the committee that before we just pass this along on an emotional vote, that we make sure that the definitions are right. And I know that I might be the only person with enough courage to stand up here in the room. I'm not trying to reach the chagrin of the author or any of the proponent test against the matter. This is very serious. It should become law. Originally, when Georgia Code Section 16-6-5.1 prescribing for the statutory offense of, of sexual assault by a person with disciplinary or supervisory authority against another in custody was created by the legislature, it contemplated relationships where the victim was legally not free to leave.

397. 1:17:45

     A law enforcement officer, when they place an individual and take them into custody, if, if I was in Randy Robertson's law enforcement purview and he arrested me and took me into custody, I'm not legally free to leave. Children who were in school, where the age of g- of consent is 16 at the time and still is, whom were pupils who were subject to compulsory attendance, those persons under 16 are not free to leave. People who are in jail or prisons, those persons are not free to leave.

398. 1:18:15

     People who have been court-ordered to psychotherapy treatment as a result of a sexual offense adjudication are not free to leave. People who voluntarily attend a faith-based or religious institution are free to leave. Now, I'm not subtracting from the magnitude of it, but the way that the definitions are defined in the bill, the clergy member doesn't even have to have a licensure or writ of ordainment from their religious institution to be able to practice. It would encompass people who are both licensed and unlicensed, and it would also encompass those who just receive the benefit of prayer.

399. 1:18:52

     The chair invited, uh, the s- Representative Reeves to give invocation at the start of the meeting. Suppose that Chairman Reeves was a traveling pastor and was single, and all of us were single also for sake of the hypothetical. Chairman Reeves, through the, through his prayer f- uh, faith instruction, would ne- thereafter be, uh, relegated to celibacy because he wouldn't be able to make any advances on any of us as far as can offer to take any of you on a date. That-

400. 1:19:21

     That's just an example.

401. 1:19:22

     That's just an example. Right. It's an example, but it's a very serious one, because if this bill becomes law, that, that behavior would become a crime. So if you're a pastor and you're single, I don't even know how you're supposed to m- be able to make an advance on someone to become married, even if it is a legitimate, consensual something that is not inside the realm of abuse that's contemplated here. Again, I'm not subtracting from the magnitude of this. This measure, SB 542, should become law.

402. 1:19:52

     I would just beg leave of the committee to look over the definitions of what constitutes a clergy member and what constitutes pastoral and spiritual authority over a victim to make sure that those definitions are laser-focused, that can cut through steel such that it advances a meaningful public policy, but it doesn't create unintended consequences of putting people in prison, potentially for decades, something that's not exactly within the realm of what's been contemplated today.

403. 1:20:23

     That's just a concern, and I've shared that concern repeatedly over the years in each rendition of this code section as this code section has been amended throughout, and that's how we got into first and second degree and all these various different other... It's very complicated. But again, that's just a honest concern. It's not to rain on anyone's parade, so to speak. It's a very serious bill. It needs to become law. It needs to be on the governor's desk, and I'm sure it'll get there. I just would hope that this committee would put something in there that's meaningful to, to make sure that the definitions are tame, to advance the public policy, but do so responsibly.

404. 1:21:06

     Okay. I see no questions. Thank you.

405. 1:21:08

     You're welcome.

406. 1:21:11

     Robert, does PAC wish to weigh in on this since it's adding to our criminal load?

407. 1:21:26

     Sorry to put you on the spot.

408. 1:21:30

     I'm in the room. I'm fair game. I'm Robert Smith with Prosecuting Attorneys' Council. Uh, I just want to thank the membership, um, both the senator and members of the house, to be able to work on this bill. Um, I think that it's important to have this as a standalone. whether than mixed in with the other, our code section that's already existing. Um, I think there are some, there are some challenges. There are some victims that need to be serviced and helped by this law, and, uh, you know, you ... It's gonna be a challenge. It's, um, you know, um, it's, this is not going to be something that's easily proven.

409. 1:22:02

     This is going to be difficult because we're talking about, you know, there's gonna be ... Consent is going to be an issue. It's going to be a challenge.

410. 1:22:09

     Right.

411. 1:22:10

     But we don't come up here asking for you guys to make things easier for us. We ask you guys to make it clear for us to be able to prosecute.

412. 1:22:17

     Okay. And you've had a chance to look it over. Any, any defects you see?

413. 1:22:22

     Um, no, no defects. No, sir.

414. 1:22:24

     Okay. All right. Thank you.

415. 1:22:27

     Thank you. I appreciate your help.

416. 1:22:28

     Okay. All right. So we've gotten through the list. Any discussion by the committee?

417. 1:22:39

     Chairman Smith.

418. 1:22:40

     I can make this an amendment at the appropriate time, but, um, just to discuss this ahead of time, if it's, uh, okay with the chairman?

419. 1:22:48

     Sure.

420. 1:22:49

     Okay. So, uh, members of the committee, obviously I'm in favor of this, having a very close family member who was sexually molested at the age of 13. Uh, this hits very, very close to home. Uh, as far as statutory construction and uniformity, you'll notice the definition in our evidence code, uh, in OCGA 24-5-502, and I know Judge Fleming remembers back to the time they adopted our new evidence code, but it refers to clergy, and we don't have clergy members.

421. 1:23:27

     So th- this is creating a whole new definition within code and kinda contradicts what you see within our evidence code and how we reference and define what clergy is there. So this amendment that I'll make is just, uh, for purposes of statutory uniformity. Uh, I would be l- and I can make this in form of the motion, unless you want me to continue to discuss.

422. 1:23:52

     Well, I gotta have a motion on the bill itself.

423. 1:23:54

     Sure. I'll move- I'll second.

424. 1:23:56

     Okay. Motion and a second. Uh, now go ahead.

425. 1:23:59

     Okay. I'm gonna make an amendment. I would go to line 12 and sl- uh, strike the word member, and it would just be clergy. And then I would go down to line 13 and I would strike from word himself all the way to leader, which I would be striking leader. I'd stop right there before of.

426. 1:24:30

     And I would insert, "Themself as a Protestant minister of the gospel, comma, any priest of the Roman Catholic faith, comma, any priest of the Greek Orthodox Catholic faith, comma, any Jewish rabbi, comma, or any Christian or Jewish minister or similar functionary, comma, by whatever name called."

427. 1:24:58

     And then I would go to line 19, and I would strike clergy member, and instead put minister, comma, priest, comma, rabbi, comma, or similar functionary. And then I would go to line 21 and strike clergy member, and insert minister, comma, priest, comma, rabbi, comma, or similar functionary.

428. 1:25:35

     And then I would go to line 27, strike clergy member, and insert minister, comma, priest, comma, rabbi, comma, or similar functionary. Then I would go to line 32, strike clergy member, and insert minister, comma, priest, comma, rabbi, comma, or similar functionary. And then I would go to line 39, strike clergy member, insert minister, comma, priest, comma, rabbi, comma, or similar functionary.

429. 1:26:10

     And then on line 43, strike clergy member and insert minister, comma, priest, comma, rabbi, comma, or similar functionary. And then I believe finally on line 55, I would strike clergy member and insert minister, comma, priest, comma, rabbi, comma, or similar functionary.

430. 1:26:37

     You want to proceed with this? And this language that I've proposed, you'll find- Similar function ... over in the evidence code of OCGA 24-5-502. I would be open, Mr. Chairman, if there's a thought on whether we would also need to include the language that you see starting with or on the end of line 14, going all the way to the end of line 17.

431. 1:27:12

     Okay. Call on leg counsels.

432. 1:27:17

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I, I would point out the approach that is suggested in this amendment would effectively negate the need for a definition of clergy, because you're not using the term clergy anywhere in the bill. You would be essentially replacing each instance of clergy member with your list of, uh, uh, designations. which that's a matter of policy and for you to decide, but I, I would recommend against defining the term clergy in such a way and then not using the term clergy.

433. 1:27:53

     You would just essentially eliminate the term clergy and replace it with priest, rabbi, what have you.

434. 1:28:00

     Okay.

435. 1:28:00

     Um, it, it would be surplusage and, and confusing. Uh, alternatively, you could, instead of delineating each of those designations, if they are included in the definition of clergy, every time you say clergy, it's including each of those designations.

436. 1:28:19

     I, I guess, were you here when, uh, that part of the evidence code was included-

437. 1:28:24

     Uh-

438. 1:28:25

     ... that I was referencing the language from?

439. 1:28:27

     I don't know, but I, I would, I would say we ... This definition is unique to this code section, so there would be no applicability, unless the evidence code reached over into title 16 and said, "We're gonna adopt this definition." The definition of clergy member that's included in this, uh, potential bill, this potential code section would be isolated for use in this code section.

440. 1:28:52

     It would-

441. 1:28:53

     Well, then you would have two conflicting ... And, and I respect-

442. 1:28:56

     We have, we have a, we have conflicting definitions throughout

443. 1:28:58

     ... I respect, I, I respect your opinion, but I, I, I think Mr. Robert Smith can tell that we, we try our best in non-civil to avoid conflicting definitions. Um, just that's ... I'll still make the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

444. 1:29:19

     It's 27 after.

445. 1:29:20

     And respectfully, respectful to Mr. Walker. He's always helpful. It's just I'd feel better if we mirrored the same definition that we have in the evidence code.

446. 1:29:32

     All right. Well, before we have any further discussion on it, uh, I've got a motion. Is there a second?

447. 1:29:40

     I'll second for purpose of, uh, discussion.

448. 1:29:44

     All right. Representative Evans.

449. 1:29:47

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering if the gentleman would wanna just reference the code section, that cur- clergy means whatever it means in that other section, and then instead of using clergy member, using clergy.

450. 1:29:59

     I, I, I could-

451. 1:30:00

     That way if it changes, if it gets updated, then this gets updated with it. That was-

452. 1:30:05

     Okay. I, I, I, I could go for that. And I, what I can do is I can withdraw my amendment and would move to,

453. 1:30:21

     um ... And then I'll lean on Mr. Walker and reference, uh, the definition of clergy as provided in OCGA 24-5-502.

454. 1:30:35

     Okay. I will not yet recognize your withdrawal until we have full discussion.

455. 1:30:41

     Sure.

456. 1:30:43

     Lead counsel.

457. 1:30:43

     Uh, on that note, I would point out there is a- actually not a definition provided in that code section, although there is a reference to, but there's not actually ... There, there's not a def- there's not a defined term. So there would, that would lead to some confusion. I would offer, um, a, a ... And thank you for the, the members in attendance that pointed out code section 19-7-5 does include a definition of clergy, meaning ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, or similar functionaries by whatever name called of a bona fide religious organization.

458. 1:31:18

     So that would be a defined term if you were wanting to borrow a defined term from another code section. That may be one that you would find to your liking and not inconsistent with code section 24-5-502, I guess, but for the inclusion of, perhaps the inclusion of imam.

459. 1:31:44

     Is that general enough to cover any religion we've not named here?

460. 1:32:02

     No.

461. 1:32:03

     No, I'm sorry.

462. 1:32:04

     I, I would, I would counter this, Mr. Chairman, or similar functionary.

463. 1:32:08

     Is that similar? Is that-

464. 1:32:10

     I, I, I, I think there is a argument that that could cover anything not included in the definition or in the description of 502.

465. 1:32:19

     Okay, so I'm clear. You're talking about what, uh, lead counsel's talking about?

466. 1:32:25

     I was-

467. 1:32:25

     The definition he's looking at.

468. 1:32:27

     I, I, I, I understand his definition. I, I'm just ... For argument's sake, Mr. Chairman, similar functionary could cover.

469. 1:32:38

     Could, yes. I agree.

470. 1:32:44

     Chairman, uh, Kelley.

471. 1:32:49

     I, I appreciate an opportunity to have statutory consistency. I wonder a little about the definition as is exists today in 1975, because I worry where it says of a bona fide religious organization,

472. 1:33:14

     if ... What if somebody has some bogus religion? Like, what, what does a bona fide religious organization mean? That's, that's, that is my, my concern. I mean, I, I, you know, I kind of appreciate the language where it says claiming to be. I mean, if you're, if you're, you know, holding out, you could hold yourself out to be a religious or faith-based organization without being bona fide, and I, I guess that would be maybe what I'm trying to, trying to wrap my head around here, is, is do we want, do we want something more tightly defined, or do we want something that's a little more- All encompassing, and that's the, the policy decision I'm, I'm, I'm thinking through.

473. 1:33:56

     I think the author wants it to be as wide a net as possible, um, and I understand that after what we've heard today. And I, you know... But that, that's, that's just my, my concern is, you know, is the, is the statutory consistency that we're referencing back to, is it correct to begin with? Because it deals with mandated reporting for child abuse, and I don't know if, if those are two separate, you know, functions here.

474. 1:34:28

     And, and from my experience, more specific is better.

475. 1:34:34

     I mean, you can get too general, and that'll screw it all up, so. Yes, sir.

476. 1:34:42

     Mr. Chair, if I may. We've, what we've run into in the, in the world of faith now is we have so many non-denominations out there. And when you start talking about, um, bona fide, I don't think the People's Temple was a bona fide religion where almost 1,000 people died. I don't think the Branch Davidians were bona fide where, uh, when families moved into there, the pastor took possession of the wives and children and converted them to his family. And we see it in many ways. And while I appreciate the support of, of the chair, um, I don't want to make it as wide as possible.

477. 1:35:20

     I want to make it, I want to make it as, as f- where it needs to be. I'm not out there trying to catch somebody on the, on the fringes. Um, we use reasonable throughout criminal code, and the very first word in the definition of reasonable is just when it talks about the person being reasonable. And that is what I want. I want those who are being judged being judged by those that are reasonable. So while I'm not looking for the widest net, I think when we narrow down in the availability we give anyone in this state and throughout this country to establish their own, and I quote, church, I think we have to be extremely careful.

478. 1:35:57

     Because once, uh, we, we go through strip malls and everything throughout our communities, throughout the state, and we see churches that are not affiliated with any bona fide faith. And so that is my concern.

479. 1:36:09

     Okay. All right, let me jump over to Representative Evans.

480. 1:36:15

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thought that might take care of a couple of things that have been said is if we said clergy means clergy as defined in 1975 or someone who holds them out to be, holds themselves out to be clergy, because then you define clergy, and then if you're holding yourself out to be clergy, then that takes care of the non-bona fide, I think, as best as I can think to do it.

481. 1:36:41

     So they would actually have to call themselves clergy?

482. 1:36:44

     Well, they'd, they would be holding themselves out to be ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, or similar functionaries of a bona fide religious organization.

483. 1:36:54

     You're saying they don't have to be bona fide, they just have to claim they're bona fide.

484. 1:36:57

     Exactly.

485. 1:36:58

     The Branch Davidians claimed they were bona fide.

486. 1:36:59

     Exactly.

487. 1:36:59

     And we disagree.

488. 1:37:01

     Right. That's what I was thinking.

489. 1:37:03

     Okay. All right. Rob Leverett, are you on 17?

490. 1:37:08

     Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. That, and that, I think Representative Evans made the, the point I was going to make, just trying to understand the, the, the different definitions that have been proposed, is the one the author has proposed here would not only include someone who truly was clergy, the, the key thing is holding yourselves out so that in the mind of the victim you were clergy.

491. 1:37:27

     Mm-hmm.

492. 1:37:28

     And that seems to me to, to be an important distinction that we ought to preserve, because in the mind of, it's just powerful in the mind of the victim if the person convinces them th- that they're clergy as if they truly are or are not clergy. Um, and I would think that's kind of the policy goal of the, of that definition and of the author i- in this case, and seems to me to be a legitimate policy position for the committee to, uh, endorse as well.

493. 1:37:54

     Okay.

494. 1:37:54

     Thank you.

495. 1:37:57

     All right, let's see. Um, 13, who's on that?

496. 1:38:03

     Loew.

497. 1:38:04

     Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Um, Mr. Whip, um, I know we've talked through the definition of clergy member from the beginning of the bill. I know this is a sub, but, um, we've heard from a lot of the survivors and different stories, and I think that's why we wanted to not make it so broad, but not make it so specific that some of these, um, stories that we're hearing, that there's, uh, a way, a loophole for, um, those that may not necessarily be a ordained minister or pastor, but those that are claiming can also be prosecuted under this statute.

498. 1:38:43

     So, um, want to thank you for working on this language with us, and, uh, I think based on what we've heard, the language that we have defining clergy member in this bill, I believe encompasses what we were trying to do in this bill. So, um, um, I, I, I understand there's, um, things that we want to do to fix it based on different codes, but again, uh, uh, the definition is just for this code purpose only, and I think this, um, is going to do what we are trying to do.

499. 1:39:17

     So thank you.

500. 1:39:17

     And I, and I would agree with that. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

501. 1:39:19

     Okay. And Momtahan. 12.

502. 1:39:24

     William.

503. 1:39:25

     On 12.

504. 1:39:25

     Thank you, Chairman.

505. 1:39:26

     Yes, sir.

506. 1:39:26

     Thank you, and thank you to the author. Uh, I want to, can I speak to the amendment? I was wondering if the amendment would rule out, I'm guessing it's the similar functionary. Is that what would cover in a mom in that situation or one of these other folks that... You know, I'm, I'm a, I guess it's the Baptist in me that thinks, "Well, that's not a similar function to me," but I understand there's other people that have other religions. Um- And I s- I'm, you know, I guess I wanna make sure that covers these other types of groups, and that's what you, you feel like that would cover those?

507. 1:40:06

     Uh, yes.

508. 1:40:08

     Okay. I w-

509. 1:40:09

     Um-

510. 1:40:10

     Is there-

511. 1:40:11

     So it does seem as if the committee is, uh, going to be in favor of the amendment, so Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I'd move to withdraw my amendment. Second.

512. 1:40:24

     So are, are, are the-

513. 1:40:25

     Or, or, or, or renew, renew the, uh-

514. 1:40:28

     Yeah. Okay

515. 1:40:28

     ... motion to-

516. 1:40:29

     Yeah

517. 1:40:29

     ... withdraw it.

518. 1:40:30

     Let, let's start with this. Y- your motion is withdrawn.

519. 1:40:33

     Withdrawn.

520. 1:40:33

     It's recognized as withdrawn. All right, so do you have another one? I had another comment, Mr. Chairman, if I can. Yes, sir. I just wanna know, you know, I think my comment, my first comment is related to this one, that is kind of the, the folks that are acting in such a manner, I don't think, you know, that some of these folks are a- I was thinking acting out or even in the, in a way that may be a clergy member who is acting as a clergy member in that moment versus somebody who is, uh, let's say they're a clergy member, but they claim that they were only talking to them as a friend.

521. 1:41:16

     Are we making sure that we're kinda covering both sides? So you can imagine somebody is a pastor or somebody is a mom or w- w- however we're gonna end up defining that term, I think as a clergy member, some of that, some of that communication is, um, privileged, right? But then on the other side of it, it's not privileged, right? So if it's a conversation between two people acting as friends, I think in this specific situation, they could still use the influence as a clergy member to influence them in a conversation that is, it is, uh, you know, not in their official capacity, but we still need to capture them there.

522. 1:41:59

     Does that ... Am I making sense? I, I wanna make sure that they-

523. 1:42:03

     Yeah

524. 1:42:03

     ... they can't claim, "Oh, well, I wasn't acting in my official capacity."

525. 1:42:06

     I, I, I think you are. I mean, I understand exactly what you're saying, but listen, we have this every day, whether it's the law enforcement relationship, whether it's the teacher relationship, where a teacher is in a, in the student is 18 years old, and the student, um, they, they, they try to, to, to, to somewhat bastardize the relationship in order to make it seem like it's something that it's not, where they're trying to bring them in more friendly. But what we have to understand is the modus operandi and the characteristics of those in grooming, where they, they tend not to.

526. 1:42:38

     But I think the problem is in the criminal justice system, we have to err on the side of the individ- There's a, there's a standard that has to be proven when we get into whether it's the prosecutor or it's a grand jury s- system and everything in order to give the individual that's accused an opportunity to exonerate themselves. And I'm not saying they're guilty. That's not the case. There's an accusation, and they have the opportunities to prove that accusation wrong. But what we have to be careful for in this is that will always be the, uh, defense of the offender, is that it was consensual, and that, "No, no, we were just friends.

527. 1:43:17

     I was doing that." And to clear up something that the gentleman said earlier, not every law enforcement officer that violates this law is that person not free to leave. That person is free to leave in many cases, but this, the authority that they know that officer has, they don't necessarily recognize it. I think the cases we're looking at when we talk about this, and that's beyond the cases that have testified today, it is very clear what the intent of the individual was, whether it was the, the man in the pulpit, whether it was the Sunday school teacher, whether it was the youth leader who was molesting a adult counselor who was part of the youth team.

528. 1:43:56

     We see this, and, and it's very clear as to what their intent is, but they will always fall back on, "It was consensual," or, "It had nothing to do with my relationship I was trying to start up." And this does not prevent a pastor from marrying somebody in his church. It does not prevent a youth leader from dating an adult within the church. It doesn't do any of that. If it's a normal domestic violation, those are very clear at the beginning that this is what this is. If somebody has, and I'll use a word that's been used here today, if it is a bona fide relationship, those are very clear to see in my mind as I go through this.

529. 1:44:33

     Thank you. I just wanna make sure. I, I, I guess I wanna make sure that it's-

530. 1:44:37

     Yes

531. 1:44:37

     ... no loopholes, just to be very clear. I wanna make sure w- we're, we're passing something that's gonna be strong enough to get these bad actors out of there. I just, I, I guess if I'm looking from a, a third party's perspective, if somebody's looking at the ongoing case of this happening, I think there could be a case where somebody says, "Oh, well, the relationship in, in this current term, not, maybe not retrospectively, is bona fide because they're being coerced," right?

532. 1:45:05

     Right.

533. 1:45:05

     And then at a later point, retrospectively, they say, "Well, it wasn't bona fide." I think if somebody on the outside is looking in, they need to be able to say, "Hey, that's not a bona fide relationship. We see this happening. We need to call law enforcement and move forward." And I see what you're-

534. 1:45:19

     Yes, sir

535. 1:45:19

     ... I see what you're going with, and I, I support you, support the bill. I just wanna make sure we're capturing all these bad guys as much as we possibly can.

536. 1:45:27

     Thank you. I appreciate that.

537. 1:45:28

     Thank you.

538. 1:45:33

     All right, let's see. Representative Hall.

539. 1:45:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Brock, if you could pass, pass it out. Um, appreciate all of the testimony. Um, it's also two days in a row that Senator Roberts and I are on the same page. We're, we're charting new ground in our relationship, which I appreciate.

540. 1:45:50

     Yeah.

541. 1:45:50

     Um-

542. 1:45:50

     And, and if you'll remember, a meteorite hit Ohio yesterday, so-

543. 1:45:55

     Um, I would like to, and I discussed this briefly with the author, um, amend the statute of limitations for this to make it longer. It's seven years under the code, so the proposal would be to amend it to 15 years. You have language that's been sketched out by legislative council, and then we'd also want to update the caption to just include that we're amending Title 17, Chapter 3 to extend the statute of limitations, and that's the proposal to take the statute of limitations from seven years to 15 years. And the substantive reason which we heard through the testimony is that sometimes there are delays with individuals reporting because the nature of, um, of these exploitative relationships, so it would give more time for individuals to, to take action.

544. 1:46:39

     Second.

545. 1:46:40

     So moved.

546. 1:46:42

     Okay. Mo- motion and a second. Wrong order, but that's okay.

547. 1:46:49

     All right. Any further discussion on the Holcomb amendment? Vice Chair Reeves, got you lit up.

548. 1:46:57

     I, I think this is mainly discussion on the bill, so I'll hold that until an appropriate time.

549. 1:47:01

     All right. Carter Barrett. I'm sorry? Carter Barrett.

550. 1:47:07

     Second.

551. 1:47:08

     Carter Barrett. No, wait. Oh.

552. 1:47:13

     I don't know.

553. 1:47:13

     Okay, I get the joke now. All right. All right, uh, all those in favor of the Holcomb amendment, say Aye.

554. 1:47:19

     Aye.

555. 1:47:20

     Any opposed? Okay, we have that done. Any other amendments?

556. 1:47:28

     Yeah.

557. 1:47:28

     Oh. Representative Evans.

558. 1:47:31

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is, uh, maybe an amendment, but more of a question to the chairman of non-civil and those that deal with criminal law, because I don't. But it's come up a n- number of times this session, we're making new crimes that there's that magic combination of words knowingly and intentionally, and this is missing unintentionally. And if that's on purpose and there's a reason, I don't have an objection to it, but I'm just wondering if we needed to add that, and it, that would be on lines, uh, 30 and 35.

559. 1:48:04

     It's the only place I see it.

560. 1:48:08

     All right.

561. 1:48:08

     I'd like to see what Mr. Walker has to say on that. All right, William.

562. 1:48:16

     Uh, I-

563. 1:48:17

     Add intentionally

564. 1:48:18

     ... no concerns, no, no comments, no observations.

565. 1:48:21

     Either way.

566. 1:48:22

     That's in every criminal-

567. 1:48:25

     To add intentionally?

568. 1:48:26

     Well, no.

569. 1:48:26

     Or to just-

570. 1:48:27

     You don't have to add it-

571. 1:48:27

     You don't have to

572. 1:48:28

     ... to every crime.

573. 1:48:29

     You don't need to.

574. 1:48:29

     It's, it's just part of the elements that have to be proven.

575. 1:48:33

     Okay.

576. 1:48:34

     Intent.

577. 1:48:36

     Well, I just think about how, you know, people assume that we mean what we say, and sometimes the code has both words and sometimes it has one, so I have to assume they mean different things. But I don't practice criminal law, so.

578. 1:48:46

     Okay. Um, unless somebody disagrees with me, I'm, I'm open to that, too. It wouldn't be the first time. All right.

579. 1:48:59

     Could I ask one other question, Mr. Chairman?

580. 1:49:01

     You may.

581. 1:49:02

     Um, I support this bill 100%, and, um, the folks that prey on folks are, are, are monsters that don't deserve a lot of sympathy. But I do want to make sure this passes constitutional muster, and if we make the definition of clergy so broad that you can't tell who's in or who's is- who isn't, then it's not going to do any good, what we've done here today. And so while the original thought of the definition got, got withdrawn, I'd, I just wanna, I, I guess maybe just we all look at ourselves for a minute and say, are we really okay with this definition?

582. 1:49:33

     Do we feel like we need to make it, um, more specific? And the only way I, I would propose we do it is just to, you know, clergy as defined in 1975 or someone who holds themselves out as clergy. And I, and I don't have... I, I just want us to be careful. I just don't want us to get into a situation where somebody gets this overturned because it's too broad to know who's in and who's out.

583. 1:50:00

     I again defer to my criminal lawyer friends around the table to decide if we need to do that or not.

584. 1:50:10

     Vice Chair Reeves.

585. 1:50:14

     And Mr. Walker pointed out 1975, and I'm looking at it, and it's, it's more recent than the evidence code, and it provides a longer list of clergy in the definition than the evidence code does. And it's my understa- or just in looking at the two, it looks like legislative counsel drew from 1975 in drafting this definition of clergy, and it l- they look pretty consistent. Um, so unless there are any material differences people can find between existing law in 1975, the most recent definition of clergy, and this bill, I think we've got it covered.

586. 1:50:52

     It is specific, and it is broader than some previous common law definitions of clergy that got incorporated in the evidence code at an earlier date than 1975, the mandatory reporting. And I can say I know in my area, from the mandatory reporting that the schools and other folks have to do, that is filtered out to every house of worship pretty much. Everybody knows if kids are getting dropped off, that, um, any, any type of clergy are covered as mandatory reporters. This would take it a step further and say, "Do not, um, prey upon adults.

587. 1:51:28

     Uh, the same class of people who are not allowed to prey upon children don't prey upon adults." Is that kinda what happened here in the drafting that y'all borrowed from that 1975...

588. 1:51:41

     I'm looking at the two-

589. 1:51:41

     Uh-

590. 1:51:41

     ... and they look pretty similar.

591. 1:51:43

     Okay.

592. 1:51:43

     1975 subsection seven.

593. 1:51:46

     All right, here's what we're gonna do. Take a break. Nature's calling. I, I drank a lot of water at lunch. So let's take about a 10 or 15-minute break, and we can discuss it and maybe come up with a good amendment.

594. 2:10:08

     All right, everybody. Let's come to order now. What's our progress?

595. 2:10:21

     Mr. Chairman. Not recognized right now.

596. 2:10:23

     Mr. Mr. Chair, I appreciate, uh, majority, Senate Majority Whip, Representative Evans, legislative council, and other members of the committee. We have, um, a proposed amendment on clergy member definition, if I may-

597. 2:10:35

     Oh, okay

598. 2:10:35

     ... uh, present that.

599. 2:10:36

     So y- you got the language.

600. 2:10:38

     I do.

601. 2:10:38

     All right, go ahead.

602. 2:10:39

     All right. Uh, on, on line 12, uh, replace the definition of clergy member, uh, to means ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, or similar functionaries by whatever name called of a bona fide religious organization, or a person who holds himself or herself out as the same. That tracks 1975, uh, but, uh, accomplishes what the committee discussed, and legislative council has a copy.

603. 2:11:14

     Second.

604. 2:11:15

     Okay, got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? In the, the, the- Uh, hang on ... the senator thinks this is friendly.

605. 2:11:23

     I, I, I do consider it a friendly amendment. The, the word bona fide still makes me nervous, but it says holds themselves out.

606. 2:11:27

     We'll pull that microphone around.

607. 2:11:29

     But the, the word bona fide still makes me a little nervous, but the fact that after it, it says, "Or holds themself out," I think that, that catches that for us. But I do think it's tight enough to, um, to... I can't believe I'm saying this, but to Rep- Representative Momtahan's point- ... uh, it does, it does tighten it up enough where I think we're in pretty good shape that, uh, that I'm, I'm good with it.

608. 2:11:52

     Okay.

609. 2:11:52

     But I appreciate all y'all's work.

610. 2:11:54

     All right. Any further discussion?

611. 2:12:00

     I think we had a motion and a second on the amendment, so, and no, no other discussion. So hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, it's on. Any further discussion about the bill?

612. 2:12:16

     Hearing none, all those in favor of the passing, passage of the bill say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. All right, you got, you're on the rules.

613. 2:12:25

     Thank you. Thank you. I, I will, I will point out that it's a lot easier to get through this whole process if you hold your meetings much earlier in the morning.

614. 2:12:38

     Says-

615. 2:12:38

     I was waiting for that.

616. 2:12:38

     Says the guy that comes in at 6:00 AM.

617. 2:12:41

     House, House sponsor. Oh, uh, House sponsor. Who's got it?

618. 2:12:44

     Oh, uh, my understanding, it was, uh, m- the Majority Leader, Chuck Efstration.

619. 2:12:48

     Oh, Efstration.

620. 2:12:49

     Yes, sir.

621. 2:12:49

     Okay, thank you.

622. 2:12:50

     That was my understanding.

623. 2:12:51

     All right. Did you get the bill?

624. 2:12:52

     Yeah.

625. 2:12:59

     Did you get the bill?

626. 2:12:59

     Did you text me your bill number?

627. 2:13:01

     All right, that brings us to Senate Bill 403.

628. 2:13:09

     And, uh, Senator Kilpatrick's not here, right?

629. 2:13:13

     No.

630. 2:13:13

     You got, you got it for her? Okay. And the DOR people. And the DOR folks, y'all come on up. All right, Vice Chair Reeves.

631. 2:13:21

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, members of the committee, Senator Kirkpatrick was in Senate rules when, uh, Floor Leader Hong and I left there. She heard about 20 House bills. She presented a veterinarian bill from Chair- uh, Chairman Leverett, uh, a little while ago, and then a pre-K bill. So she's had a big day, and she asked me if I wouldn't mind, uh, presenting a, uh, revised version of Senate Bill 403. And so, uh, committee, I'd like to ask you to take out LC59-0453S, the substitute, and then also AM59-0010, which is an additional amendment to the substitute.

632. 2:14:00

     And I'll walk through those and would be glad to, to answer questions. And also, I think the, uh, Department of Revenue did wanna testify a little bit more. Um, to go through, uh, what you've got, uh, Commissioner Burge, the new Department of Revenue commissioner since the recent former one went to the, uh- Tax court. Um, Commissioner Burge is an attorney. Uh, he reviewed our hearing and what was presented, and wrote a, a very detailed, uh, letter in response to it, and that's in your packet.

633. 2:14:31

     So would, uh, definitely commend Commissioner Burge's letter. Uh, and then going through the substitute and the amendment. And, and by the way, I, I use the Georgia website and the Florida one. My late mother died 10 years ago in Florida. In Georgia, um, and I've lived here for 26 years, uh, continuously now, in addition to earlier in life. I found a cable bill deposit that I had abandoned. And then, uh, on my late mother, there were some, um, uh, insurance, uh, deposits or whatever that were left.

634. 2:15:05

     So it's not like this is all tax returns or tax money. It's miscellaneous things where a financial institution is paying over to the state, and here in Georgia, that happens to be the Department of Revenue. In Florida, it's the Division of Financial Services, I believe. But that's what's going on with that $3 billion that the state has. This bill is trying to get money paid out, uh, easier to claim for citizens. So here are the changes in the substitute. Uh, there was a request by the committee to tighten up the virtual currency provisions.

635. 2:15:37

     And, uh, Coinbase and other companies, that is who the custodians are of the, uh, the virtual currency. And, uh, right now, uh, Wells Fargo is the, uh, custodian for the state, and so they don't interface. So what this, uh, is designed to do is get it to where those institutions, if they want to pay abandoned funds over, they can do it with the state. That's what this draft does. If you go to line 71 and 72 on the substitute, and then on 92 and 93, what it does, it says, "Crypto deposits before this bill becomes effective, they are grandfathered.

636. 2:16:16

     The crypto provisions apply to accounts that are opened July 1st of 2026 and forward." And so this new statute about crypto, uh, that is what they have in surrounding states, many other states. So this lines it up, and it puts people on notice. If you don't like this, uh, then you need to find a crypto depository that will guarantee you that you could, you know, hold it dormant for 20 years or whatever. But most Coinbase and other crypto depositories, um, they want to be able to, uh, uh, pay it over to the state if it's abandoned for a long period of time, and this adopts national standards on that.

637. 2:16:56

     And so what we did is we moved the effective date back to accounts opened July 1st, 2026 or later, uh, to ensure that it is fully prospective regarding crypto. Anybody who's opened a crypto account, uh, they can, you know, remain the status quo, um, on that. Uh, secondly, probate. Um, a lot of you had some questions about probate, and you wanted to make sure that, uh, Georgia probate and Georgia probate attorneys and, uh, executors and executrix, uh, are protected.

638. 2:17:26

     And what we did is on lines 146 and 148, uh, we lowered the threshold from 15,000 down to 7,500. Representative Oliver, I believe her analogy was, you know, "What if it's $700? What if it's $8,000?" We cut it in half from 15,000 down to 7,500, and then we also added Georgia probate. The original language said, uh, any pending probate. We added pending probate in Georgia or probate that has been previously filed in Georgia.

639. 2:18:01

     The Department of Revenue heard the input at the last hearing, and they said there are some, uh, complications if you try to go all 50 states. They know Georgia probate. That's where most of this, uh, uh, comes from. And so, um, you've gotta have 7,500 or below, uh, with no pending or previous probate in Georgia on that language. And, uh, it respects the probate process, probate executrixes, probate creditors, probate heirs, beneficiaries, lawyers, and all that.

640. 2:18:32

     Um, now, there was a lot of controversy on escheatment. And, uh, what we did in this, uh, and definitely this is open to the committee's work as well. Um, on line 150, uh, we moved the effective date from 2027 to 2028. And the reason for that is that exact match system that is, uh, being implemented, that will be fully operational for, uh, more than one year at that time. And then, uh, this committee's publicized it. The Senate has.

641. 2:19:03

     Uh, you know, hopefully the media will too. Let everybody get out there, do their claims, have this exact match system o- operate in '26, '27. Let's get that money cleared out and then, uh, have the effective date. Uh, we removed escheatment. Uh, we, we s- we warn people this will be a waiver. Go claim that money '26, '27, '28, or if it's a smaller amount, we have increased the threshold. It was $10. We put $20. It was five years.

642. 2:19:34

     We put seven years. And then, um, we also implemented that $7,500 amount. A lot of you said, "We don't like that, that some large asset or retirement fund or something like that, uh, could get waived." And so we've said, um, it's got... If, uh, that only pertains to amounts below 7,500. We lengthen the period from 25 years to 30 years. If, if it's a piece of real estate and somebody's there for 7 years or 20 years, depending on the circumstances, uh, you're gonna have other rights accrue.

643. 2:20:06

     Here, we've, uh, done it 50% longer than that, 30 years. And so that provides an ample opportunity for people to go claim their, uh, cable deposit or some, you know, other deposit or whatever, um, that is being held in the treasury. But the goal of this bill, uh, that Senator Kirkpatrick brought, um, and worked with the department on, is to get that balance from 3 billion into Georgians' hands better. And, uh, in looking at the Florida system Uh, what the Department of Revenue has acknowledged, uh, there are other states who are ahead of us.

644. 2:20:39

     This bill is designed to implement it so that the money gets out to the people easier, and the balance goes down into Georgians', uh, bank accounts and, uh, none other. Uh, so it's not sitting idle and, and unclaimed anymore. So those are the changes. The, the amendment, um, once we input the changes from the committee hearing the other day, Coinbase, uh, had contacted the department with some follow-up, and so this language came from Coinbase, uh, the language in the amendment.

645. 2:21:10

     And so, um, uh, Mr. Chairman, if I could turn it over to the department to elaborate a little bit more on the changes, and then, uh, the follow-up from the hearing the other day.

646. 2:21:19

     Sure, and I got both mics lit up, so-

647. 2:21:21

     Awesome

648. 2:21:22

     ... if whoever wants it.

649. 2:21:23

     Chairman, members of the committee, it's an honor to once again be af- before the illustrious Judiciary Committee. Um, the, Vice Chair Reeves did a really good job covering the different changes that we've done, uh, within this sub, and I'd really like to talk about the potential amendment that we've had inside y'all's folders. So we, uh, looked at the language that Coinbase provided in relationship to crypto. They, um... It is good language. It is broad language. They use the term digital asset within their language. A digital asset expands pretty broadly into things like NFTs and other, and other items like that.

650. 2:21:58

     Um, so we have, we have paired it down a little bit to be focused on virtual currency specifically. Um, the issue with, with our, uh, custodian is that they currently do not accept virtual currencies. And so the idea being that with this legislat- or with this amendment, it would open the avenue for us to have what is a pr- or a custodian that has what is called a digital wallet to receive these currencies. The big thing coming from the crypto holders is they wanna be treated like a stock, right? They want to gi- give over to us a cryptocurrency, and it be liquidated w- upon receipt on our end.

651. 2:22:35

     Um, and this, this change would allow us to do that, I believe. Now, I'll kick it over to our general counsel in case there's anything that I missed.

652. 2:22:42

     Yes. Uh, I think, I think that's a fair summary. We understand the in-kind request for blockchain. Um, I think, again, as, as Joe has expressed, our concern with expanding it to the term digital asset, we weren't sure if there were other types of non-fungible tokens or other types of property that might get caught up in that before we had a mechanism to be able to receive blockchain.

653. 2:23:17

     And so I believe, uh, at the moment, just the focus to the digital currency helps us get there.

654. 2:23:25

     Okay. All right. Representative Silcox.

655. 2:23:29

     Thank you so much for coming back today. Um, I was just curious, you have this perfect match system in place now, or you're starting it up?

656. 2:23:38

     We are, uh-

657. 2:23:38

     Go ahead.

658. 2:23:39

     Yeah. So we are in the process of getting that figured out. We are currently operating without an unclaimed property system that, uh, is in, currently in procurement, and we're hopeful to have very, very soon. Once we get that system, uh, one of the good things about the d- the Department of Revenue holding this unclaimed property is is that in other states it's usually held by the Treasury-

659. 2:23:59

     Mm-hmm

660. 2:23:59

     ... which involves a lot of data sharing agreements.

661. 2:24:01

     Mm-hmm.

662. 2:24:01

     But, uh, thankfully, we don't have to go that angle. And so we will get our unclaimed property software system.

663. 2:24:08

     Mm-hmm.

664. 2:24:08

     We will marry it up with what is our ITS system, which is our tax software system, that'll allow us to use addresses, names, Social Security numbers to marry up that information, be doubly sure that we're giving the money to the right person-

665. 2:24:19

     Mm-hmm

666. 2:24:19

     ... and then send that out. So once we have that unclaimed property software, we'll go right into development for the exact match program, and it should be, it should not take too long at all.

667. 2:24:28

     What, when do you expect it to start?

668. 2:24:30

     Hopefully by next summer. I think that is the, the timeline that I've been given at that level.

669. 2:24:34

     So it'd be '27.

670. 2:24:36

     Correct.

671. 2:24:36

     So if we did not pass this legislation, would you still have that process in place?

672. 2:24:41

     No.

673. 2:24:42

     No.

674. 2:24:42

     No.

675. 2:24:42

     You have to have this legislation to s- to get the perfect match.

676. 2:24:45

     We would not begin to develop a system that we did not have the probably legal authority to do. That takes-

677. 2:24:51

     So you don't even know the cost that this might be to the state?

678. 2:24:54

     It, uh, as far as cost to the state goes, we feel very confident we can do it within our own IT department, so it would be no additional cost in the salaries you pay those people. Um, but we would, we do a lot of programming here at the Department of Revenue with all the different tax pieces that change each, in a session in and out. And so it would not be a, a, a appropriate use of resources to go ahead and build out that exact match program without knowing that it would be something that we would have.

679. 2:25:18

     We, we-

680. 2:25:19

     This-

681. 2:25:19

     ... also believe we need authorization to do exact match.

682. 2:25:23

     And I appreciate that, and nowhere in this bill does it say we're requesting authorization to have the perfect match system. It doesn't say that anywhere in the legislation.

683. 2:25:34

     Well, I, I would say that as drafted, the recognition of the exact match system, along with the authorization for unclaimed property program to reference back to the tax system information, um, that, that forms the basis of our request here.

684. 2:25:54

     I understand, but I'd, I would still argue that this is an unfunded mandate at this point.

685. 2:26:00

     Correct. Um, as Joe said, in terms of, uh, standing up the system, is that-

686. 2:26:07

     Right

687. 2:26:07

     ... what you're asking about?

688. 2:26:09

     Yes.

689. 2:26:09

     As Joe said, we already can fold this in-

690. 2:26:15

     Okay

691. 2:26:15

     ... to the system-

692. 2:26:17

     Mm-hmm

693. 2:26:17

     ... once we have the system. As Joe pointed out, we, we are active, in an active procurement for a new system that helps us effectuate Senate Bill 103-

694. 2:26:33

     Yes

695. 2:26:33

     ... from a couple years ago. We were held up in that procurement because of a big protest-

696. 2:26:41

     Mm-hmm

697. 2:26:41

     ... that went through a lengthy examination process. We have now come out the other side, and so we are confident that this system which we anticipate bringing in, in the near term-

698. 2:26:56

     Mm-hmm

699. 2:26:56

     ... will in fact accomplish this. And that's why we're not talking about, uh-

700. 2:27:01

     Okay

701. 2:27:01

     ... the need for additional funding.

702. 2:27:03

     Mr., it, it's a, it's a concern of mine because I know that, I know for a fact, um, in, for example, in Ohio they have enacted some of these escheat type of situations.

703. 2:27:15

     Mm-hmm.

704. 2:27:15

     Which we still do have the word escheat at line 160. And so, um, I just think you may be, we may be subjecting the state to a lot of litigation. And this is the taking of people's property. It is the taking of their property in my opinion. And to me, the rights of those individuals supersede the state's obligation to maintain those funds.

705. 2:27:40

     I think, I think we respect and understand what you're saying.

706. 2:27:43

     Mm-hmm.

707. 2:27:43

     I would very strongly argue that escheatment and the exact match program are entirely different provisions within this bill. Um, the escheatment provision does assist us in the overall goal of reducing the burden that is the unclaimed property system-

708. 2:27:56

     Mm-hmm

709. 2:27:56

     ... but escheatment is not necessarily required for the exact match program.

710. 2:28:01

     Well, then I would argue that you need a shorter bill.

711. 2:28:07

     Okay. Vice Chair Reeves.

712. 2:28:09

     All right. Mr., Mr. Snowden, uh, based on the feedback that came the other day, did y'all look at state law about things like eminent domain and other claims where you got a certain amount of time to assert those or you waive those claims?

713. 2:28:22

     Mm-hmm.

714. 2:28:22

     And is that what resulted in-

715. 2:28:24

     Yes

716. 2:28:24

     ... these amendments?

717. 2:28:24

     Yes, that is exactly correct. Yes.

718. 2:28:26

     And is it a friendly, uh, amendment if, uh, escheat is st- uh, since escheat is still at line 160, that we change that to be waived and released to the state, or be waived and released-

719. 2:28:38

     Absolutely

720. 2:28:38

     ... like the other terminology that you changed?

721. 2:28:40

     Absolutely.

722. 2:28:41

     Okay. And the exact match, that's where funds are pretty much automatically paid to citizens. It removes the need for a claim, and therefore you're not gonna have seven years. You're gonna have it instantaneously. This still provides seven years and, and dollar thresholds.

723. 2:28:56

     Correct.

724. 2:28:57

     If it's above $20, then it's not waived and released after seven years. It's retained for a claim at a later date. If it's above $7,500, 30 years, uh, uh, it could still, or 29 years, it could still be around.

725. 2:29:11

     Correct.

726. 2:29:12

     All right. Thank you.

727. 2:29:15

     Representative Silcox.

728. 2:29:16

     And I just had one more comment, and that is that if, um, if you don't have the system, and you don't know what you're gonna implement, and you don't know what it's gonna cost, then how long would the system be running before people's property would be taken? Do you know that?

729. 2:29:30

     This bill states that it would be beginning, uh, uh, the provisions would apply beginning 2028.

730. 2:29:40

     Correct.

731. 2:29:40

     And we would tap off from there.

732. 2:29:42

     But again, if you don't, but, but if you don't know-

733. 2:29:44

     So it would be seven years after that for-

734. 2:29:46

     Okay

735. 2:29:46

     ... the small dollar claims.

736. 2:29:48

     Okay.

737. 2:29:48

     And, and 30 years for, for the claims that are set currently at $7,500. Less than $7,500.

738. 2:29:57

     I guess it wouldn't be running as long as I thought it would because I, I thought maybe y'all already had this teed up. But thank you.

739. 2:30:04

     Mm-hmm.

740. 2:30:08

     All right. I don't see any other questions. What's the will of the committee?

741. 2:30:20

     All right. I'm not hearing any motion, so the bill fails.

742. 2:30:26

     Appreciate that.

743. 2:30:27

     Sorry.

744. 2:30:27

     Thank you.

745. 2:30:34

     Adjourned. We're adjourned.