Georgia CommonsComité Retirement del Senado, 24 de marzo de 2026
2025-2026 Regular Session · 310 CLOB · 33 min
Esta es una transcripción automática del video de la Asamblea General, hecha por un modelo de reconocimiento de voz. No es un registro oficial y puede entender mal palabras, nombres y números. No se identifica a quienes hablan. El video es el registro: cada marca de tiempo enlaza al momento en que se reproduce.
El video es de la Asamblea General y se reproduce desde su canal de Vimeo. Seleccione cualquier tiempo de abajo para reproducir ese momento. Ver en el canal de Vimeo de la Asamblea General · Agenda
Resumen
Escrito por un modelo de IA (gpt-6.1-sol) a partir de la transcripción. No forma parte del registro, y el video es lo que se dijo.
El comité aprobó una medida que los miembros describieron como una vía para que los maestros con experiencia regresen al aula en medio de una escasez de maestros. Luego, el comité aprobó HB 818, que, según su promotor, trasladaría a los jueces de Georgia Tax Court al Judicial Retirement System, mientras que el personal del tribunal permanecería en el Employees’ Retirement System. Los miembros preguntaron sobre los efectos financieros del traslado y los beneficios de jubilación del personal. Ambas medidas se aprobaron por votación a viva voz, sin que se escuchara oposición. Luego, el comité levantó la sesión.
Proyectos de ley tratados (1)
Cada relato abarca el tramo de la reunión que indica. El número del proyecto de ley se dice en ese tramo, salvo cuando era el único proyecto en la agenda de un comité.
HB 818. Georgia Judicial Retirement System; membership for each judge employed full time in the Georgia Tax Court; provide
Desde 0:22:33 · turnos 20 a 127
El promotor dijo que HB 818 completaría el traslado de Georgia Tax Court al poder judicial al transferir al juez actual y a los futuros jueces del Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) al Judicial Retirement System (JRS). El personal del tribunal permanecería en ERS. El promotor dijo que el cambio en el sistema de jubilación requería una demora de un año conforme a las reglas para los proyectos de ley sobre jubilación con efectos financieros.
Un miembro cuestionó una aparente discrepancia en el informe financiero. El director ejecutivo de ERS aclaró que la obligación estimada era de $498,000, no de $498, y que se distribuiría a lo largo de 20 años. Otro miembro preguntó por qué el traslado tanto de los activos como de las obligaciones dejaría un costo. El director ejecutivo dijo que la estimación incluía la pérdida de rendimientos futuros, pero que no conocía el cálculo preciso que explicaba la diferencia. El director ejecutivo describió el impacto financiero anual como insignificante. El promotor agregó que el juez debe pagar los costos actuariales aplicables al ingresar a JRS.
Un segundo miembro expresó preocupación por que el personal permaneciera en ERS sin aumentos por el costo de vida. El director ejecutivo dijo que los empleados contratados a partir del 1 de julio de 2009 no tenían derecho a esos aumentos. El promotor dijo que el personal permanecería en su sistema actual sin verse afectado negativamente por este proyecto de ley.
El comité aprobó el proyecto de ley por votación a viva voz, sin que se escuchara oposición.
Transcripción
130 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.
- 0:19:36
Our Senate retirement meeting, March 24th. We're a couple minutes late getting started. Y'all bear with us. I'm gonna ask the very Reverend Josh McLaurin to do us a prayer.
- 0:19:51
Thank you very much, Matt. 10. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If everybody could bow your heads, please. Uh, Lord, thank you for having us here on a committee work day to do the people's business. Uh, it's busy as always this time of year, but it's our obligation to stay centered and reverent and remember the reasons for the work, and it's with that spirit that we're gonna listen to the witnesses and the bill sponsors today and, uh, do what we need to do to protect the people of Georgia. Thank you so much, uh, for everything, and, uh, in your name we pray. Amen.
- 0:20:19
Amen. Thank you. Uh, Representative Ballard, we heard you. If you'll come on up to the table, we heard your bill and testimony, and, uh, I think we gave it a, a good vetting, and, uh, we need to get some teachers to work. And, uh, any, any of y'all have anything? Yes, sir. Representative. Senator Echols. Excuse me.
- 0:20:43
I just, uh, I appreciate you bringing the bill, and I know it's similar to, um, Senator Hickman's, but at the appropriate time I'd make a motion to pass.
- 0:20:50
Okay. Is, is there any other discussion or question? I... Okay, I guess now is the appropriate time.
- 0:21:00
Mr. Chairman, I would just, I would just like to, to say that, uh, with the, with the, with the really severe teacher shortage that we have, uh, uh, the opportunity to have capable, committed, uh, professionals that have been in the classrooms for decades, uh, to have a pathway back to be there for, uh, the, the children. Uh, so I, I, I applaud the author and her bill, and, uh, I, I know we're ready to vote.
- 0:21:28
Okay.
- 0:21:28
Thank you.
- 0:21:28
We have a motion by Senator Echols and a second by Senator Goodman. Any discussion?
- 0:21:38
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did pray specifically that we would listen to the bill sponsor, but if the bill sponsor wants to waive, I'm sure we're happy to vote, unless there's anything you want to say.
- 0:21:46
Absolutely.
- 0:21:46
Just waive.
- 0:21:47
Okay. All right. Very good. Well, we're ready to vote then.
- 0:21:48
You, you will never, ever pass another bill without saying a word in your political career. All in favor say aye.
- 0:21:56
Aye.
- 0:21:57
Any opposed? Likewise. So carried. Thank you, ma'am.
- 0:22:00
Thank you so much. I appreciate y'all.
- 0:22:02
Thank you. Let's see. Uh, now we've got, um, Chairman Martin, if you'll come forward for us, please, sir.
- 0:22:12
Mr. Chair, if it pleases the Chair, I'd like Representative Ballard to present this item.
- 0:22:20
Well, you didn't see what she looked like after the first hearing.
- 0:22:23
She was b- battered and, battered and, uh, bruised, uh, Mr. Chairman. Um, I- always glad to, to join you. Um, I, I've got for you today House Bill 818, LC 56-0391. And, um, just, uh, I'll be brief in it, but as, uh, a historical point, if, if, uh, you all recall, if you were here during the '24-'25 session or the '23-'24 session, I... What years am I thinking about here? The last session, not this one.
- 0:22:52
That's right.
- 0:22:52
We passed and put before the voters a constitutional amendment to move the tax tribunal to the judicial branch. Um, if you recall, the reason we did that is because it, it, it, uh, smoothed out the appeals process, uh, and it just made it better and more friendly for the taxpayer. The voters approved that, so, um, that was done in H.R. 598. The voters approved that in November 2024. Last year, HB 1267 passed, and that was the implementing language to actually move the court. Uh, that passed.
- 0:23:23
What you have today is House Bill 818, which moves the retirement of that judge who now sits in the judicial branch, um, to the judicial branch. That, that had previously been in the executive branch, so it was an ERS. This moves it i- into JRS. And the reason it's this year rather than last year is, as the chairman and the members know, uh, fiscal retirement bills have to lay over a year. So this is just completing the process of moving, uh, that position over. Um, when it was done last year, we didn't know who that was, who that, uh, was gonna be in that position.
- 0:23:55
We now have that gentleman was sworn in last year... I'm sorry, last week. Um, and this would include that and all future, uh, judges that serve in, uh, the tax court. Um, be glad, Mr. Chairman, to go into specifics of the bill, um, but it, it basically puts the judge in the JRS. It leaves all the employees in the ERS, which I think is comparable with, uh, the other, uh, branches, the other courts in the judicial branch.
- 0:24:21
Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the author? Yes, sir.
- 0:24:26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing the bill. Just a quick question. Um-
- 0:24:30
Oh, there we are.
- 0:24:31
Let's see. On one part here, it's got, you know, the, uh, under the, uh, ERS, it says the amount of unfunded actuarial accrued liability which will result from the bill be right at half a million dollars, but when you come back to the back on Exhibit A, it says $498. I just wondered, do you know? And I'm, I'm... It's not a leading question. I don't know.
- 0:24:52
No, no, no. From, from, um... And I think we have Mr., um, the executive director of the ERS here. He c- he could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the, the cost of that will, will move the, the gentleman's, uh, accrued, um, payments, interest, return on investment from ERS over to, uh, JRS. There may be, that, that 400 and some dollars may be, uh, a difference, and I would yield if the chair would allow to Mr. Popham to, uh-
- 0:25:17
Certainly
- 0:25:17
... to make, uh-
- 0:25:18
Mr. Popham, would you, uh, be able to...
- 0:25:22
Do, do you want to share a spot with me, Jim, or shall I?
- 0:25:29
Thank you, Mr. Popham, for being here. Um,
- 0:25:34
thank you, sir.
- 0:25:35
You're welcome. Um, I believe the 498 is $498,000. I think we're looking at a- It's not just a little rounding error. It's, it's 498.
- 0:25:46
Okay. So it's in the thousands then.
- 0:25:47
So it's about the half of that number that you were talking about before.
- 0:25:52
So, I I I... If you could help me with this, 'cause I think it'd help me understand and f- and going forward too as well. In, in this handout that we've got from the Department of Audits.
- 0:26:06
Mm-hmm.
- 0:26:06
On the, the first page it says 498,000 and so you're right, on the back it says all amounts are in the thousands of dollars, so that would be 498,000. Okay.
- 0:26:16
Yep.
- 0:26:18
Makes sense. Is that a, is that a one-time expenditure or is that going to be...?
- 0:26:26
That's the total amount of the liability associated with the bill. It would be amortized over a period of years.
- 0:26:31
I gotcha. Okay. No worries. Just for my future understanding is one of the reasons I wanted to- ... so I could better, better read these.
- 0:26:38
A- and to the Senator, uh, Senator Monacrez, the, the monies that the gentleman has paid into ERS will be transferred over to, to JRS.
- 0:26:46
That's right. That's part of the reason for the liability to JRS.
- 0:26:48
And that's the liability. That's part of the, the li- the reason there'll be a liability left in ERS and then it'll, it'll move f- move forward maybe with the-
- 0:26:54
Yes, sir
- 0:26:55
... uh, the individual.
- 0:26:58
So that, does that decrease the amount of liability to the ERS?
- 0:27:04
It does.
- 0:27:04
It does.
- 0:27:05
It also decreases the assets, as the chairman pointed out, yeah.
- 0:27:07
All right. So his assets that he has paid in will follow him over to JRS?
- 0:27:12
Correct.
- 0:27:13
Okay. I see Senator Orrock.
- 0:27:17
Thank you very much. Um,
- 0:27:22
a, a, a, a, a couple of questions if I may, Mr. Chair. Um-
- 0:27:24
Certainly
- 0:27:24
... the, um... So this, uh, uh, as I understand it, th- this, this leaves other... Who, who does it leave in the ERS system? It move, it moves this, this judge, right?
- 0:27:41
Yes.
- 0:27:41
But, I mean, can you, can you, uh, expand on that? Thank you.
- 0:27:46
Well, I guess if there was any staff associated, right?
- 0:27:48
The, the, the staff would stay in ERS, and I believe that's consistent with the, the judicial branch. Al- all, all the-
- 0:27:53
The, the staff is already in ERS-
- 0:27:55
Yes, ma'am
- 0:27:55
... and would remain there?
- 0:27:56
Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. They would remain there, and I believe that's consistent with, um, the judicial branch. Now, the, not everybody in the judicial branch is part of JRS.
- 0:28:03
That's correct.
- 0:28:05
I see. So they are part of the cohort that hadn't been getting, uh, a full COLA for 17 years. Is that right?
- 0:28:12
Depends on whether or not they're hired on or after 7/1/2009. But yes, I take your point. They're part of ERS.
- 0:28:19
And if they were hired after 2009?
- 0:28:23
They're not eligible for a COLA, as you know.
- 0:28:26
We're, we're, we're on a sad path here, I tell you what. It's time to move the needle.
- 0:28:33
Well, if, if I could, Senator, and-
- 0:28:35
Thank you
- 0:28:35
... and, you know, we, we talked about things.
- 0:28:36
Mm-hmm.
- 0:28:36
The, again, we're not penalizing them. The, the, they are in the system that they were hired into-
- 0:28:41
Mm-hmm
- 0:28:41
... and we're making sure that we don't negatively impact them. It's just the j- the JRS is, is for the elected, you know, judges.
- 0:28:48
Oh, I understand.
- 0:28:49
Yes, ma'am.
- 0:28:49
I just think they're already negatively impacted.
- 0:28:51
Yep.
- 0:28:51
You know?
- 0:28:52
Yes, ma'am.
- 0:28:52
The reality of their situation.
- 0:28:57
Senator Hofstetler, I know you've got a question.
- 0:29:00
Well, I, I apologize for coming in late, um, but I am trying to follow up on Senator Goodman's question. The 498,000, I'm trying to wrap my brain around that. So, um,
- 0:29:18
are they... Uh, so, so basically that's what would be transferred out of ERS into the JRS?
- 0:29:27
No. It's, that's not the exact dollar amount. Um, I don't know if that dollar amount is noted. Um, it also includes the idea that there are contribu- there are earnings on that money as well. So it's a present value of not just the money being transferred, but any future earnings that would've otherwise been expected to be accrued into ERS.
- 0:29:47
Okay. So they don't retain any, any ERS, um... I mean, their plan's changing to JRS. There's no... So
- 0:30:01
we're losing, we're losing the revenue that's transferring over, but we're also losing the liability.
- 0:30:06
Correct.
- 0:30:07
And apparently the net-
- 0:30:08
So, so, so, so what's the, why, why the difference there is what I'm trying to-
- 0:30:11
Well, apparently it doesn't offset. I don't know the calculation specifically.
- 0:30:14
Uh-huh.
- 0:30:14
But apparently the, the impact of the revenue loss is higher than the impact of the liability transfer.
- 0:30:21
I, I, um, to, to the executive director, I think the, uh, ERS, it may have to do with ERS's current funding ratio may be the reason there's a difference.
- 0:30:33
Could be.
- 0:30:34
Would we be better off to let him take his money and go open an IRA somewhere else?
- 0:30:40
Not compared to JRS, no. JRS is a, has a pretty, um, generous benefit, so he'll be better off in the JRS.
- 0:30:49
But is the state gonna be better off?
- 0:30:52
Well, the amount of the liability transfer isn't even enough to move the A deck by one basis point, so I don't think the state's gonna really notice in the... Again, this 498,000 is amortized over a period of 20 years.
- 0:31:04
Okay.
- 0:31:05
Um, so it's a negligible amount on an annual basis.
- 0:31:07
And, and the bill also requires the, the individual to, to pay any actuarial costs that, when they enter the system-
- 0:31:14
Mm-hmm. Okay
- 0:31:15
... to, to bring them up to, to that level.
- 0:31:17
Okay.
- 0:31:24
Anyone else have any questions or comments for the author?
- 0:31:41
What is the will of the committee?
- 0:31:44
Move do pass.
- 0:31:46
Have a motion do pass by Senator McLaurin.
- 0:31:49
I'll second.
- 0:31:50
Have a second by Senator Goodman. Any discussion? Questions? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
- 0:32:00
Aye.
- 0:32:01
Aye.
- 0:32:01
Any opposed, like sign. So carried.
- 0:32:05
A- and if it please the chair, uh, Senator s- um, Shawn Still will carry that in the Senate for us.
- 0:32:10
Okay.
- 0:32:10
Shawn Still.
- 0:32:12
Okay. Thank you. Thank y'all.
- 0:32:13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
- 0:32:14
All right. No other business. Uh, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you.
- 0:32:52
Pardon my