Senate Retirement Committee, February 24, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1165771027 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1165771027#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-24/senate-retirement This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:18:12] Senate Committee of Retirement meeting. Can y'all hear me okay out there? We were having some microphone problems. Make sure they can hear us online also. Welcome. Thank y'all for being here. Uh, we're gathering, uh, members. We've been running late over in the House, I mean, in the Senate, excuse me. I used to be in the House. But, uh, just kinda running late in the Senate chambers today, so, uh, giving everybody time to get, get in and get situated and get their folders and be ready to take care of the people's business. [0:18:49] Uh, Senator Echols, would you like to lead us in a word of prayer to get started today, please, sir? Yes, sir. Are, what, are you 12? [0:18:57] Thank you, Mr.- Yes, 12. [0:18:59] Okay. [0:18:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:19:00] Thank you. [0:19:01] Y'all bow with me. Father God, thank you for today, and thank you for all the blessings that you've given us, Lord. Just thank you for the members of this committee, and thank you for all the pe- people out here, uh, attending this meeting. Lord, I just play for your, pray your discernment, um, and that we take all this, uh, very seriously as we deliberate, uh, this legislation today. In Jesus' name, amen. [0:19:20] Amen. [0:19:20] Amen. Thank you. Senator Roberson. [0:19:23] Yes, sir. [0:19:24] I think you're number one on the list, sir, if you'll take a seat there at the table. [0:19:28] That's what my high school principal used to say. [0:19:30] You- [0:19:31] Number one on the list [0:19:31] ... do you need to catch your breath? Are you okay? [0:19:33] No, sir, I am, I am as healthy as a horse. Hopefully I won't need an AED or CPR or anything like that. Hopefully. [0:19:43] Okay, sir. We're working off, uh, Senate Bill 216, LC number 560220. [0:20:03] What was, what was the LC number, Mr. Chairman? [0:20:06] Uh, 560220. [0:20:09] Okay, that is not the one I have. [0:20:10] That's not the one you have? [0:20:11] No, sir. Um. [0:20:14] Do you have an extra one? [0:20:19] I think there's one. [0:20:25] Thank you, Senator Moore. [0:20:34] Yes, Mr. Chair. I'm looking at Senate Bill 216, LC560220. Um, what this bill does is it, uh, allows for those working in the, uh, Prosecuting Attorney's Qualification Commission. If you look on line 15, uh, on or after July 1, 2026, each of those individuals, um, would become a member of this retirement system, and this retirement system is speaking of the, um, Judicial Retirement System, um, provided that they have been employed as of June 30, 2026, if they are not already a member of the, the retirement system. [0:21:14] It's clearing up some issues with where these individuals would actually be placed. Um, it discusses, um, the notif- notice, notifies the board of such election, pays the retirement system the remaining amount. So if they had not already joined into the system, they would be required to reach out to the board and pay any, um, past due dues in order to catch up and become whole in the retirement system. So it gives them the opportunity if they were a member of the, uh, ERS and then they were pulled into the Prosecutorial Qualifications Commission, they would g- be given the opportunity to transfer over into the new retirement system. [0:21:55] And with that, I'll ask, I'll stand for any questions, Mr. Chairman. [0:21:58] Okay, thank you. I have a question, number 10. [0:22:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Senator. [0:22:03] And you too. [0:22:04] Uh, Senator, one simple question. Is it not true that if I vote yes on your bill today, that I'm expressing no opinion on the underlying constitutionality of the commission itself? [0:22:15] That is absolutely true. [0:22:17] Thank you, Senator. [0:22:17] Thank you. Yes, sir. [0:22:19] Any, any other member have any questions? [0:22:27] Thank you. [0:22:33] And we have someone that's signed up to speak on 216. Keep your seat, Senator Roberson. [0:22:40] Yes, sir. [0:22:41] Mr. Ian Heap. Ian Heap, is that correct? Yes, sir. If you'd have a seat there. [0:22:48] Hey. [0:22:48] Hey. [0:22:49] My name's Ian Heap. I am actually the, uh, director of the PAQC. I just- [0:22:54] If you'll speak close to the microphone so we'll be sure and pick you up. Thank you, sir. [0:22:58] I apologize. [0:22:59] No, that's quite all right. [0:23:00] My name is Ian Heap. I am the director of the PAQC. Uh, I came just in case there were any questions. I'm not gonna belabor your time. You have quite a bit of work to do today, but if you had any questions, I'd be happy to answer. I also have materials if you wanna read it, but I dropped them all off at your office two weeks ago, so thank you. [0:23:21] Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for being here today, sir. Does anybody have, uh, any questions of the author? [0:23:30] Well. [0:23:31] Uh, Senator Mangham. [0:23:34] Uh, to the distinguished gentleman, uh, approximately how many people would be affected by this, uh, Senator Roberson? [0:23:43] I'd, I'd ask the director to address that. [0:23:46] 20 minutes. [0:23:47] Only one currently, but the, the point is for the future because of the applicant pool that we hope to draw from. Ideally, we would have district attorneys or solicitors general or maybe a judge, uh, apply for the position. The position's been open and advertised for twice. We had about four or five applicants. I don't wanna be any way, but I'm like the best they could do, and they had to re- uh, recruit me. Um- [0:24:14] And I'm supposed to set this up for success. Uh-huh. And so we need, when I go, and I'm not gonna be here forever, we need a district attorney or a solicitor general or a judge at least in the applicant pool. [0:24:30] Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to this when I got a question. [0:24:33] So I guess that answers your one- [0:24:35] Uh, Senator Hufstetler [0:24:36] ... one arrow in the future going forward. [0:24:38] I don't know that this... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This might be for Jim or whoever, but I see where the, uh, ERS when this employee leaves is gonna have accrued liability of, uh, 86,000 and a higher contribution rate. I'm trying to figure out for just one person why it's that much. [0:24:57] It's a high-paid individual as well. [0:24:59] If you'll come up to one of the microphones, Mr. Poplin, please. [0:25:02] Sure. [0:25:02] Thank you. [0:25:05] Yeah, you're good. Um, I would guess it's because this is a fairly highly paid individual, and all the contributions, uh, made on his behalf and by him would be removed from the system. [0:25:20] But the, but the liability for him being in the RS goes away as well, doesn't it? [0:25:24] It does. Um, and this'll be a quirk of how they calculate the liability. Um, the way typically the actuary evaluations are done for each individual that's in a plan, you evaluate the likelihood that they are gonna become vested, that they are gonna retire, that they're gonna retire- [0:25:39] Sure [0:25:39] ... at a certain time, right? I don't know this person's age. I don't know how long they've been in the system or anything like that. But presumably, that amount of liability is lower than the assets that would be transferred, uh, on their behalf, and so that would, that would be why there'd be a, a liability increase to the system. [0:25:55] Okay. Okay. Thank you, Jim. Anybody else have any questions or to the author? [0:26:07] Senator Goodman, you're recognized. [0:26:10] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion to do pass Senate Bill 216, LC56-0220. [0:26:17] Second. [0:26:20] Second. [0:26:20] We have a second from Senator McLaren. Any discussions? Any questions? All in favor say aye. [0:26:28] Aye. [0:26:29] Aye. [0:26:29] Any opposed, light sign. So carried. Thank you. And while you're sitting there, go ahead with your second bill, Senator Robertson, if you will. [0:26:38] Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yes, sir. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I hope, uh, the committee chair has received the, uh, the letter from, uh, DOAA, um, from the state auditors and pertaining to the next piece of legislation. What this next piece of legislation does is it adds a surcharge onto, um, telephones here in the State of Georgia, um, and directs that s- public safety support surcharge to the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund for the benefit of their membership. [0:27:11] Um, I'm reading off of, uh, LC56-0625-S, which is a substitute for SB 285. And, um, just one quick second. Senator. If Juan is in here. [0:27:30] I am. [0:27:30] Yeah. [0:27:30] I'm here. [0:27:31] Okay. Juan. [0:27:38] Yep. Mr. Chairman, uh, last year we were looking at, uh, for several years we've been looking at trying to address shortfalls in, in ERS and other pension programs that are employee supported. And in conversations we had with, uh, Mr. Homer Bryson, who is the executive director of the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund, we discovered that, um, the revenues were not keeping up with what we anticipate in the future to be more retirements within the public safety community. We also discovered that there are many law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Georgia that do not have a retirement plan, that do not have a pension plan. [0:28:16] I was blessed enough to work for a large agen- agency that had a defined benefit plan. But what we started discovering throughout rural Georgia is there were a lot of law enforcement agencies that did not have a formal retirement plan, and we even discovered some that did not pay into Social Security. So what this was, what this was doing is individuals that were able to continue working in law enforcement were doing that into their 60s and 70s. And we found that not to be, um, very beneficial for public safety to have somebody at that age, and, and I am one of those people that I'm in my 60s, um, and I'm not the man I used to be when it comes to running, jumping, rolling, and fighting. [0:28:54] So, um, what we decided was to look into a way that we could help support this fund. And in conversations we had with Ms. Chatham, uh, we came up with a, um, a funding source that would not only, um, help benefit the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund, but also give individuals around the State of Georgia an opportunity to help contribute to that. And so what we did is, um, there would be a, um... And, and I, I'd, I just received the substitute back from LegCouncil, and they've been working, uh, I hate to say, but extremely diligently on this over the past week or so. [0:29:31] But what it does is it adds a, um, it adds a fee to most telecommunications devices here in the State of Georgia. It avoids going into the 911 funds due to it would be more expensive for them to process the fees coming into 911 than it would be for us to go directly to the source and then have it in the form of a fee go directly to the POAB, thereby avoiding the monster that we know as state government. So, um, by doing that, we would be able to put a substantial amount of funding annually into this fund, not only stabilizing the fund, but giving it the opportunity to grow as, as, as we move on in making, um, law enforcement, public safety, a more desirable career for the men and women that we need to supply the thousands of, uh, first responders that are needed to help keep our state safe. [0:30:22] And I'm happy to talk about anything. And, uh- Ronda's here, and I also have, um, Mr. Homer Bryson from POAB's here also. [0:30:29] Okay. Let's see, number 10, you have a question? [0:30:33] I do. Senator. [0:30:34] Yes, sir. [0:30:35] Uh, the winds have suddenly shifted. Um, do you yield for a handful of questions? [0:30:39] I do. [0:30:40] Thank you. So wanna start by saying I fully support enhancing retirement for the benefits for the POAB and our first responders who put their lives on the line. It is sad. I mean, it's, it's actually shameful that we don't have a more robust retirement for everybody we're talking about. Um, we also... It's no, you know, mystery to anybody, I think we chronically underfund our state government across the board. I gave a speech about that today. Now, in terms of the monster of state government, however, I, I believe we're sitting in the belly of that monster right now in standing committee considering state legislation. [0:31:12] So I guess my question is, why are we funding this through a consumer tax of $1 on every phone as opposed to resorting to the appropriations process where we can take people more able to pay than consumers and fund it through that mechanism instead? [0:31:30] Well, currently, um, we fund the firefighter fund through home insurance, which makes sense if you think about the primary mission of firefighters, which is to protect property and, and homes where they would respond to a house fire or something like that. So it seems to marry up well that a homeowner's policy would help support the fire service behind there. Everybody in the state of Georgia, when they are in need of a first responder, primarily a law enforcement officer, they use their telephone to do that. [0:32:00] And the quickest way, the cleanest way to avoid the bureaucracy that is government is to have them pay that fee on the phone, and then that fee would be collected by the clients of, uh, Ms. Chatham, and then be directly remitted to the Peace Officers' and Benefit Fund, since the phone is the primary communication device between law enforcement and the citizens we serve and protect. [0:32:22] I, I can understand the argument about phones being linked somehow to use of 911. I think my concern in a year like this, where affordability is on everybody's minds, is that voters feel pretty nickel-and-dimed. And when we're, you know, we're, we're having these conversations in the state legislature about income tax, property tax repeal, handing back billions of dollars of state revenues that come from diversified sources because we, quote-unquote, "don't need them." And I think this is a room full of people who recognize the value that state revenues we already have serve. [0:32:53] And so my concern, and the reason I am gonna vote no today, is not because I disagree with the goal. I fully support the goal, but I think we need to be finding ways to use state revenues that are more elevated, that are more appropriate than taxing consumers on basically sales tax on consumers' uses of phones. Thank you. [0:33:11] Well, and, and I, and I appreciate your argument. Several years ago, my, when I was chairing this committee, myself and, um, Senator, uh, Orrock, uh, worked on a fiscal note, and we reached out and found out to accommodate a lot of the problems that we needed to accommodate, it would be about a billion dollars a year. And individuals at the time thought, "Well, that's great. We've got ever how many billions of dollars in reserves." Well, I think my, uh, good friend, uh, from the 52nd would tell you that reserves only last as long as reserves last. [0:33:44] And so what we needed to find was a sustainable, uh, source of revenue to help sustain this plan so that not only could we take care of those who have, who have done the job and already s- retired, those that are currently on the job and look forward to retiring, which I do wanna point out, uh, each law enforcement officer that is a member of this plan pays a monthly premium into this plan. This plan is not funded by a single tax dollar here in the state of Georgia. [0:34:15] This, this fund is funded by, um, by the, um, the, the, the members of the plan themselves and wise investments are the way it's, way it's managed. And it is not sustainable with the number of people we have out there now. The plan is healthy, but it's not as healthy as it should be. And in looking at all other sources, and we did look deep into 911. Um, but every citizen that I have spoken to, non-public safety citizen I've spoken to, and I ask them, "What is the value of picking up the phone and calling for a first responder, whether it's an ambulance, whether it's a fire truck, whether it's a patrol car?" And I even ask some of them, "If it's a dog catcher, what is the value that you're willing to pay?" And the number was much greater than a dollar. [0:35:02] Uh, some of them said, "I would pay $5 a month." Some said $10 a month. But seeing as how I'm not the one to commit fiscal suicide, I felt that the single dollar was the safest thing to do. [0:35:13] And I appreciate it. And I think last thing I'll say, uh, Mr. Chairman, is just I think many voters understand, taxpayers understand the idea of paying for value. I think what most voters are asking themselves right now is whether everybody in society is paying their fair share. And I think before we put another tax on consumers, I think consumers will wanna know if there was really an attempt to get other folks to pay their fair share. Thank you, Senator. [0:35:35] Well, I appreciate you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that one man's fee could be another man's tax. In this case right here, it is a fee. It is not a tax. [0:35:43] Okay. Thank you. Senator Goodman, you're recognized. [0:35:46] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Wipp, how many times have I called you about this bill when I get back to South Georgia? And, and, uh, how many times have I called you to ask you about where we were at with this? [0:35:58] As many times as I've answered. You and I have had, you and I have had conversations ad nauseam about this, but not only this, not only the, not only the money for first responders, but the money toward the, um, the general government employees who were short-changed back in 2008 and continue to struggle with the rising economy. Uh, you, myself, the chairman of this committee, along with, uh, President Pro Tem Larry Walker, have, uh, have addressed, and along with Senator Nan Orrock, have addressed this many times with everything from law enforcement officers to bus drivers to cafeteria workers to maintenance people to the people that take care of the building that we're sitting in today. [0:36:37] We have had these conversations many, many times, and it has been long overdue for us to get aggressive and forceful about taking care of the men and women, not only that currently take care of this government today, but the ones that have taken care of it in the past and the ones that will take care of it in the future. But you and I have had many, many conversations about this, sir. [0:36:55] And I appreciate you always answering, and I, uh, really, I thank you for your leadership on this. I mean, honestly, I, when I get home, I've, I've, I've fielded so many calls from not just constituents, but close friends that have been watching your work on this very diligently. And, um, I'm just thankful that, uh, that you've kind of been the champion of it. You know, I'm, I'm getting ready Sunday to go to a funeral for Caleb Abney, a 25-year-old kid that died on I-75 when he was doing a routine traffic stop. And, um, you know, he was gonna get married in April. [0:37:28] So these folks, um, our law enforcement officers, first responders, they, they put their lives on the line every day, and we need to do what we can to take care of them. And, uh, Mr. Chairman, whenever you deem it is appropriate, I'd like to make the motion to do pass. [0:37:43] Okay. I've got one other question. Number five. [0:37:47] Yeah. Thank you, uh, Senator. [0:37:50] Thank you, Senator. [0:37:50] Um, I, uh, again, I do support the concept of making sure our law enforcement is taken care of. I am deeply concerned, however, uh, particularly, like, seniors on fixed income, any dollar out of their pocket. There are some people on federal government phones, cannot af- cannot afford a phone. So i- I don't know how much revenue you're trying to raise, but can we at least exempt, uh, some of those people? [0:38:21] Because I am concerned about affordability, and I am deeply disappointed that we are taxing... I call it a tax, 'cause whenever you take some money out of my pocket and the government says I gotta give it up, that's a tax. Uh, whether you call it a fee or tax. But I, I wanna just applaud that I can always count on the senator from the [0:38:47] 29th- [0:38:48] Yes, sir [0:38:48] ... to stand up for law enforcement. I wanna applaud you for that, 'cause that's needed. And I wanna just say, I don't wanna kill your bill, but I am deep- deeply disappointed that we are here and the state does not put the money in the budget to support these officers that put their lives on the line, that die. I had a young guy out in my community recently pass, and it, it, it, uh, I'm just deeply disappointed that we're turning, we're not getting the money out of the revenue, a revenue that when I was here 15 years ago, the budget has more than doubled. [0:39:27] And, and we need to put some money back in the people that are protecting and serving our people. Thank you. [0:39:34] Uh, thank you, Senator. I appreciate that, and I mean this with all due respect. Disappointment doesn't put a dime in anybody's pension plan, but action does, and this piece of legislation right here is action, and it's, it's long overdue. I agree with you that. It's time to move, and we're moving. Um- [0:39:48] It, it, it- [0:39:49] And, and, and I think I can help you with one of your concerns. [0:39:51] Yeah, and I probably need to, um, ask ledge counsel, uh, specifically, but I know originally when we were talking about this bill last year, there was some language about, uh, exempting lifeline customers. Ben, do you know if that was left in this, um... I know it exempts federal and state, and so that might take care of, those are probably deemed federal, but, you know, I'm, that's, that's not my area. [0:40:12] I'm just concerned, I'm gonna be affordability to- [0:40:13] But I know lifeline originally... Yeah, lifeline was originally in there, uh, um, as that. So I need- [0:40:20] Yeah. I believe it's still in there. [0:40:22] Okay. [0:40:23] And we can look at that moving forward. [0:40:25] Thank you. [0:40:25] If that needs to be in there- [0:40:26] Thank you [0:40:26] ... we can, we can work with that. [0:40:29] Senator Goodman, you're recognized at this time. [0:40:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion do pass on SB 285, LC 56,0625S. [0:40:43] I'll second it. [0:40:45] Have a motion and a second. [0:40:47] Mr.- [0:40:47] Number 10, you have a- [0:40:49] Mr. Chairman [0:40:49] ... discussion. [0:40:50] Oh, I was- [0:40:51] Okay, discussion. [0:40:52] If, if the author wants to close, we can- Yeah. No, no, I did not want to close, Mr. Chairman. Okay. If I could, I was gonna give Ms. Chatham an opportunity on her, to, to make a statement for her, all of her clients that have, have talked about this. I think it'll clear up maybe something, somewhere- [0:41:03] Sure, go ahead [0:41:03] ... if that's proper under discussion. [0:41:05] Uh, hello, members of the committee. I'm Rhonda Chatham, and I, uh, represent the rural telephone and broadband providers. And when Senator Robertson originally brought this measure last year and started discussing with some of the telecom providers about this, um, I obviously took this back to my members, and they were, um, you know, s- actually very in support of this. And the main reason that they are is we are, we're a little bit different. We're obviously rural providers, and we're embedded within our communities. And our infrastructure is actually the most important asset that we have. [0:41:35] And when you're a small company, your infrastructure is, is, you know, very, very important. And we're a- we're asking not only law enforcement to answer phone calls from the general public, but we're also, as providers, um, we're also asking this law enforcement to protect our infrastructure. Critical infrastructure has been a very big topic in the last few years about all sorts of cybersecurity as much as, you know, just attacks on critical infrastructure. And so my members were very, um, interested in helping Senator Robertson to make sure that anything we can do to incentivize good people, especially in rural areas, uh, they wanted to do that. [0:42:14] We also think that if you take the dollar fee and you put it on every type so it's neutral across technologies, the risk of losing customers is much less. Most everybody has a phone, um, and so you're al- you know, you're almost encountering everyone to have that. So that was our position and why we were willing to support the bill. [0:42:35] Okay, Senator McLaurin. [0:42:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just, I, I think this is a worthy reflection, uh, for the whole body sort of on this issue and all issues. I mean, I gave a speech about this from the well today, but I think broadly there's two philosophies that are competing with each other for how we should fund a project like this, which again, everyone on this panel completely agrees we should be funding the POAB. The, the issue comes down to the philosophy of should we be moving through the state appropriations process, uh, which has diverse revenue sources and comes from a fair base where with a progressive taxation system, with higher brackets for the people who can afford to pay more, or should it be a essentially a flat sales tax on consumption? [0:43:18] And what we know is that consumption taxes disproportionately fall on people with lower incomes and wealth more. And so, you know, this is a policy choice. It's a choice to fund essential government, needed government through a consumption tax that disproportionately affects some people as opposed to others. I think there's a general reluctance on the majority side right now to use the state appropriations process and to act like it's a bad thing or forbidden or, you know, a monster or that it, or we shouldn't trust the general appropriations process. But it's there for a reason, and I think that most people in a year like this are not gonna want us to resort to consumption taxes to fund essential priorities of government. [0:43:56] So that's why I'll be voting no on the bill today. [0:43:58] Yeah, and Mr. Chairman, if I could, I wanna make one thing clear, and I, maybe I didn't make it clear to the senator, uh, Senator McLaurin early on. This plan is not funded by the government now. I've got a room full of people sitting behind me that are suffering now because of a government-funded pension plan. This plan is funded by the men and women of law enforcement. This plan is funded by people that allow money to come out of their checks every two weeks, money they could be using for other things in their household, but they put it toward a pension plan. And we have partnered up with a group of people who have chosen to support us. [0:44:32] That's the reason. If we allow the state government to start funding the POAB, then someday the fe- the, or excuse me, the state government, then at some point the state government, whoever's in charge, may not think it's that important. It may stop funding it or stall, or draw money from it, which I think you can look behind me and see what happens when they do that. This is the best way to fund anything like this. The, the law enforcement members of this fund, while we appreciate our state government, we thank them a lot for not helping us. We've got it under control if they will just let us manage our funding the best way, even though we have to come to them and ask permission to do things like this. [0:45:08] We're happy to do that because it's the right thing to do, and we can articulate the reasons why it needs to be done this way. And while I appreciate the senator, he's a good friend. We came in together, and, uh, we're not going out together, but we came in together. Um, but, um, in this particular case, uh, I, I, I, I think, um, there's a little bit of confusion about where this comes in, so. [0:45:29] I want to do a quick poll. I think we have people in here that have not had a cola in 18 years. How many of y'all would pay $1 on your phone bill to supplement? [0:45:42] Thank you. We have a motion and a second on the floor. We end the discussion. All in favor, raise your right hand. [0:45:51] All opposed, likewise. So carried. [0:45:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:45:56] Thank you. [0:45:57] Thank you, committee. [0:46:02] Okay. Senator Goodman, you can present your bill from where you- [0:46:07] Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman [0:46:08] ... are sitting if you'd like. [0:46:09] Which, uh, we've got our probate judge's bill, correct? [0:46:13] Uh-huh, 489. [0:46:14] Yes, sir. So, um... [0:46:23] Here we go. [0:46:27] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, I have a, uh, I have a cousin that is the probate judge in Cook County, Georgia. And so, uh, when it comes to, uh, matters of, uh, uh, trying to get things done for the probate judges, he reaches out to me and asks me to carry this bill. And, uh, basically, the probate judges that w- when we pass constitutional carry, the pistol permits or concealed carry, whatever you wanna call it, uh, that, those, those fees were a portion of what went into, uh, funding the retirement. [0:47:02] Um, and they've seen, actually since 2022 when we passed it, they've seen a 60% decrease, um, in applications. And an actuarial forecast shows that with this lost revenue, the fund will fall below the 100% funded mark within the next five years. Um, enhancing court fees supports a fully self-funded retirement model. And so the bill proposes the following: um, revised member dues from a set amount of $105 to a range between 105 and 150 in which the board may adjust dues to meet actuarial recommendations, increase marriage license fees from 20% to 25%, increase civil filing fee from $2 to $5, and increase bond forfeiture and fine fee from three to $5. [0:47:46] And, um, I have, uh, my dear friend Homer Bryson here. He came into the office most of this morning, and I, I'd asked him to, to get a, a nu- so numbers here for me. Um, the concealed carry permits in fiscal year '21 yielded about $359,000. Um, of course, we passed constinut- constitutional carry in 2022. Um, in fiscal year '25 it was $126,000, which was a decrease of $233,000. And I believe, um, Mr. [0:48:17] Homer can testify the total amount's like $1.3 million or something like that. So you can imagine a $233,000 decrease is significant in that matter. And so, um, I'll be glad to answer any questions. Um, uh, Mr. Homer, uh, be glad to answer any questions as well. Um, but that's what, just what this bill is, and appreciate the committee's kind consideration. [0:48:40] Any member have any questions of the author? [0:48:47] Mr. Bryson, have you ever been a probate judge? [0:48:50] No, sir, I have not. But I have a probate judge here with me. I want to introduce ours. [0:48:52] Yes, you do. One of my good ones. [0:48:55] Let me introduce Mike Green, who is the chair of our, uh, Probate Judges Retirement System, and I'm, I'm sure many of you up here know Mike. [0:49:03] I do. One of my constituents. A good friend for many, many years. Thank you for your years of service too, Mike. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any member have any question? [0:49:17] The chair will entertain a motion at this time. [0:49:20] Make a motion to do pass. [0:49:22] Have a motion do pass. [0:49:25] Second. [0:49:25] And a second. Any discussion, any questions? All in favor say hi. [0:49:31] Hi. [0:49:32] Any opposed like, sign. So carried. Thank you. [0:49:35] Thank y'all. [0:49:36] Thank you, sir. Thank you. Senator Orrock, you're on stage. You want to sit here at your seat, uh, you're welcome to if you'd like. [0:49:44] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, appreciate the, uh, committee's attention to Senate Bill 339 last year when we prioritized this bill as our number one priority, uh, for, for two year retirement bills. And, uh, then we were heartened to, uh, um, r- receive the, uh, uh, actuarial, uh, report. And, uh, I believe you have that in front of you. This essentially, uh, is a bill to address what, uh, I, I, I think is a, um, um, um, really a moral mandate, uh, and that is to honor the commitment that was made to those who j- came on board as state employees, worked a lifetime in that career, retired with the promise of, uh, a, uh, 3% COLA, and were startled to learn that that had been pulled out from under them, uh, in, uh, 200-, uh, 8, in the Great Recession. [0:50:49] And, and since then, uh, the, the retirees' p- pension value has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk, which is exactly what happens when you don't have a COLA. Uh, and, um, i- i- this has gone on, ups and downs, uh, ins and outs, uh, uh, a constant refrain that, "Well, we just can't do this." Uh, and I would point out, um, the committee's been very solidly supportive of, of taking steps to restore COLAs. [0:51:21] Uh, this bill would do that. Uh, it, it, it is, uh, uh, long overdue, and I think it puts the question squarely before us, uh, if, if we're going to do the right thing and look at our surpluses, look at our revenue streams, and, uh, m- make up our minds that we are going to, um, fulfill the state's long-standing commitment to its retirees. And we can all share, I'm sure, all, uh, uh, uh, I certainly can and, and many, uh, many other colleagues in the House and the Senate, uh, have heard from, from, uh, constituents who have to make hard choices about, uh, reducing y- y- your medicine, re- re- re- re- uh, depending on children and grandchildren to help you carry the load of, uh... [0:52:11] And, and not having a golden years of retirement, but in fact, uh, a constant worry about how to meet the, the, the bills that one has to just keep, keep, keep, uh, the lights on and, uh, hang on till, uh, we're called to a- a- another place. So I would, I would, uh, welcome the support for this bill. And I know there, there, uh, with very limited time, we, we were g- uh, have the opportunity to hear from, uh, uh, a, a very, very few speakers. [0:52:47] But we have a huge turnout today- [0:52:49] Mm-hmm [0:52:49] ... of people who have heeded the call, and particularly, uh, the law enforcement community has stepped up and said, "We're here. We served. We got a COLA re- uh, removed from us. When are y'all gonna fix this?" And that's, that's the question, I think, before the, the state government of Georgia, and we have, uh, an opportunity to do that today. Thank you. [0:53:11] Okay. Thank you. Let's, uh... Did you have a question or anything? [0:53:16] Um, we have, I'd like to... Do you want me to wait with mine a minute? [0:53:21] Sure. Yeah. [0:53:22] Okay. [0:53:22] 'Cause got a couple speakers. [0:53:23] 'Cause we might be the only one speaking after this. [0:53:25] Okay. Got a couple of speakers. Let's see. Mr. Chuck Clay, if you'll come up front and center. And, uh, we've got, um, a lot of other... [0:53:39] Uh, this will be... I, I'm not here to read any of this stuff to you. I'm just trying to, uh, uh, uh, make a point. But let me sit down very briefly. Uh, my name's Chuck Clay. I have the honor of representing the state retirees of Georgia. Uh, you know, I spent, uh, uh, probably the proudest times of my professional life, I spent six years as an assistant DA working for the State of Georgia. I spent, uh, 12 years in the Senate here. You know, and don't, no comment on, uh, what value or, or merit I brought to it. Uh, I wore this pin today as, as a solidarity to show. [0:54:12] This came from Max Cleland. Has nothing on it but the state seal. And then you know the words, wisdom, justice, moderation. [0:54:20] And courage. [0:54:21] And we're here seeking justice. [0:54:23] And courage. [0:54:23] And I'm gonna... Um, and, uh, a- before I say a word, 'cause these folks are all here. If you're a retiree, stand up. If you're, if you're a law enforcement retiree, raise your right hand. If you've been injured in the line of duty as a law enforcement, raise your other hand. [0:54:41] Oh, my goodness. Look there. [0:54:44] Look at that. If that doesn't move your heart, I don't know what would. So very briefly, and I can make about two points, three points. Um- You know, years ago, and I do, uh, I told, uh, Senator Orrock this the other day, my mother used to remind me, "Remember, Chuck, a little of you can go a long way." So adhering to my mother's admonition, I'm gonna get to the point straightforward and move. Um, you know, years ago, uh, I was a proud member of the AFL-CIO out in Honolulu. Uh, got a great package out there, benefits, pay. [0:55:14] Uh, how did we get it? Collective bargaining. And it's tough. Collective bargaining. Well, guess what these folks don't have a right to? Collective bargaining. You know what their, the thin red line is, or I like to see the, a red and black thin line? You guys. You're the ones who speak for them. You're the ones that make your voice heard at the General Assembly. You're the ones that give voice to, in many cases, the voiceless because of age, cost of living, infirmities, and a variety of reasons. Folks getting out of their way today. They're, they're not, these are not statistics, folks. [0:55:47] They're not some graph. They are human beings. They're your friends. You see them at the barber shops, the salon, the Kroger, wherever it might be. You sit with them in church and sit in the stands at a ballpark and watch the grandkids play baseball, like I do. Uh, and, and I know you're proud of each and every one of them. Uh, but I really just wanna say one or two quick points. Number one, this is not adversarial. We're here amongst friends. And I'd be remiss if I didn't turn around and... Where's Mr. Potten? Jim and his staff right here, these are outstanding public service. [0:56:21] We disagree on some factors of the, uh, funding formula for COLAs, but I will tell you, after 40 years, I don't know of any staff that has been more accessible, more transparent, and even more willing to say no, uh, knowing we'll come back again hoping he'll say yes. Uh, but they're a tribute, 'cause one day they're gonna be sitting in this audience out here, and, and they know it. So thanks to them. They do a great job. So we're not here. We're amongst friends trying to get to an intended result. And, uh, uh, you know, I, I, I, I, I'd be remiss also if we didn't say thankful for a few of the things you said and done prior. [0:56:55] 150 million three years ago. 36 million the past couple years for a direct COLA, uh, check benefit to folks. There's 100 million in the supplemental budget. We asop and assume if it's in the supplemental budget, that'll be distributed COLAs. Deeply thankful. Those are fine responses, but that's not the answer, and what Senator Orrock has already stated, uh, is the, uh, uh, is, is the answer. And I've note- W- My second point of this is I've heard around here, not from you guys, occasionally there's this idea, "Well, the retirees don't pay in as much as the teachers." Well, we weren't asked, we were told. [0:57:28] Like we were, uh, told we weren't gonna get any COLAs anymore. But unlike others, you know, we bit the bullet. These retirees 17 years ago in the times of recession, uh, didn't complain. They buckled up, they hitched up their britches, and they tried to work. 50% of their, uh, value later, uh, we got folks from the middle class now in poverty and having to make decisions, life and death, uh, keeping the lights on and power and all these things you heard. You know the stories. You've heard them all, and I don't, I don't, I don't need to re- um, um, um, repeat, uh, each and every one of those. [0:58:00] Uh, but who is a- who is actually given? Well, if this, uh, you know, let me just make a simple point. If these same group of people, 54,000 now, uh, if this same group of people had received that 3% from the time it was ceased to the day it is now, that'd be over $3 billion. Where'd that money go? [0:58:20] Mm-hmm. [0:58:20] It went in the fund. Who's given more to build up and reduce that fund liability than the workers? But remember, the fund, uh, the fund was desired, designed to benefit retirees, not the other way around. And we're now in a time of, of great fiscal largesse, if you will, billions of dollars in there. You don't make that decision. That's from the second floor. But it's time to say not only thank you, but do it in a m- way that's meaningful and sends a clear and obvious message. [0:58:54] If you took that $3 billion and assumed 90% of it would be back in your local economy, that may not have mattered so much in Atlanta, but I can tell you in rural counties like Baldwin County, they're still feeling the repercussions of sucking that money out, and it went into the fund, where it should've gone in recession. That balance which was tilted up towards, up towards the fund stability, building the fund up, has now gotten to the point with the amount of money the state of Georgia's collected, it's time to shift that scale of justice to justice, and that means returning some dollars out there in a meaningful, ongoing way to the workers who made the state of Georgia what it is. [0:59:31] And I don't give a hoot and heck whether they put their life on the line every day, or you worked 30 years as a DNR making it the finest damn department in the, in the United States of America for what it done, uh, for what they do, and it goes across every department out here. So I wanna say, who's put in more of the sweat equity? And I just want to leave you to say, you know, you got these folks out here who've given their blood, sweat, toil, and tears, and you know that as well as I do. Uh, what are we asking for? We're asking for a stake in the sand, a stake in the ground that says we can. [1:00:03] And let me tell you something. It is important, it is about money, but if we got a bill out there that made a statement, and we have to come back in the future and ask for money, at least we got a direction to point to. But more important, and I'm gonna leave you with this, you got an opportunity to give them something very, very precious. And everybody, reach over to your left and pat your heart. If you don't know, if you can't, if you, if, if you wonder whether you have one, reach down and check your pulse. I know you do. Uh, if you wanna do something that speaks to your heart, it's one word. It's called hope. [1:00:34] If you give these men and women hope, you give them a ho- the idea that they can address and have hope to f- deal with their families, their futures, and the dignity, and the dignity that you all committed in this General Assembly to provide these men and women the lifestyle that they had earned over 20, 30, 35 years of service in any capacity whatsoever. I leave you with two words: justice and hope. Thank you very much. [1:00:59] Amen. [1:01:00] You're on. [1:01:00] Thank you. [1:01:08] Thank you. Mr. Potvin, would you like to, uh... You're signed up to speak. [1:01:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. [1:01:29] January 1st, 2009 is when the current tier of the retirement system was effective. That's-- We call it GSEP's Tier 3. That's a hybrid system with a reduced pension and a 401plan. I know some of you were here during the debate that led to the passage of the bill that enabled the GSEP's tier. And those of you who were here will remember that there was a very loud voice that said, "We don't want defined benefit plans, period." The objective was to eliminate defined benefit pensions from Georgia government, at least the ERS. [1:02:11] GSEP's represented a compromise to that. Just so happened that the second market crash of a dec- in a decade happened around that same time, 2008, 2009. Dotcom crash in 2000 timeframe, and then the, the Great Recession crash, 2008, 2009. And at that point, something had to be done in order to maintain the stability of the system. I'm here to tell you all, I am determined that I will not be the director that sees the defined benefit portion of ERS go away. [1:02:51] And every decision that we've made has had to balance the idea that, yes, we have benefits to pay to our members and retirees. By the way, I have members and retirees that I'm gonna be paying. It won't be me, but that the ERS will be paying seventy-five years from now that are currently in the system. I have a responsibility to them, too. If the system goes away, it won't be there for them. [1:03:18] I'm not gonna let that happen. [1:03:22] Cost of a COLA, a three percent COLA. I know we're, we're, we're sort of skipping past this, right? We've got a lot of suffering out there. I acknowledge that. I agree with the, the description of the problem, okay? Not anti-COLA. Um, but at some point, the rubber has to hit the road on this stuff, right? There needs to be dollars available to do this. People think, "Well, we've got a twenty billion dollar trust fund. There must be dollars there." No, those dollars are spoken for. Never before in the history of our plan have we had money set aside upfront for COLAs, including all those years when we were getting three percent COLAs back in the day. [1:04:01] That only started happening five years ago. [1:04:07] Cost of a single three percent COLA runs around four hundred million dollars in unfunded liability. Some of that is now taken care of because we're receiving that hundred and fifty million that I heard, uh, referred to earlier, and that's great. And I, and I greatly appreciate that, and I hope every day that we're gonna be able to enhance that and do more. But four hundred million dollars is the total, okay? So from 2009 through 2022, we never had any of that funding. [1:04:41] Put together a crude model. I won't share the exact model with you 'cause it's just not ready for prime time. But it, it sort of agrees with the notion, if you add four hundred million dollars a year to your liabilities with no funding to pay for that, then what do you have? You have a growing unfunded liability. You know where our funded ratio would be today? And we've been talking a lot about trying to get to eighty percent, right? We got the, the five hundred million dollar contributions to get us to eighty percent, so our funding formula would work better. You know where we'd be today instead? [1:05:11] We'd be in the fifties. You think we should be paying a three percent COLA when our funded ratio's in the fifties? [1:05:19] That would be highly irresponsible. [1:05:24] Our contributions, we're getting about nine hundred million dollars a year now from the state as part of our regular contributions. Do you know what they would be if we'd been paying COLAs all along? They'd be at least three hundred million dollars higher than that, and we'd still have a funded ratio in the fifties. [1:05:44] There's a practical element to this that as policymakers I know you understand and need to help balance. That's where we've come from. And look, in the last five years, we've made enormous strides. I never thought that I would get pre-funding after ten years of being a director, and it never happened. Never thought it would happen, and then it did. We're at a hundred and fifty million dollars a year. So what we're able to do with that, we're able to begin, and I use the word begin, to create a model that will help us to determine what is responsible for us to pay as COLAs in any given year. [1:06:22] That model is responsive to the funding status of the system, that model is responsive to recent investment results, and that model is responsive to the in- inflation rate. All things that need to be taken into account when you're dealing with matters of finance. [1:06:41] As we improve the funding coming into the system, I can improve the model. Model's never in its current form meant to be the answer. I have never, ever advertised it as such. It is a framework. It is a starting point that we need to incrementally improve over time. I agree with all of you guys on that. There's no question that not having the ability to pay COLAs is a hole in the system, and I want that to be improved But I will tell you that the mechanism by which this bill does that is, is not in alignment with the way that I would view it. [1:07:25] A mandated COLA is one that takes away the ability of the board to manage its system. And if we had had not had that ability in 2009, then we would have a 50-something percent funded system today. And that to me is not an acceptable outcome. [1:07:46] We all saw the actuary report on this bill. It's four billion plus dollars. If we have that kind of money available to put toward COLAs, I can build you a fabulous model. I know, already know how it would look. [1:08:04] All I need is the funding to do it. I don't need a bill. We don't even need that bill. We can save everybody a lot of time here. It's really all it comes down to. At the end of the day, we need to have the funding in order to pay the benefits. [1:08:18] And the board has to be able to manage its system the way it needs to manage it to preserve it, not just for current retirees, but for those who are coming behind, who are already here, who are already working for the state delivering those same services. [1:08:37] Thank you. I'd be happy to take questions. [1:08:38] Thank you, Mr. Pipan. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Pipan? I wanna thank you and your staff for all the work that you do, and I know that you're dedicated, and you work very hard. My wife won't even let me have the checkbook anymore. [1:08:52] Mine either. [1:08:53] But, uh, I, I thank y'all for what you do, and I know you're a lot of dedicated people, and, and I appreciate everything. Um, Senator Goodman, you're recognized. [1:09:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, um, down in, down in rural South Georgia, uh, you know, we, uh, one thing that my dad and my granddaddy always taught me is that, uh, you know, a man's supposed to do what he says he's gonna do. And, uh, there's a, a gentleman by the name of Foster Smith. And Mr. Foster, I go to church with him every Sunday. Mr. Foster was a chief ranger for the Georgia Forestry Commission for 30 years. [1:09:37] For 30 years of his life, he would get called out on Saturdays and Sundays. I live in a very rural county, third largest county in the state, covered by 95% timberland, and he was the chief ranger. 30 years of his life he put in not only to defending people's, protecting people's homes, but also their land, their children's college funds with timber and everything else. He retired, um, after 30 years. [1:10:07] And I see Mr. Foster every Sunday. He's a deacon in the church. Mm-hmm. Past president of the Exchange Club, community-minded, married to Miss Betty. Uh, a fine, fine, fine Christian man. And he retired from the Forestry Commission and, um, went to work with my family. He taught me how to fight forest fire. Taught me a whole lot more than just that. Taught me a lot about w- how to be a, a good dad and a good husband and a good Christian and a, a good man. [1:10:40] He, uh... I owe him way more than I'm ever gonna be able to repay him. I can promise you that. And you're right. There are things sitting in this seat that I'm in that I can't do. If I could, I would. I can't. I don't have a checkbook to give you $4 billion. But in the seat that I'm sitting in today, I have the ability to do one thing, and that is to make a statement and vote to pass this bill out. [1:11:13] So Mr. Chairman, whenever you deem it appropriate, and Mr. Foster, I hope you're watching, and I love you. Whenever you deem it appropriate, I'd like to make an, make a motion to do pass on this bill. [1:11:29] That time is now. [1:11:33] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, at this time, and it is my honor [1:11:44] to make the motion to do pass SB339 LC56-0371. Second. [1:11:51] Second. [1:11:52] Second. [1:11:52] How about if we pass this bill by affirmation? All in favor, s- raise your right hand. Any opposed, like sign. But I don't think there's any opposed. We just pass this bill. [1:12:04] Yeah. [1:12:18] Thank you. [1:12:18] Hello. [1:12:19] Meeting adjourned. Thank you all for being here, and thank you for staying to- [1:12:25] Congratulations. [1:12:26] It's been a long day. Thank y'all.