Senate Retirement Committee, March 3, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1167858314 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1167858314#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-03/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. [0:19:49] Getting started, but, um, we're here, and we're ready to rock and roll. And we're gonna get Reverend McLaren to do us a prayer this morning. [0:19:59] I'd be happy to. Everybody please bow your heads. Lord, we gather this morning in advance of legislative session to do the people's work. We always are guided by your hand, uh, your wisdom, your justice, your moderation in doing this work. We ask that you bless these proceedings and allow us to exercise all of those things in your name. Amen. [0:20:19] Amen. [0:20:20] Thank you. All right, thank y'all this morning. We're, uh, just got two bills this morning. Um, first is Senate Bill 209, Senator Goodman, LC56-0619S. And you can present from there if you'd like to. [0:20:40] No, this is fine, Mr. Chairman, if it suits you all right. [0:20:43] Yes, sir. [0:20:43] Um, so y'all remember, um, when we had this bill in committee last time, we, uh, our, our dear friend, uh, Ben was helping us with some, some changes, uh, because we wanted to make- make it to where, um, the counties or the school boards, um, could choose whether or not they wanted to participate in this. And so, um, Ben graciously put a lot of time into getting that, that figured out, because if we did not, it would be an unfund- unfunded mandate. And so I think we've got that, um, represented in this bill. And, uh, Ms. [0:21:14] Carol, are you back there? Um, you, you ran the numbers and, and I believe it came back at, uh, no, no, uh, cost effect as far as to the system. Is that correct? [0:21:26] Right, yes. [0:21:26] If, if you'll come up to the table, somebody else may have a question for you, if you don't mind, please. [0:21:32] Hey, you. How you doing? [0:21:33] I'm good. [0:21:34] I know you wanna get some airtime on TV this morning. [0:21:38] That's right. [0:21:38] That's what I wanted to do. [0:21:39] The millions of people watching online. [0:21:42] That's right. [0:21:44] Good morning. [0:21:45] Good morning. [0:21:47] All right. [0:21:48] Okay, good morning. [0:21:49] Good. Thank you. Thank you for being here this morning. [0:21:51] You're welcome. So yes, the actuary came back saying that there would be no immediate cost to the, um, to, to the state as a result of this bill, because primarily, um, the, the first driver of this is the election of the school district to decide whether or not they would wanna participate. So because this becomes permissive language, um, there would no longer be an immediate and required or obvious direct cost to the, um, retirement systems. [0:22:20] Okay, thank you. Anybody have any questions for her? Okay. What number are you? [0:22:27] Uh, number 11. [0:22:29] All right. [0:22:29] All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, the, the 29 million in here, um, who would be paying that? Is that coming... And I don't know if Jim's here. He could probably answer that better than any of us if, [0:22:46] if he's willing to talk on it. [0:22:48] I'm not sure where you're looking at. [0:22:51] The, the unfunded liability. Um, you know, there's no immediate cost because we don't owe anything. They, they don't have any, they don't have anything there, so there's no immediate cost, but there's long-term cost to this. Um, and so can, can we allow Jim to speak on this, Mr. Chairman? [0:23:12] Certainly. Be, be glad for him to if you'd like to. If you'd come up to the table, officer. [0:23:16] I'm not sure he would like to, but, um... [0:23:36] Floor is yours, Mr. Potvin. [0:23:38] Well, can I get a sense for what exactly you're asking me? [0:23:42] So, so there's gonna be long-term cost for the employer match to this, correct? [0:23:50] For this bill? Right, yes. [0:23:51] So who, who, who and in what proportion is that coming from? [0:23:56] So I understand it, and this is Teachers Retirement System, so if I misspeak, Jason can, can correct me. Um, for each individual who ultimately elects to become part of the Teachers Retirement System, um, they would be subject to the employee contribution rate, um, which of course they would pay, and the, the employer contribution rate for TRS would also need to be paid. And as I understand it, approximately half of that is funded by the state, and the other half is funded by the local entity. [0:24:29] Yeah. And that's, that's, I guess, some of my concern is, um, we've got a lot of employees under the Employee Retirement System that don't have a defined benefit. They've got a defined contribution, and yet we're picking some people out, and I feel like putting them ahead of our, um, state employees and giving them a defined, uh, benefit. [0:24:59] So I, I, I guess I, I just don't... You know, we, we've kind of shifted away from that, and we've done stuff to, to, you know, obviously make our 401s much better and like that, but I just don't think it's appropriate for the, for the state to increase their funds on this for this particular plan. I mean, the, the T- the TRS is a great plan, and I've supported continuing it and everything, uh, for our teachers, but I think expanding it just brings an unfair- unfairness to our other state employees, I guess, is what I would say, Mr. [0:25:32] Chairman. [0:25:34] The way I understood it, this is up to the local school boards. [0:25:38] But it's still paid by the state. W- if they make a decision to opt in, then the state has liability, correct? [0:25:46] The state has approximately half of the employer contribution. [0:25:49] Mm-hmm. [0:25:49] Um, I guess to be complete, I should point out that there is a slight savings, um, for the public school employee system 'cause that employee would be moving out of that- [0:25:57] Right, moving out of a plan that's not as good, and I understand it's not as good, and it doesn't have the, the, uh, payments made into it [0:26:07] I, uh, I think I understand the bill, but I, I can't support it. [0:26:10] Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions or concerns? [0:26:16] So may I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? [0:26:18] Sure. [0:26:19] Um, and again, this, this is something that my local school, school superintendent's brought to me. Um, and of course, um, I can't remember if it was you or someone last committee that the average retirement benefit for a school bus driver is $300 a month. And that's something that, you know, I'm trying to address. But not only that, but with the lunchroom workers and all that, because you can't have school without school bus drivers and lunchroom workers and everything else. But, um, I'm certainly not an expert at this. [0:26:50] Um, but, you know, I'm looking at Exhibit A, and it's saying zero dollars due to the increase of the legislation. [0:27:03] So- [0:27:03] So yours ... But, but is it, what you're saying is, is you can't really define what it's gonna be because we don't know how many people may use it and may not use it? [0:27:11] As I understood the letter, that's correct. [0:27:13] Okay. [0:27:14] Um, the original version of the bill where every school system would need to, uh, participate, the actuaries were able to somehow, I don't know exactly how, come up with a reasonable way to estimate the number of people that would make the election. Now that it's up to the school systems to make the first call, they're saying they have no factual or data-driven basis for, for making that. So they're saying, you know, as far as they can tell, zero. And again, the, the, the key thing for the committee in that respect as far as the state law is concerned is the first year cost, right? [0:27:45] If you fund the first year cost, whatever that is, the bill can go into effect. If you don't, it won't. Well, in this case, they're saying, we're saying no first year cost, so therefore your funding in the immediate term, um, is negligible. Down the road, though, any individual person who elects to come in is going to have a cost associated with them. [0:28:04] So let me ask you this, and I don't remember what the number was previously when, when it was ... If, if every ... What would the cost be if, if every school system in the state decided to participate in this? 'Cause I know you had those numbers last time. [0:28:18] So the old number was something like 21 million in the first year. [0:28:22] Right. They, um, they estimated about 11,000 or about 33% of this, um, employees would elect to join teachers retirement, and that would be about $21 million to the state. [0:28:32] So, but- [0:28:32] But as, but as you realized, um, that's just the state portion. The locals would have to- [0:28:38] Mm [0:28:38] ... fund a similar portion- [0:28:39] Yeah, that was [0:28:39] ... on their end. [0:28:40] That's right. That's right. [0:28:41] That was just for the state. [0:28:42] And I, I guess, um, and I understand what you're talking about, Mr. Chairman, but I'll ... You know, we all look at, uh, and you and I have had a lot of discussions about this, uh, Mr. Chairman, in the past about ways the money spends the state and, uh, some of the tax credits that we have out there and everything else. And, um, I understand your concern, but I'm of the belief that, uh, if, if we can, uh, give some tax credits to some industries like we do, then I think $20 million a year for the people that get up at 4:00 in the morning and get our s- kids to school every day and the people that feed our kids, I just think that $300 a month retirement for somebody that does that for 30 years is, um, not adequate. [0:29:27] And so, uh, but I understand where you're coming from, uh, Mr. Chairman, and I, I appreciate it. And I'm, I know you, uh, I know you know this stuff like the back of your hand, but, um, I just feel like even we're talking about if everybody in the state did it, we're talking about $20 million. [0:29:46] I think that's a third of the state, isn't it? [0:29:49] Right. It's projecting third. [0:29:50] Right. Right. But they're saying that if every, it ... Because it's still up to the employee on whether or not they do it or not. You see what I'm saying? So the employ- The local school board has to elect to do it, and the employee has to elect to do it. [0:30:00] So, so if they did, if everybody did it, that would be three times that amount, wouldn't it? [0:30:03] Everybody wasn't. [0:30:04] So, um, the actuary assumed that people under the age of 50 and had less than 25 years of creditable service would elect to join if given the opportunity. [0:30:14] Mm-hmm. [0:30:14] And, and that was about 11,000 out of the 33,000 PSCRS members. [0:30:20] Mm-hmm. So, so what we're saying is that it's, a- and this number's 29 million- [0:30:25] Mm-hmm [0:30:26] ... um, on this, that that's if a third of the people signed up. If everybody signed up, you know, round it off to 30 million, then you're talking about 90 million, and then you're also talking about another 90 million from the local student, local governments paying. So you're, you, the potential here is 180 million. And just watching these things over the years, um, from previous retirement, they blow up. I mean, the, the long term cost is [0:30:53] Well, I would- [0:30:53] unworkable [0:30:54] ... I would submit, Mr. Chairman, if we can give a billion and a half dollars a year to the film industry instead- [0:30:58] I, you know, Norm, you know- [0:30:59] ... million a year to the data centers, and we can't do this program- [0:31:01] You know my feeling on that [0:31:02] ... I, I mean, so that's, that's kind of where I'm, I'm at- [0:31:04] Yeah [0:31:04] ... with it. I, uh, it, I think it comes to, comes back to, um, you know, I, I, I feel like it's the right thing to do, but every member of the committee will have to make their decision for themselves on that. And, and I'm fine if, if the committee decides not to move forward, but I have done what I would tell my people back home that I would do. [0:31:25] I, I think I certainly appreciate that. And I, I look at the fairness of all our other state employees that I feel like these people are jumping ahead of them into a defined benefit plan and, you know, and I just- [0:31:37] Well, what do we do for somebody that gets $300 a month for 30 years? [0:31:43] Yes, sir, Mr. Potten? [0:31:45] So, uh, if I may interject, I, I wanna make clear on the benefits that are coming out of PSCRS. A 30-year employee would get about 510 million dol- uh, $510 per month, okay? [0:31:57] Okay. 500. [0:31:58] A 20-year employee, we're talking about 300, $340 per month. Um, I should let you know that if those employees that we're talking about, the 340, they would approximately a little less than double their benefit in TRS. [0:32:14] Would that be correct? Mm-hmm. Senator Orrock. [0:32:18] Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, uh, I appreciate this bill and- [0:32:21] Pull your microphone up- [0:32:23] Oh [0:32:23] ... if you would, please. [0:32:26] Um, I, I appreciate the author's, uh, efforts on SB 209. And I would point out, uh, uh, uh, uh, it's, it's, it's not in, uh... hadn't been presented to the committee, but this, th- th- these dollars go right back into our economy, right back into our economy, and there's a, there's a multiplier effect. [0:32:48] Seven normally. [0:32:49] Yeah, that's right. A- a- a- and, and so that is, is another consideration. It's, it's not like that the, uh, the money's going out of the state or out of our economy. It's gonna actually improve the, uh, quality of life and the ability of, uh, uh, l- lifelong, uh, employees who are retirees, uh, uh, to, uh, live with dignity and, uh, be able to, uh, meet, meet their needs without having to, uh, rely on family members, you know, to, to dig deep to he- he- help out mom and dad. [0:33:25] So that, th- that, that, that is, uh, a- again, it's measurable, b- and it, and it's real, and it goes right back into our economy. [0:33:36] My question is, these employees are not state employees. They're actually employees of the local school system. [0:33:43] Mm-hmm. [0:33:43] Why can't we, uh, figure out some way to make these local school systems set up a retirement themselves for their employees? Um, that, that should be something, I'm not talking about unionizing school bus drivers over the state, but I'm saying why can't the local board of education set up their own retirement system for these employees and look after their employees and not be an impact on the state- [0:34:19] Mm-hmm [0:34:19] ... because they're actually board of education employees of that local county. Um, and I think that's an obligation that maybe that board of education should shoulder. And, and I agree with you, the cafeteria workers, the school bus drivers- [0:34:36] Mm-hmm [0:34:36] ... um- [0:34:37] Custodians [0:34:38] ... but these boards of education, um, I think they can shoulder some of that responsibility. [0:34:43] Well, they, they are, um, gonna be shouldering half of the responsibility- [0:34:47] Well, they could go- [0:34:48] ... is my understanding. [0:34:49] Well, they could go ahead and set it up locally- [0:34:51] Oh, that's true [0:34:51] ... through, uh, someone rather than depending on the state to get involved. Um, I see Senator down there, number 12. Yes, ma'am. [0:35:02] Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for presenting this. Uh, Senator, I want you to know that, uh, we appreciate you bringing this bill. I support, uh, cafeteria workers. I support bus drivers. I support the people that are doing the work. Uh, uh, the, the, the local, the State of Georgia has enough money for us to do the right thing about the people who live here. So at, at, uh, the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, uh, I move that SB 209, uh, do pass, LC 560619S. [0:35:40] Okay. [0:35:40] Is it? [0:35:40] Thank you. I've got a couple more questions. [0:35:43] Okay. [0:35:43] Senator McLaren. [0:35:45] Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Now, as a Democrat, we exact a cost, we impose a toll any time that we side with a member of the majority in an intra-majority fight, and that cost is we're gonna reiterate our talking points. So in this case, I echo my colleagues, which is we have enough money to do right by our state employees, and we shouldn't have to worry about these fights between state employees or alleged fights, alleged appearance of conflict, because at the end of the day, we really could take care of everybody if we had the political will to do so. [0:36:22] But I always like to say in committees like this that there is a conversation happening this very same session in a different forum about handing back $9 billion per year of state money for very little reason except to allegedly address the affordability crisis, and I think there's other ways to do that. I think that state expenditures can address affordability, and I think this is a great example of a bill where state expenditures can address affordability. What doesn't address affordability is to just give all that money back and pretend like we have no use for it, especially when it's coming from corporate payers and, and the highest income and wealth earners. [0:37:01] So, uh, you know, if we're gonna vote for this bill, which I do intend to support your bill, Senator, but I wanna do it in the spirit that we should not just be senselessly handing back state revenues that can be used for legitimate purposes like this. So thank you for paying the toll. You're gonna get your bill, but you had to pay the toll. Thank you, Senator. [0:37:20] Yeah. [0:37:22] And may I ask, may I add something, Mr. Chairman? [0:37:24] Um- [0:37:24] I mean, go ahead. I'm sorry. [0:37:26] I was gonna say, I got- [0:37:27] I, I defer to the sponsor. [0:37:28] No, and I... Is that okay, Mr. Chairman? [0:37:30] Sure, go ahead. [0:37:31] Yeah, I just wanna say, um, like I said, th- this is something that, that, um, my superintendents in my rural part of South Georgia brought to me. Um, you know, uh, however everybody votes, there won't be any hard feelings with me. Um, I, I do think that, that we can do better by these people than what we're doing right now. I, I, I do believe that. But, um, you know, at the end of the day, m- uh, Mr. Chairman, this is, uh, this is democracy and work and sausage-making and, and this, you know, the will of the committee, um, what, what they, what they, uh, see fit, uh, to, to do with this. [0:38:04] But- [0:38:04] As long as they add a little sage to the sausage. [0:38:07] I see that. I see that. [0:38:08] Senator Mc- Mangham. [0:38:11] I, um, I am honored to be on this committee, and I'm honored that the, uh, senator from the eighth would bring such legislation. When you look at $340- Some of us blow that in a day. And these people are working 20 years and 30 years. I just simply think that, um, when we do give away billions of dollars as my s- senator stated, and I'm for the film industry, I'm for all these, you know... [0:38:50] I simply say that this is one of the few times that I want to say that, um, [0:38:57] it's time to do the right thing. These little people, the cafeteria workers, the bus drivers, we trust them with our kids, [0:39:10] and let's honor them at least with this piece of legislation. And I, it, and my... Is it, is it not true that the local school system is going to be tr- contributing or they are not going to be contributing? [0:39:27] They will pay half. [0:39:27] Pay half. [0:39:27] They will be paying half. [0:39:29] Yep. [0:39:29] So I think it's only right, particularly in a day when we were once one in education, and it just shows that we are committed to educating our kids with these that are still part of the clog that makes it works. We don't think about them, but if we don't have them, the classroom would not be the same. So thank you for bringing this legislation, and I'm honored not to vote as a Democrat, not to vote as a Republican, but to vote as someone who loves education and someone who is a son of the South- [0:40:11] A senator [0:40:11] ... who has seen education be disregarded as in not important, who has seen us shrink from the top 10 in the world in education to now we don't, we don't, we don't... We way down. China's number one, and I don't like it, and that's, and I'm a son of the, a son of the United States of America who is ashamed of our current education system, when we can abolish the, uh, Department of Education and, and create a Department of War. [0:40:43] So I got political then, but I want to say thank you for this, uh, legislation. [0:40:49] One more comment, if I could. [0:40:51] Certainly. Yes, sir. Your mic is on. [0:40:53] So, so, um, you know, we look at our reserves and, and yeah, everybody should, every individual, every business, um, and I think every government should, should look at trying to have three to six months revenue on hand for, for things that happen. Um, however, I would also point out that collectively the school systems are sitting on 14 billion in reserves. So what we're saying is they are not making their employees a priority with funding their pension adequately, so, so we're gonna step in and do this. [0:41:25] So how about the county commission? They've got plenty of employees there. Do we need to go into that local government and say, "Well, since y'all aren't doing what we think is a good pension plan, we're gonna pay for that too"? I, I, I think this is, this is, uh, dangerous territory, and, um, I understand everybody wants to do something, and, and I think they should have a better plan. But I think the responsibility should be with the local school system to use their 14 billions in reserves to do this. [0:41:55] Thank you. Any other, uh, senator have any comment? All right. Senator Davenport, now would be the time you, uh, asked to make a motion. [0:42:07] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move that we do pass on SB209 LC560619S. [0:42:16] Second. [0:42:17] Oh, I'll give that. [0:42:19] Have a second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. [0:42:29] All opposed. So carried. All right. Thank you. [0:42:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:42:36] Thank you. Thank you. [0:42:37] And thank y'all for the time that you put into doing all this. Appreciate it. [0:42:43] Mm-hmm. [0:42:43] All right. Thank you. Let's see. Our next bill is [0:42:51] Senator Reeves. [0:42:54] Representative. [0:42:54] Representative Reeves. Is he here? [0:43:03] For Judicial Retirement, HB1020. [0:43:10] With everything going on, uh, is anyone familiar with this bill that would like to present it on his half, behalf? Yes, sir, number two. [0:43:18] I know he'd love for me to speak up on behalf of his bill. But, um, what I would say is, I mean, this is legislation that is in line with legislation we've seen in recent years to try to make sure that our judges are adequately compensated. It's not really so much a fairness thing relative to other state employees. It's more making sure that we have the caliber of judges that we need in our state judiciary, and we have seen retirements from our appellate courts in the last few years that reflect the reality that some of these judges, I mean, th- these are judges who have clerked for the Supreme Court, uh, who have done amazing things both in Georgia and nationally, uh, who are having to leave service because- [0:43:59] Anybody's second [0:44:00] ... they gotta put their kids through college. Um, so I just know, you know, terms of political vetting, this is the kind of thing where when you ask the attorneys in both the House and the Senate, Republican and Democratic, whether we need stuff like this, we are always walking lockstep on this. Because we are the ones who know what our judges, uh, the market pressures that our judges face and how important it is to make sure that they stay in those ro- They're already giving up, it's not an exaggeration, millions of dollars of income over the course of their lifetimes to do this public service. [0:44:31] And so, um, anything we can do To make retirement a little bit better for them. You know, we've heard, this committee's heard testimony recently about how when you work for the state, oftentimes part of the package you're promised is maybe the salary's not gonna be quite what it could've been during your working years, but you'll have great benefits. And I think anything we can do on that front, uh, is gonna be helpful for keeping well-qualified judges in our judiciary, and that is my presentation of Representative Reeves' bill. [0:45:00] Thank you. I think you did a mighty fine job. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill? [0:45:13] Yes, sir. Come on up. [0:45:23] Thank you. If you'll state your name and information for the record. [0:45:27] Good morning. I'm Robert Smith. I'm the general counsel at the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council. Um, I can tell you that House Bill 1020 is part of a, is a two, part of a two-part package. The district attorneys have, um, of the state are trying to, uh, move a, a group of bills to increase their, um, compensation based on this body's decision last year to give the superior court judges and other, uh, judges a raise. [0:45:56] Mm-hmm. [0:45:57] So, um, part of what happened last year, uh, the DAs are members of the JRS just like the judges are, and one of the conditions for the judges to get their raises was that their retirement age had to be moved to 65. So this is, this is the, the mirror bill for the, for the DAs that they need to increase their retirement to 65. There's, is a separate bill that is, um, it cleared House Judici- Judiciary yesterday, um, about their compensation package. It's not yet for your consideration, but there is... [0:46:28] I mean, this is part one of a two-part bill. I, I did text, uh, Representative Reeves and ask him where, if he was coming over today or not. I have not heard. But I can try to answer questions as best I can, and I'm very nervous now seeing the senator from the 14th and the grin that he has on his face. [0:46:45] No, I, I think you've done a fine job. Thank you, sir. Uh, Senator. [0:46:50] Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, what is the base pay now, um, for a superior court judge? I know when we were debating all this a year or two ago in South Georgia, it was $140,000. [0:47:02] It's significantly more than that. I don't know the exact answer. I know that it's a percentage of the federal judges', the federal district court judges' pay. I believe it's 90%, but I don't know that, don't know that number off the top of my head for certain. But the pay that it's authorized. Now, that's not what it's guaranteed to be at. That's a question for appropriations each year. But what the, what the bill did last year that you enacted said basically this is gonna be the ceiling. So the judges can ask for a- and I think it's 90% of what a federal judge received in 2022. [0:47:40] Oh, gotcha. Yeah, and that was just... I did... My neighbor, who's also my wife's cousin, lives about eight miles down the road from me, a superior court judge. And so obviously he, you know, four years of college, three years of law school, and being a judge and, you know, making $140,000 a year, it's, it's, you know, if you got a good many student loans, it's pretty hard to make things work at that, you know, so- [0:48:01] And district- [0:48:02] I'm s- [0:48:02] Sorry, I'm sorry. [0:48:03] I was just gonna say I'm supportive of stuff like this because when we talk about our judges and, you know, think of the word judgment, we want somebody with good judgment and wisdom and discernment that are making decisions on people's lives, right? And so, uh, you get what you pay for sometimes, and we want to make sure we got the right kind of folks doing, filling these roles. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:48:22] This bill mainly pertains to district attorneys though, doesn't it? [0:48:26] Yes, sir. To the 51, to the 51 DAs. [0:48:28] Okay. [0:48:29] DAs, okay. [0:48:30] Yes, sir. I, I apologize if that wasn't [0:48:33] Yes, yeah. [0:48:33] That number. [0:48:34] Well, it s- it says Judicial Retirement System, and that's why. [0:48:37] It's, it, it, it's one of those things of that people don't always realize who all is a member of JRS. [0:48:43] I gotcha. [0:48:43] And the, the DAs are members of JRS. [0:48:46] Mm-hmm. [0:48:47] And, and after my broad policy statement/advertisement for the judges, um, safe to say that because there was a policy decision to include district attorneys within the JRS, that that means that the policy decisions we're making on behalf of the entire JRS also operate on behalf of the district attorneys, that, that we've decided already that those judgments should more or less be in lockstep. I mean, I guess that's what you're getting at. [0:49:11] That's what the... Um, I'm, I'm not authorized to speak on behalf of the DAs. Um- [0:49:15] Right [0:49:15] ... they have their own representatives, but- [0:49:17] Mm-hmm [0:49:17] ... um, that's what the argument has been is that by tradition through the years- [0:49:23] Mm-hmm [0:49:23] ... they haven't been the same, but they've been closely related. Then there's a l- a lot of other funding mechanisms, too, but for the state base pay, it's always been related to the... Those two numbers have been related or in close pro- approximation. Judges get paid more than DAs, but yes. [0:49:39] Okay. Thank you. Let's see, number five is, um- [0:49:43] Mangham. [0:49:44] Yes, sir. [0:49:45] Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, um, to the distinguished, uh, presenter, I thought that there was a train, some ki- Explain the train system with respect to to how this is working. [0:50:01] Uh, by the train, um, system, a lot of local officials are paid based on a percentage of what a superior court judge is paid. And last year you passed a bill that decoupled it. [0:50:17] Oh, okay. [0:50:18] And there is some language, I believe, in this bill as well that in case anybody who happens to be coupled to a district attorney or is, is on the same thing, um, and the idea is that, um, a s- And I don't want to... There are some local officials that get paid 30%, 50%, 85% of a superior court judge pay. [0:50:40] Mm-hmm. [0:50:40] And the idea was that you wanted li- And the, this bo- this body's policy last year was to give the counties a year or so to make a decision if you wanted to continue that tr- that train or that coupling or not. And, um, that was why that language was in the bill. And there are a few people that are coupled to the DA. Most people, uh, most local officials are coupled to, to a superior court judge for obvious reasons, because it's higher than the DA's pay. [0:51:09] Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions, comments? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak- [0:51:16] Thank you [0:51:16] ... for or against? I'll ask what is the will of the committee at this time? [0:51:23] Make, make a motion to pass, Mr. Chairman. [0:51:25] Okay. [0:51:25] I'll second. [0:51:26] Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Any questions? All in favor say aye. [0:51:34] Aye. [0:51:34] Any opposed like sign. So carried. Thank you very much. Representative Reeves, you have a bill. Good luck in rules. [0:51:46] This, uh, meeting will, shall stand adjourned. Thank you.