Skip to content
Georgia Commons
Menu

Senate Retirement Committee

Senate Retirement Committee, March 17, 2026

2025-2026 Regular Session · 310 CLOB · 28 min

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.

Copy for LLM, View as markdown, and Send to AI use the Markdown version: the summaries Georgia Commons wrote, under headings that name them, then the whole transcript with its times. View raw is the transcript alone.

The video is the General Assembly's, played from its Vimeo channel. Select any time below to play that moment. Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Agenda

Summary

Written by an AI model (gpt-6.1-sol) from the transcript. It is not part of the record, and the video is what was said.

The Senate Retirement Committee considered HB 438, which the sponsor said would extend earlier retirement eligibility and certain line-of-duty disability benefits to additional sworn officers in the Department of Public Safety. Members asked how the change would affect officers’ existing retirement plans and pension costs. The committee approved the bill by voice vote, with no opposition heard, and adjourned.

Bills discussed (1)

Each account covers the stretch of the meeting it names. The bill's number is said in that stretch, unless it was the only bill on a committee's agenda.

HB 438. Employees' Retirement System of Georgia; allow certain sworn law enforcement officers to be eligible for retirement benefits at age 55; provisions

From 0:21:24 · turns 8 to 66

The sponsor said the bill would include the Department of Public Safety’s Commercial Vehicle Enforcement and Capitol Police divisions in retirement and line-of-duty disability provisions already covering State Patrol officers and other law enforcement personnel. The sponsor argued that these sworn officers do the same work and should receive the same benefits. The sponsor also described a terminology update from conservation rangers to game wardens. Citing an actuarial study, the sponsor said the required annual employer contribution would increase by $661,000 and argued that the cost was manageable. A committee member asked whether officers would change retirement plans and what would happen to their existing benefits. A retirement system representative said roughly 250 affected members would remain in their current GSEPS plan, which combines a pension earning 1% per year with a matched retirement savings plan, but could retire at 55 rather than 60 and receive certain law enforcement disability benefits. The representative explained that earlier benefit payments likely accounted for the additional liability and that existing funds would remain in the same trust. No one else offered testimony. The committee approved a motion to pass by voice vote, with no opposition heard.

Transcript

68 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

  1. 0:20:11

    Committee on Retirement. Our meeting of March the 16th, year of our Lord, 2026. Uh, Senator Goodman, how about open us up with a prayer, please?

  2. 0:20:24

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to. Uh, pray with me, please. Heavenly Father, we just thank you for today, Lord. We thank you for all your many blessings. And Lord, we, we're so grateful to be able to be here, Lord, and, uh, uh, to do the work of the people. And as we go about this meeting today, we just pray that you'll touch us and lay your hand on us, Lord, and grant us wisdom and discernment so that we can make the best decisions on behalf of the people that, um, that we represent. We thank you again, Lord, for all, all your blessings. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

  3. 0:20:54

    Amen. Amen. Thank you. All right. Quinlan. Good.

  4. 0:21:02

    Can't get by.

  5. 0:21:03

    Can't get by.

  6. 0:21:04

    I've got a lot of books in there. How you doing, Diane? Good.

  7. 0:21:09

    Welcome. Welcome.

  8. 0:21:09

    Thank you.

  9. 0:21:13

    Okay. Let's see, Chairman Crow, I believe you're presenting the only bill we're hearing today, HB 438, LC number 56-0281.

  10. 0:21:29

    Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

  11. 0:21:30

    All right. Um, you have a microphone, so you feel free to start when you're ready, sir.

  12. 0:21:37

    All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Um, as you stated, this is House Bill 438, and, um, it's a measure I've actually been working on for, for several years. In fact, every, uh, every session that I've been in the legislature, I've introduced this, uh, this bill every two years. So, um, but now we've gotten it across the, the line from over where we were, and, uh, I think we're well on our way to getting it passed. Uh, and essentially what it does is it includes the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division, uh, formerly the Motor Carrier Compliance Division and Capital Police Division, uh, of the Department of Public Safety into the legislation or into the code section that gives them the same retirement benefits and line of duty disability benefits as the state patrol or the Uniform Patrol Division, GBI, DNR, and all of those.

  13. 0:22:31

    Uh, if you look on page two, uh, line, starting about line 19, that talks about all of the folks that are currently, uh, in that code section that gives them those benefits. And, uh, what you see is those two other divisions missing. It only names a uniform division, which is the Georgia State Patrol, and what we're doing is simply changing that to the Department of Public Safety as a whole, uh, to make sure they get the same benefits. They do a, uh, the, the same job. They're all sworn officers.

  14. 0:23:02

    They're all, you know, they all wear a bulletproof vest and a gun belt for a living. And so I think it's only fair that they have the same, uh, retirement benefits and line of duty disability benefits.

  15. 0:23:11

    What's a conservation ranger?

  16. 0:23:14

    Um, that was the, um, game wardens, and I don't know, is that, uh... I think that was what they used to call conservation rangers, if I'm not mistaken.

  17. 0:23:26

    Okay.

  18. 0:23:26

    So, and I don't think they use that term anymore, uh, which is why it had conservation rangers of the Department of Natural Resources in that part. That was a cleanup on line 22, just changing that to game wardens, uh, Department of Natural Resources. So, couple of pieces in here that were cleaned up there, but there's essentially three sections, and, and those three sections are simply adding, uh, it's, it's including all of the Department of Public Safety, uh, in the legislation rather than just the Uniform Patrol Division. So there is a, uh, as with any of these bills, there is a, uh, a bit of a cost to it.

  19. 0:24:02

    Uh, the actuarial study showed, I believe, um, the dollar amount to, uh, uh, increase the annual employer contribution necessary to maintain a retirement system in an actuarially sound condition is $661,000 per year, which is, um, you know, it's not an insignificant amount of money. I'd be quite happy if somebody wanted to give me $661,000 a year. Uh, however, in the terms of the, the budgetary items we deal with up here, I believe it's, if my math is right, it's about 17 10,000ths of 1% of our budget.

  20. 0:24:33

    So, uh, I don't think it's something insurmountable that we can't cover, Mr. Chairman, to, uh, to get these folks the, uh, the benefits that they deserve.

  21. 0:24:44

    Okay. Do we have any questions from any member of the committee? I got one. Yes, sir. Are you number nine or 10?

  22. 0:24:51

    Number nine.

  23. 0:24:52

    Yeah. All right.

  24. 0:24:53

    So they're, they're coming from the ERS into this program, is that correct?

  25. 0:24:58

    They're already in the ERS-

  26. 0:25:00

    Mm-hmm

  27. 0:25:00

    ... um, I believe. They're just, they're getting included in this, um, this section of the code that would, um, allow them to retire at 55 years of age instead of having to wait till 60.

  28. 0:25:12

    So what... Are, are they on a defined contribution plan in the ERS, or?

  29. 0:25:17

    Yes, sir.

  30. 0:25:17

    Okay.

  31. 0:25:17

    I believe so. I'm gonna get... Vince, do you know?

  32. 0:25:20

    Could I get, could I get Jim that is the ERS? Could he answer the question for me?

  33. 0:25:24

    If he... Yeah.

  34. 0:25:26

    Can you come up, Jim? Is that okay, Mr. Chairman?

  35. 0:25:28

    Sure. By all means.

  36. 0:25:29

    Yeah. Jim or Vince, anybody that works with-

  37. 0:25:37

    So I guess the, the question I would have is what, what happens with what they've got in the ERS right now?

  38. 0:25:44

    Um, the folks in question, the 250 or so members in question, are currently part of the general, uh, third tier GSEPS population.

  39. 0:25:51

    Uh-huh.

  40. 0:25:51

    So as a reminder, that's a smaller 1%-per-year pension benefit, and then the 401plan with the match. So all this would do is allow them to remain in that same program but be able to retire at age 55 instead of age 60, and they would also be eligible for certain disability benefits that, that are only available to law enforcement.

  41. 0:26:11

    Okay, so they're staying in the same plan, but they can retire at 55.

  42. 0:26:16

    Correct.

  43. 0:26:17

    Okay.

  44. 0:26:17

    Yeah.

  45. 0:26:18

    So the, the unfunded liability is just because they haven't, they haven't been part of this other one that's a little bit higher contribution rate, I guess.

  46. 0:26:31

    Um, the additional liability is probably due to the fact that they can begin receiving their benefit a little bit earlier than they were otherwise expected to.

  47. 0:26:38

    Okay.

  48. 0:26:38

    So their service is just staying in the plan. It's just that they can start receiving that benefit a little bit earlier-

  49. 0:26:43

    Yeah

  50. 0:26:43

    ... so there's a slightly higher present value of their benefit.

  51. 0:26:47

    But, but all that money, in essence, kinda rolls into this. I mean, I know it's, you're saying it's a different move-

  52. 0:26:53

    Yeah, it's all the same trust, but yes.

  53. 0:26:54

    It all roll... It stays in that plan and-

  54. 0:26:56

    That's correct

  55. 0:26:56

    ... nothing goes with... Okay. That, that was the question I had. I knew Jim could answer it.

  56. 0:27:01

    Yeah. Thank goodness Jim was here.

  57. 0:27:03

    Anybody else have any questions?

  58. 0:27:08

    Was there anyone else here to speak on this bill, either for or against it? Uh, no one signed up, but didn't wanna deny someone the opportunity.

  59. 0:27:21

    Seeing none and no other questions for nobody, what is the will of the committee?

  60. 0:27:29

    I'll make a motion to be passed, Mr. Chair.

  61. 0:27:32

    I have a motion by Senator Goodman. Second by Senator McLaurin. Any discussions? Any other discussions or questions? All in favor say aye.

  62. 0:27:46

    Aye.

  63. 0:27:47

    Aye.

  64. 0:27:47

    All those opposed, slight sign. So carried. Thank you.

  65. 0:27:52

    Thank y'all.

  66. 0:27:53

    Thank you.

  67. 0:27:53

    Appreciate it.

  68. 0:27:55

    Any other business to come before the Senate Retirement Committee? Seeing none, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you.

Machine-readable https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-17/senate-retirement.md · https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/index.md · MCP https://mcp.georgiacommons.org/mcp