Search Results for: governor

 

 

Transcript by Rev.com. My cost: $150.00 and about 3.5 hours.

This committee is a result of SR 85 that passed despite our educated warnings on its goals. SR 85 is the product of the lobbying by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

Video here.

Begin meeting ( Chairman’s mic was off for a few seconds)…

Chairman Sen Walker:

… uh, visiting with each other. Um, but we’ve got a, a good agenda today, and we want to not take too much of your time, more than we have to. Um, I wanna call on the, uh, Ms. Wanda Jaffe. She’s the deputy director of the Professional Licensing Boards, and she has been gracious enough to allow us to meet here in her facility. So I’m gonna invite her to come forward and, uh, give us a few words of welcome and maybe some logistics.

Ms. Wanda, you… If you don’t mind, because we’re livestreaming. All the presenters will need to present from here. And we- we’ve got, uh, Senate press here that’s gonna help us with that, make sure we’re on board. Am I on?

Wanda Jaffe:

Yes, sir.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

Okay. Is that mic on?

Wanda Jaffe:

Yes, sir.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Okay. Okay. All right. The floor is yours.

Wanda Jaffe:

Good morning.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Morning.

Wanda Jaffe:

Um, I’m Wanda Jaffe, as he stated. I’m the deputy director here at the Professional Licensing Boards. Um, as many of you know, we have, um, 43 boards, 197 license types, and we are in the process of trying to get Georgians’ licenses as quickly as possible. We’re the only division that’s located down in Macon, so welcome to Macon everybody (laughs).

And, um, I just want to tell y’all, thank you for coming down here. And I’m, uh, gracious to open up our building to you guys. We are transparent. We are doing the best we can to get Georgians’ licenses as quickly as possible. We are fully involved with trying to remove blockers and get Georgians to work, so whatever we can do to be of help, just let us know.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Thank you, Wanda. And how many employees are here?

Wanda Jaffe:

So I have a total of 110 employees here in Macon. Um, that does include some of our investigators and inspectors that are here in Macon.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

And you all are back open and, and not, not… You… The pandemic’s been over quite a while. You’re open for business, people are working here in their offices, is that correct?

Wanda Jaffe:

Well, yes and no. So we never closed during the pandemic. Um, during the COVID pandemic, I was here every day, five days a week. Um, I… But I did… We did send our staff home, um, to do some remote working. So we are now doing kind of a partial remote, partial in-person. So every board that works here operates has somebody here every day. So if a customer comes in and walks in off the street, if they have an occupational therapy license, there’s someone here to help them. So what we did was kind of rotated our staff out. Some of them can work from home as long as somebody is here every day that can assist a client. I’m here Monday through Friday every day to make sure that if something comes up that they’ve got somebody that they can talk to.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

Okay. Thank you.

Wanda Jaffe:

You’re welcome.

Chairman Sen Walker:

Any questions for Wanda? Thank you, ma’am.

Wanda Jaffe:

Okay.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

(laughs).

Wanda Jaffe:

(laughs).

Audience:

[inaudible].

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Uh, I also want to recognize Maggie Hasty, with the Secretary of State’s Office. She’s been instrumental in helping us put this together. Thank you, Maggie, uh, very much for that. Again, Senate Press, thank you for the- their work. Um, as far as the committee members, we have, uh, S- Senator Brian Strickland here. Senator Mike Dugan here, Senator Anavitarte is, um, with us virtually, uh, watching the meeting as it’s livestreamed. Uh, and if he has questions, he’s gonna text them to Ky and I. Um, and then Senator Halpern had a prior commitment, uh, on the West Coast, so, uh, but we do have a quorum. And with that, I will, uh, call the meeting to order.

Um, also I do want to recognize my legislative assistant, Kylynn Gallagher. Thank you, Ky for all your help with, with this. Um, just… I’m gonna make a couple remarks to start off with. The… This topic, uh, as I have dug into it, has been kicked around for literally decades. I suspect that my father, uh, worked on this issue. Uh, it’s a tough nut to crack. Um, there are, as, as Wanda said, under, under this office, 43 licensing boards (laughs). And, uh, and, and they’re, they’re not any of them one the s- same as the other, really. And they all have different nuances to them. And everybody kind of has a, a, ve- uh, you know, the turf issues and the- their agenda and their vested interests. So it’s a difficult politically to… Uh, uh, uh, it’s a challenge. But we are in, uh, 2023, and as you’ll hear from Daniela in a minute, we have a serious workforce, uh, needs in Georgia, thankfully, under Governor Kemp and prior good leadership. We’ve got a growing economy, uh, and we’ve, we’ve got to get into the modern world with this licensing, professional licensing issue if we’re gonna continue to grow our economy.

Um, I do wanna recognize my very good friend, uh, uh, Representative Patty Bentley, uh, for joining us. And, uh, we’re always glad to see you, Patty. And Patty has recently gotten engaged, and, um, I’m real, uh, proud for her. But, um, uh, I, I hope she doesn’t decide to run for the Senate. I’d be in in trouble.

Audience:

(laughs).

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Uh, so our first speaker, uh, just to give us some information on what we’re… Where we’re at in Georgia with workforce is, uh, Daniela Perry. So, Daniela, the floor is yours. And if you’d like to sit and adjust that mic down, or if you want to move that chair and stand and just talking in the mic, um, you, you may can work your PowerPoint.

Daniela Perry:

Thank you.

Wanda Jaffe:

Adjusted.

Daniela Perry:

Can y’all hear me okay?

Audience:

Yeah.

Daniela Perry:

Well, um, Chairman Walker, again, thank you for the invitation to be here today and to share a little bit of information, um, that we’re looking at from a Georgia Chamber perspective. Um, my name is Daniela Perry. I serve as the vice president of the Georgia Chamber Foundation. Um, and our… The foundation is really the research, um, and data arm of the Georgia Chamber. So a lot of our work, um, you know, focuses on these big trends and what we’re looking at, um, moving forward.

So, as Chairman Walker mentioned, um, we’ve experienced tremendous economic growth. Um, the last four years, again, has been record economic growth year over year. And, of course, Governor Kemp announced another year of record economic growth for FY23. Um, so while many states are trying to still recover from the pandemic and find their footing, we, um, have continued to seen prosperity, um, year over year. I think a key point to mention is the fact that 77% of this economic activity has occurred outside of metro Atlanta, which is the state chamber, is really important to us, um, because we wanna make sure that in every corner of the peach state, whatever your zip code is, that you are experiencing opportunity and able to find good employment and grow your economy.

So while we’ve experienced this tremendous economic growth, um, it hasn’t come without its challenges, although these are really, really good problems to have. So we’ve been tracking unique job postings, um, since 2020, um, with, with COVID. You’ll see on the graph here, it looks at 2021. Um, and y’all can see, there’s been some variation over the years. You’ll see that dip in Q3 of 2021, which was the Delta variant of COVID. Um, and you’ll see it rebounded very quickly to mo- over 450,000 job postings. And now we are kind of in a little bit of a plateau around 350,000.

The top occupations we’ve seen this quarter, um, our registered nurf- nurses, software developers, and retail salesperson. The other one that often ends up in this category is tractor trailer truck drivers, which obviously with our freight logistics infrastructure, it’s a huge demand. Of course, too, I wanna note that all of these are very different skill levels, require different education, but again, we’re just seeing tremendous need across the state.

Uh, another key point to mention is the number of unemployed Georgians is about half of what these job postings are. So as we’re thinking about how do we combat with our workforce shortages, simply getting people off of unemployment and into jobs is not going to, to fix our problem. We really need to think strategically about how we can, you know, bring folks in. And then also think about folks that are not engaged in the workforce, um, make sure that we’re able to get them back into the workforce, whatever barrier they might face, which is where I’d like to point you to our labor force participation rate, which is around 61.3%.

So we have nearly 40% of Georgians that are not engaged in the workforce presently. Um, they’re of working age. So again, as we’re thinking about how do we get these folks in, we wanna make sure we’re looking at any barriers that would prevent them to getting to employment or maybe, um, individuals that are also underemployed or looking at that.

So I mentioned labor force, um, participation rate because we like it, um, a little bit better than unemployment because it looks at kind of that full working age population. This, um, goes back to 2000, um, and you’ll kind of see that there’ve been some spikes and jumps, um, and you can see where the great recession’s been, as well as COVID. Um, but overall, we’ve seen a, a decline in individuals that are participating in the workforce. Um, I’ve got numbers for the last, um, couple of years. We actually had our peak, um, in November of 1998, around 69, a little over 69%.

So again, as we’re thinking about the fact that we’ve seen this decline overall, we wanna make sure that we’re thinking about what are those barriers, um, understanding that the nature of work has changed. Um, the, the skills that are needed in the workforce are changing too, especially as we’re seeing technology, um, become a bigger part of everyone’s job.

So I’ve pulled some, um, occupations from our labor market software. Um, these are all required licenses in the state, um, included the job posting over the last year. Um, I also included retiring soon. Um, so as we’re thinking about not only our current workforce shortages, but what’s the need over the near term. Um, wanna be cognizant of that shortage that’s coming, and then also the number of employers competing. So when we say war for talent, you’ll know that we’re not over-exaggerating. Um, this is a, a tremendous need. Of course, I’d love to point you to registered nurses. We’ve got almost 3,000 employers that are trying to hire registered nurses in the state, and there’ve been, um, more than 82,000 postings.

Again, you’ll also see that there are other, um, health occupations for, um, you know, nursing home, certified nursing assistants, home health aides, and, um, tractor trailer truck drivers, the top ones, but of course, childcare workers, pharmacist, accountants. And again, this ranges over different skill levels, different education levels, but tremendous growth, um, in all of them.

So we like to look at the long term an- and know where we’re going. Um, by… In the next 10 years, we are gonna need… Where our… The number of jobs will increase, um, by a little more than 2 million, and our population’s going to increase, um, by 1.2 million individuals. So again, as we’re thinking about the fact that we are experiencing this tremendous growth, um, a- and this is kind of just that projection that we, we certainly could get larger announcements that’ll bring more need. Um, also thinking about the fact that in the back rearview mirror, we’ve got all those retirements of people that are, um, moving towards that, people are working longer. Um, so there’s a little bit of variability, but over the long term, we’re really gonna need to think strategically and systematically about how we do things differently, um, how we are able to innovate, um, whether it’s reducing regulations, um, but making sure that we’re able to meet our workforce needs long term.

So, uh, we’ve, um, you know, at the Georgia Chamber have looked at a number of opportunities, um, to improve occupational licensing, to get more folks, um, into these, um, occupations because generally, occupations that are licensed have higher salaries, so better, um, opportunities for folks. There’s around 40% of Georgians that have a criminal history. Um, and we’ve seen that, um, salaries actually are 10 to 20 percent lower for individuals that have been incarcerated. And too, the unemployment rate is significantly higher for those that are formerly incarcerated. Um, as well, I know there was some legislation from Chairman Strickland last session that addressed this. Um, and the Georgia Chamber was, um, supportive of it because it really looks at how do we get folks that have skills and talents for facing some logistical barriers within our, um, occupational licensing system.

Georgia also has a huge military population. Um, we actually have the ninth biggest veteran population and then the fifth biggest active duty, um, population in the state. But portability, um, of licensing for military spouses has become more and more important for the Department of Defense. In order for them to designate Georgia as a military friendly state, you need to have that 30-day near term licensing. Um, of course, as we’re looking statewide and seeing the big need, all of our military installations are huge economic drivers across the state. Um, an- and so we know what they mean to the communities, but as well what they mean to the state as a whole.

We wanna certainly protect our military installations because we know the tremendous growth that they add, especially with Robins Air Force Base being, um, just down the road here. The healthcare industry, um, as I’ve kind of shared some data, you’ll see again, there’s tremendous need in growth. Um, but the Georgia Healthcare Workforce Commission had a few statistics again that, that look about what this looks like long-term. Um, and estimate around 20% of nurses, behavioral health and specialty care, um, workers are over 55 years old and so might be looking to retire, um, over the next 10 years.

Also found that around 3.7% of the healthcare workforce is leaving annually and is not being replaced by new graduates. And then, of course, as we’re thinking about all those opportunities, um, with legal i- immigrants that have come here, um, opportunities to make sure that we are using their skill sets well. Um, of course, there’s also op- opportunity at the federal level with visa reform, but not within the scope of that, so we’ll leave that to Washington. And that’s, um, all I have for y’all this morning. So certainly, happy to answer questions, but again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and appreciate y’all service on, um, this committee to address this issue.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

Thank you, Daniela. It’s good information. Uh, so you, you hear the challenge we face with these, uh, the growth we’re having, and the statistics she gave us, um, and licensure. It certainly is a barrier to entry into the workforce for a lot of people. Um, and I, I know I didn’t ask you this to prepare this, but it’s… And it may be somebody in the room knows, but what percentage of the, uh, job postings that we have require a occupational license?

Daniela Perry:

I can look that up for you.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

I think I’ve seen that in a recent meeting-

Daniela Perry:

Yeah.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

… but I… It’s, it’s a pretty, uh, high percentage. It’s pretty un- uh, uh, surprising how high that is. So certainly, that’s a challenge. Um, I’ve got… And I’m sure my colleagues will have some questions too, but on the workforce participation percentage, is this kind of a national trend?

Daniela Perry:

Yes.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

I mean, are we an anomaly or is this?

Daniela Perry:

No, Georgia… We- we’ve certainly kind of seen this nationally. Um, other states are going through, through similar things. Um, certainly, you know, Georgia, you know, I think is… I think is in the middle in terms of where we stack with our labor force participation rate. Um, but we certainly have other states that we’re competing with that are doing better in this arena. Um, obviously, it’s something that’s an opportunity. And when we look to different communities around the state, um, we see lower numbers in the state average. Um, I think Bibb County was around 55%. Um, so again, as we’re thinking about the statewide need, we’ve got different pockets depending on community need, um, where you are even seeing lower, um, numbers than that, 61.3%.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Is part of that just lifestyle choices and, and maybe wanting to have, uh, uh, one parent, you know, dedicated to parenting the children and staying home, raising the family?

Daniela Perry:

Absolutely.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Uh, versus, I mean, you know, both parents working in the children in daycare.

Daniela Perry:

Yes. So certainly, this is gonna encompass individuals that are choosing to stay home, um, because it is better for their family to have one parent working or one parent, um, at home. Um, it also could include individuals that may have disabilities that have trouble accessing the workforce. Um, so there’s a wide range of, of why you have this 40% that is opted to not participate in the workforce. And certainly, ag- again, you know, um, the high point of this i- in recent history was around 68 or a little over 69%. Um, and so, you know, a seven point drop is still very significant. And if we had those folks in the workforce, we would certainly be meeting a lot more of our current workforce shortages.

Um, but, you know, I, I think it’s fair to say that you would always have a portion of the workforce that would not opt in for, for various reasons.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

So we have 350,000 unique job postings currently, a little over 350,000. And your projection is that the, uh, number of jobs is gon- over the next decade is gonna increase by, uh, over two, um, two and a half million, looks like to me, from 5,285,000 to 7,000,845.

Daniela Perry:

Yes, sir.

 Sen Walker:

And yet, our population is only gonna increase 1.2 million so that, uh, that makes the delta… So we’re gonna go… That’s, that’s one point. So we’re gonna be like 1.6 or 7 million in open positions if these, uh, projections hold true.

Daniela Perry:

Absolutely. And so, I think that’s-

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Even if 100% of the population growth went to work-

Daniela Perry:

Right.

: Chairman Sen Walker:

… which they’re not. So it’s actually gonna be a big, big deficit in workers. So it, uh, seems clear to me that we’re gonna have to recruit workers from other states to grow, you know, to fi- fill the need in our economy. And as we do that, I think the licensure issue becomes even more of a, a problem for that. Um, the other thing that I think is happening and, and COVID accelerated this is, we’ve got Georgians that are, you know, live here, but they’re working for, they’re working for companies virtually outta state because their licensing requirements are maybe they don’t even have to have a license to do that job, or maybe it’s easier to get a license.

Uh, and I think we are seeing that in, uh, all the fields, but I think in like psychology, and psychologists, and some of the medical fields, uh, they’re, you know, able to make more money maybe doing it that way and have less barriers to entry. So we’re at a competitive disadvantage. Um, we’re not gonna be able to recruit these people from other states if we have a burdensome licensure system, which we do have, which we’ll hear about that later.

Um, and we’re competing, you know, with the ability to really work anywhere in the world, uh, in certain jobs virtually. So I think we are… Uh, uh, it’s imperative and, and incumbent upon us to try to fix this problem. Um, Senate Bill 157 sponsored by Senator Strickland, uh, is of high, high priority for the Senate. It passed unanimously in the Senate, and we are… I guess it’ll come back being committee in the Senate or does it-

Senator Strickland:

It’s in the house.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

In the house.

Daniela Perry:

Okay.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Um, but that’s gonna be a high priority, uh, for us that deals with the, uh, some criminal history and, uh, Senator Dugan and I are on the Georgia Works Commission, and we got a lot of good information about that at our meeting Tuesday. Um, and people that are, apparently people that are arrested and not convicted, it still creates a problem for them with employment. And um, so I applaud Senator Strickland for his work on that. And, um, uh, um, uh, you know, the lieutenant governor is, uh, this is a high priority for him. I’ll just, for the public that’s watching that we get this passed.

Um, and then for me and a, a lot of us in, in the legislature, um, I represent Robins Air Force Base and the spousal licensure, which we’re gonna talk hear about more today too, is something that I’m real, uh, passionate about. And we have, uh, you know, had legislation that got out of Senator Dugan’s committee that was really… He helped me improve it and perfect it. It was really good legislation and again, got hung up in the house with some, uh, just, you know, things going on there. So we’re gonna continue to work on that. Um, all right, I’ve talked enough, uh, Senator Strickland.

Senator Strickland:

Thank you. Um, Daniela, as Senator Walker was saying, thank y’all for your support as Senate Bill 157. Um, I think that bill is gonna go a long ways in really making more of a uniform process as to how criminal records are handled by all these different boards. You mentioned 40% of our state having a criminal record. And what we learned in working on that issue, wanna applaud Representative Bentley who’s here as well. We, um, spent a, a last year in a separate study group that was kind of unofficial looking at that issue. And we saw and heard from people that were not trying to work because they thought they couldn’t.

Daniela Perry:

Yeah.

Senator Strickland:

They didn’t know how their record would affect them, even getting in industries, and then word from an attorney that was handling appeals for people that were denied licensing, who does this for a living and has trouble navigating that. We realized how difficult it is for individuals to ever navigate that process. So it now sits in the house, and we have, um, broad support in the house, I believe as well. Just got caught up in the back and forth last year. So that’ll be… I believe it’ll back in the judiciary committee, I think, in the house this year coming up next year.

Um, question for you, in the labor force participation rates, some of the same things that Chairman Walker was asking, um, you mentioned how this compares nationally. Do you know if, if the aging population does this, does this include people of working age, or is this everyone, is this… Is the aging population that we have impacted by this, or they’re not counted in that rate, do you know?

Daniela Perry:

Sure. So it’s usually defined by, um, USBLS by 25 to 64.

Senator Strickland:

Okay.

Daniela Perry:

So there is the potential to that is individuals are maybe older and, you know, choosing to still participate in the workforce that some of those are captured as well. Um, and, and we are certainly encouraging, you know, businesses across the state to think creatively how to use, um, you know, individuals that have lots of expertise to offer and still wanna contribute a lot to make sure they’re utilizing things well.

Senator Strickland:

But also goes to show it’s not just because people are getting older then, so they’re not counted in that. Um, the other question I have, you may not know the answer to this, and I’m not sure if anybody does, but has there been any study that goes the next step and ask people why they’re not working? There’s many reasons people may choose not to work, um, but it’d be great to know…… knows, just even from a just, survey standpoint, what the reason is. I, I look at the childcare shortage-

Speaker 2:

Okay.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Um, I mean, I, I know people, maybe it’s just people I know, that are young parents that, uh, aren’t able to work because they can’t find childcare. I know someone right now, that’s considering taking a leave of absence from a professional job, because she can’t find anybody to take care of her child. She lost her childcare purse. She’s on a waitlist at places.

And so, that’s just one little factor that could be in there, that we saw related to, uh, the overall issue of workforce. I’d be curious if we have seen any studies that would show why people are choosing more and more s-, around the country, more so, not to work.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely. Um, we can pull some information, but I have not seen a great survey. I think it is one of those things that people do consistently ask, you know, where are these individuals. I think we’d love to show them some of our TCSD programs, and things that are options.

But absolutely, childcare’s a huge issue and we do have a shortage of childcare workers. Um, speaking from personal experience with it, a dire… in childcare, uh, we were on a waitlist for a long time, too, uh, to get her into the, the right place where she’s safe. Um, so absolutely, it’s a huge challenge.

Um, and certainly one of the reasons, too, when we saw a tremendous levels of women leaving the workforce during the pandemic. Um, and so, still trying to make sure we’ve got folks into the workforce that, um, want to contribute, but all those other factors need to be right for them a- able to make that choice.

Speaker 3:

Senator Dugan.

Senator Dugan:

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator Strickland, I’m sorry, I looked to you and said I wasn’t gonna ask anything.

Senator Strickland:

Uh-

Senator Dugan:

Uh-

Senator Strickland:

That’s why I talked so long.

Senator Dugan:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

(laughing).

Senator Dugan:

Thank you, and always good to see you.

Speaker 2:

Thank you.

Senator Dugan:

And, I’m gonna, I’m gonna tag on that one too, the 177,000 one. Uh, we need more context with that. How many of the 177,000 are actually looking for jobs that require certification, which would be pertinent to this particular committee? Um, and it’s not only childcare availability, uh, some of these are childcare cost.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Senator Dugan:

Uh, so you got one that’s availability. You have three, you start looking at, is it more economically feasible for one of these to stay at home with children while the other one works, because it, of the, the cost portion of it. Sec-, the second one i- is a question. If you could look back at 1998-

Speaker 2:

Yeah.

Senator Dugan:

What were we doing differently then, than we’re doing now?

Speaker 2:

Probably, a couple different things. Um, but certainly, um, you know, eh, it… there’s been a lot of conversation again, why we’ve seen this decline, because it is something that we’ve seen nationally.

Um, and, you know, there’s a number of different reasons, but there’s not one silver bullet. You know, um, people are choosing to, want more flexibility, um, a- and so they’re, you know, thinking about these options differently. Um, there are a lot of costs that have arisen over the years and maybe, always haven’t tracked, um, with salary growth.

Um, a- and so, we’ve seen a lot of different trends, kind of, impact this number. Um, but I would say, there’s not one clear factor. Um, I would say Georgia has experienced this in a little different way, because, um, you know, we were able to bring a lot of folks into the state, to meet our workforce needs for a lot of years. Um, having the fact that we’ve got lots of people from other southern states that were moving in and filling our workforce shortages. Um, but we’ve kind of, seen that slow in recent years. And then with the tremendous growth, um, it’s created more of a challenge.

Um, there was actually some recent research that showed that Georgia has 159% more unfilled positions, than unemployed individuals, in the state. And the national average is 67%.

So again, as we’re thinking about what’s unique about Georgia, it’s that our needs are a lot more acute than other places. Um, of course, other people are very envious of what we’ve seen from an economic growth prospective. They want the economy that we have. Um, but that certainly requires, you know, innovative and strategic thinking about how to use the people that we have here, and then how to strategically recruit folks into the state, that meet those workforce, um, needs that we’re seeing from an industry perspective, just grow and expand.

Senator Dugan:

When you go back and look at 1998, uh-

Speaker 2:

Yes, sir.

Senator Dugan:

And I understand the types of jobs have changed significantly-

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Senator Dugan:

… since then. Um, a matter fact, they didn’t have smartphones, back then. Uh, but when you go back and look at that-

Speaker 2:

Yes, sir.

Senator Dugan:

Did you get the percented population that was involved in agriculture, in ’98 that was considered employed, versus now?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Senator Dugan:

And that the only… The last question I have, is on the, Georgia’s war for talent. And, you know, I, obviously they… the situation with yellow, is not good. How is that gonna impact the availability of CDL drivers, on your slide there, what are you forecasting?

Speaker 2:

The need for CDL drivers is tremendous. Um, I would say we consistently hear from folks, um, that this is one of the biggest limitations. Which is why we’re really seeing industry think about, how do we, y- is this an in-, is this something that we try to automate faster? Um, because we are just seeing tremendous shortages.

Um, and I would say, too, that’s why, you know, we’ve seen more and more challenges with getting products to people faster. Of course, a lot of was accelerated with COVID, as we’re seeing so much more e-commerce growth. Um, it was something that happened very, very quickly.

But, um, too, is we think about a competitiveness prospective. If we don’t have the truck drivers here, to move goods in and out of the state, it’s gonna impact the activity at the ports, um, a- and everything that we’ve really been able to grow, strategically.

So, I would say we signi-… We really look at that. And, uh, for the truck drivers, um, retiring soon, is almost the same number of the new postings. So, eh, we are, uh, specifically, for a lot of companies engaged in this effort, that it is a significant challenge for them to recruit folks. Um-

Speaker 3:

[inaudible]. That’s fine.

Senator Dugan:

Y- you kept talking, so it chipped away-

Speaker 2:

Sorry.

Senator Dugan:

… another question. No, no, no, no. That’s why you’re here.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Senator Dugan:

Um, so, how much flexibility do we have within defining what is required for a CDL, within the State?

Speaker 2:

So, the one other thing I hear a lot of, wh- where we experience this big, um, issue on the tractor trailer truck drivers, is that in order to cross state lines, you have to be 21 years old, which obviously is where a lot of the need is. That’s at the federal level, unfortunately.

Um, a- and so they’re obviously is, flexibility within the licensing here, but consistently, that’s something that we, hear. Um, so, I know there’s lots of movement within Congress to, to try to continue to push this. Um, especially, as we’re thinking about getting folks on a talent pipeline. If we want to make sure that we’re catching kids in middle school and high school, and really showing the opportunity. If you would, then, have to wait three years and do something else, and then come back to CDL, it’s a big hurdle, um, for that recruitment prospective.

Senator Dugan:

That’s what I was asking.

Speaker 2:

Yeah.

Senator Dugan:

Um, do we have the flexibility to set up a different category of CDL, that is a short haul, CDL, where you could be lower than 21?

Speaker 2:

That’s a great question. We can… I’ll, I’ll do some research to see what we… if that would be something that would, um, an option. But I know that crossing state lines, is usually something that is very important, obviously, to get folks from industry perspective.

Speaker 5:

Um, so, I, I think that you can get a CDL, prior to 21, it’s just-

Senator Dugan:

You can’t-

Speaker 5:

You can’t-

Speaker 2:

Cross state lines.

Speaker 5:

Cross, (laughs), state lines. And the other issue is, your ins-, the company’s insurance, um, carrier’s gonna have guidelines for their drivers, too. Uh, and it, it, that becomes an issue, you know, it’s a lot, a lot of ’em want the drivers to have three years experience, and so on and so forth. So it’s a, yeah, (laughs)-

Speaker 2:

Yeah. (laughs).

Speaker 5:

Um, Mr. Sterling, I don’t think is here. Um, so, Sarah, do you mind to go out of order and go ahead and present your portion?

Thank you very much, Daniella, awesome. [inaudible]. (laughs). Sarah Critanin is, uh, with our office of legislative counsel, and she’s got some, uh, good information she’s gonna share with us today on some recent corp cases, and just the legal landscape of, uh, licensing and where it is in our code section, et cetera, so.

And she put all this together for me, on short notice.

Sarah Critanin:

(laughs).

Speaker 5:

I appreciate that.

Sarah Critanin:

Anything for you, Senator.

Speaker 5:

(laughs).

Sarah Critanin:

So, um, I’m Sarah Critanin, I’m attorn-, an attorney with the Office of Legislative Council, and we draft your Bills. (laughs). And I’ve been doing it for two years. Before that, I was with the Department of Insurance. So I hae some experience with, um, dealing with licensure and, um, criminal investigations and how to handle, um, m- background checks and that sort of thing.

So, um, I was really excited to help out with this committee. Um, I’m gonna talk to you… So I gotta come down here. Oh… So we’re gonna ta-… I’m gonna talk to you today, about sort of, opening up licensure, and what’s going on federally. Um, and, um, in the service members Civil Relief Act, which is a federal law.

And then, uh, Senator Walker, asked me specifically, to talk about a recent Texas District Court case. Um, I’d like to take a moment to talk about interstate license for compact, which comes up a lot, were all this goes in Georgia law.

And then finally, Senator Walker asked that we talk about a recent Georgia Supreme Court case. So that’s a lot to cover. I set the timer, it’s going. (laughs). And so, we’ll see what can do.

So, the Service Members Civil Relief Act, or the SCRA, um, is found in federal law, under 50 USC, Section 3901 to 4043. This act is designed to help service members, um, when they have to transition to active duty, and it, it provides some civil protections, which is yet there, uh, protections by foreclosure, repossession, leasing agreement evictions, interest rates and default judgments.

The concept of pro- protecting our service members, goes a way back. I did a little, you know, one day’s research. But it goes back, (laughs). There, there was, um, there were laws, um, in the Civil War and World War I and in World War II, to protect service men when they get called to duty. And in fact, it used be called the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, SSCRA.

In, uh, 2003, it was overhauled and became the Service Members Civil Relief Act, and, um, for our purposes, um, there was an addition in 2023, this year, um, on the portability of professional licenses.

So, uh, this was signed in January of this year and went into effect in January of this year, to, um, allow service members and their spouses to use their professional license and certificates, when they rele- relocate, due to military orders.

Um, so I, this is sort of, a hybrid. I tried to cut and paste the actual law, ’cause you never want to blur it. Because it is, we have to look at the exact words, um, to understand what’s going on here, who it applies to and what it covers.

So, it applies to service members or their spouse, as who has a covered license. And that’s a defined term in the law. And it’s when they relocate, because of a military order for military service, outside the jurisdiction, where the license was issued. And the co-, and the consan-… the huge benefit of this, is a covered license shall be considered valid. Which is a, a, you know, a phenomenal statement in the law, for them just to, blanket, say that.

The interesting thing, um, legislatively, for me, was, you know, it’s not forever, it’s for the duration of the military order, and then, um, under certain conditions or circumstances.

So, what the service member or spouse must do, is a… And this is in the law. This is cut and paste, in the law. They have to provide a copy of the Order to the licensing authority. They have to remain in good-standing with the original licensing authority, um, in the good-standing of every other licensing authority that they’ve been issued. And they have to… And this is very important, as a receiving state, is they have to submit to the authority of the licensing authority in the new jurisdiction. So, that’s a, a great save. That gives the receiving states some, um, leverage.

Um, interestingly, the federal law, specifically yields to states that are participating in interstate licensure compact. So, some of you, um, may not be familiar with, uh, what a interstate licensure compact is, and I’ll talk about this later. But, uh, this is from the, uh, service, Service Members Civil Relief Act, um, and it provides an exception.

So, um, the federal law is yielding to the state’s agreement, which is, which is also e- exciting, you know, yay, law. But it’s, uh, (laughs), it’s exciting to see that federal law is saying, okay, a few states have worked it out in the licensure compact, then y’all, you get to, um, control.

Um, so, um… this is also, um, from the cil- the Service Civil, Service Members Civil, um, Relief Act, is, what is a covered license. This is the definition, is a professional license that is good, in good-standing with the licensing authority, and that the service member or spouse, has actively used during the tri- two years, and that is not a license to practice law. So they carved out law. Yay. So, (laughs). So, I, um, I underline this phrase, has actively used, ’cause that’s gonna come up in a case.

This is a recent case, Porte and, I, I think there’s supposed to be an accent, but I’m just gonna say, Porte versus Morath. It’s a recent case, out of Texas. So, it does not have any governing on us, but it’s a very interesting case, because we’re gonna see the little dance between Federal and State law.

It’s out of, uh, Texas. It’s a District court case. So, there’s a chance this may all be appealed. More like, more likely they will be appealed, but for now, this where it stands. It was on the application and scope of the licensure and por- portability provision in the SCRA.

There’s a conflict with the Texas requirement. So the Plaintiff was Hanna Porte, a service member spouse. She had, um, a school counseling license from Ohio and Missouri and she got married, and her husband was transferred for, to Texas, for military purposes. So, all that falls under, um, SCRA.

And she applied for a job in Texas, and Texas refused, saying, um, she… they were, they had an extra requirement, as most states do. So they had an extra requirement, that she had to have two years of experience.

Um, she appealed… Uh, well, sh- they refused. She mo-… She filed a lawsuit. They moved for preliminary injunction and the, the District Court granted it. Um, there was some argument about, about whether she had to, be employed for two years, or it’s just if she used her license in that two-years period. And the District Court sided with the Plaintiff.

So, what does this mean for us, is that we have to be mindful of what the Federal government’s doing. Um, when I found out, after the fact, is that the Department of Justice was very ha-, was very clear all along, about where they stood on this.

So the, in July of this year, the Department of Justice issued a letter to all State licensing authorities, regarding the professional licensing portability provisions. And you can find it at their website, and I don’t think I printed out a copy. But it’s very clear, the law is very clear, and it’s very clear to them, that they’re gonna enforce this law, and they’re going to support the military members and their spouses, in their pursuit of justice, if they want to get licensed.

They also filed, which is kind of interesting, too, is they filed a Statement of Interest, in the Porte versus Morath case, um, saying that she was likely to succeed on her merits, and why that they, why, um, they are going to vigorously enforce this section, and why she had standing to bring the case. So the message is very clear to the states, that this is something important to the Department of Justice and to, um, federal government.

So, as mentioned earl-… Yeah. Eh-

Senator Dugan:

So can we… before we move on to another subject-

Sarah Critanin:

Yes, sir.

Senator Dugan:

That’s pretty significant, I think. Um, and very recent. Can we talk about that, Sarah, is that all right with you?

Sarah Critanin:

Yes.

Senator Dugan:

And maybe, ask some questions, and, um, maybe-

Sarah Critanin:

I’ll do my best.

Senator Dugan:

Uh, Wanda, I may call you back up, um, too. So, what does that mean for us, in the Georgia legislature? Do we need to align our, our statute to align with that federal statute? Does it mean we need to, not do anything and, and face potential lawsuits and see how the courts, so, let the court sort it out? I mean, what is the prudent path forward?

Sarah Critanin:

So, uh, in, in my opinion, I think the prudent path is for a state licensi- Licensing agencies, to really take a look at their requirements and open it up to, to be compliant with the federal law.

Uh, the, the interesting is, and we’ll talk about this, is so the SCRA is for active military, and some of our laws are more… the, the laws that we drafted are more about transitioning service members. And so, it’s a little bit different. So I don’t think we need to repeal anything or changing our law. I think agent, state agencies need to be aware of this law, and need to work, work, uh, y-, review their applicants, with this in mind. Just saying, oh yeah, this might be an issue.

I don’t think we need to change our laws yet.

Senator Dugan:

Uh, Sarah, we’ve argued in the legislature, over, you know, is 90 days long enough to recognize a military spouse license, from another state? Is 60 days? Should it be 30 days? I come down on 30 days. This is immediately.

Sarah Critanin:

Uh, I don’t think they put a timeline. But I think, right, sooner is b-

Senator Dugan:

Well, it can go back-

Sarah Critanin:

Do we go-

Senator Dugan:

… to one of your first slides. It said, I have something about, absolute.

Sarah Critanin:

It said, shall be valid. You’re right. That’s, uh-

Senator Dugan:

It doesn’t say, you… in 30 days or 90 days.

Sarah Critanin:

Whoops. Right. Shall be considered valid. Um, I mean, I think State agencies have a right. They, they need time to review and make sure all the documents are in place. But you’re right. I mean, it says it shall be considered valid.

Speaker 8:

There was a copy out on the next one, the-

Sarah Critanin:

Is it-

Speaker 8:

[inaudible] to everyone. But, it’s, uh-

Sarah Critanin:

Mm, next one?

Speaker 8:

Yeah.

Sarah Critanin:

Oh. Oh.

Speaker 8:

It… it’s all right.

Sarah Critanin:

This one?

Speaker 8:

Um…

Sarah Critanin:

One more?

Speaker 8:

No, I think that’s it.

Senator Dugan:

[inaudible].

Sarah Critanin:

All right. I mean, (laughs), I put these animations in. I thought I was being clever, and it’s just a pain. (laughs).

Speaker 2:

(laughing).

Speaker 3:

I think 2B and through, kind of address the, uh, fed and state. It’s up there.

Senator Dugan:

2B is licenses in other states, and they failed. So I don’t think that-

Speaker 3:

That has to be similar. We have to see it as similar to their…

Senator Dugan:

That does seem very subjective, to me, that part. And so-

Speaker 2:

Yeah, but how-

Sarah Critanin:

I don’t know, I think-

Senator Dugan:

Three is gone?

Sarah Critanin:

Yeah, I think-

Senator Dugan:

It’s pretty forward.

Sarah Critanin:

I mean, I do feel to… and it takes a lot to re-… I know with the insurance department, it takes a lot to review. It takes, uh… you have to have, you know, a lot of documents and you need someone to review those documents and confirm. It, it does take time to, to process-

Senator Dugan:

So-

Sarah Critanin:

… an application.

Senator Dugan:

Wanda, do you mind addressing us on this?

Wanda Jaffey:

Sure.

Senator Dugan:

I wondered if, um, have you… So again, this is Wanda Jaffey, the Deputy Director of Professional License and Boards.

Speaker 2:

Mm-hmm.

Senator Dugan:

Have you run into this? Or you… Uh, how are you all handling this?

Speaker 2:

So we’ve been handling military expedites since 2018. So, we have tracked those. Um, most applications are touched within three business days, of receiving that military application.

Now, I can go back and pull the numbers. I didn’t really prepare for it today. I wasn’t expecting to present. But I have numbers that can show you how quickly the application is touched and how quickly a person gets licensed, if they are marked, military, on their applications.

Um, I have a spreadsheet that I, that I track those daily since 2018. I will tell you the problem with some of these things, is that, the federal government… And I, I hate to say this, but sometimes they’re creating walls, without taking in the state’s considerations.

We, in Georgia, we are here to license people. But we are also here to protect the public. So there are two facets for the licensing boards. We issue licenses, but we also follow up on complaint an compliance, to make sure our Georgians are safe within the practices.

So, having the time to be able to receive these verifications from these other states, that is very important. Because if they’ve got a pending case in another state, do we want to put potential Georgians at risk, when there’s a pending case of some sort of malpractice in another state?

So some of those things, you have to take into consideration. These are what we all the exceptions to the rule. But they are things you have to consider when you are talking about timeframes.

Sara:

Um, another thing you want to think about is that, the response of those other states. I’m dealing with a client that is trying to get a massage therapy license. They cannot get Texas to send us the verification. I personally went on behalf of this customer and called Texas. I waited on hold for three and a half hours, and still never received any assistance or an answer. I sent emails to three different divisions for the state of Texas, still with no response. I called back the next day and waited for two hours.

This is what these people that are moving to Georgia, this is what they’re having to deal with. He came in here and he was like, “I came in here and met somebody within five minutes. I can’t get a response out of Texas.” Unfortunately, what if there is a malpractice in Texas? I feel for those people. I- I’m prior military. I moved around a lot. And I feel sincerely for- for them. And I- I feel like they need to be working. But what if I took the chance and issued them a license, and then come to find out that even though Texas was slow to respond, they’ve got 10 cases of sexual assault? You know?

So there are things that you have to take into consideration. Um, but as far as being a promilitary, Georgia is one of the few states that are so very promilitary. We add veterans preference points for exams. That gives them some credit. They have disability credit that we take for that, to help them get their exams. We are very promilitary. And I have seen, and I can pull up the spreadsheets, I just don’t have them handy, but most of our applications are issued within five to 10 days. Um, then again, with the ex- exceptions, it can make it look like it’s 50 days to get a license. But you got to look over the long period and what those exceptions are.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

So has this federal law changed your process and procedures? Or are you all still operating this … I mean, has this had any impact?

Sara:

Not in a significant manner, because we were already promilitary, (laughs) if that makes any sense. We were already a step ahead of the game, so we already were taking in this information, um, and preparing it and getting people licensed here. Um, so it made us look at a couple of things, because there was some law that was saying that it had to be substantially, you know, somewhat similar. And so some of the states, for example, I hate to say Texas again, (laughs) but one state for a profession only requires 300 hours worth of training, where we require 1500 hours. Um, so there’s … That’s not substantially equal, even though it’s the same license type.

So when we’re looking at these things, those are some of the things that we had to take into consideration, which is why we kind of pushed back and said, “Let it be substantially equal, not just, you know, similar.” So it has changed a little bit in how we process, but not a lot, because we were already proactive there.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

One more question. What kind of volume, uh, I’m sure it’s a small percentage of your total volume, but is- is the- the military licensure a pretty robust volume of- of activity? Or-

Sara:

No. No, we- we issue … I’m trying to think about my spreadsheets, ’cause I tried to track all the numbers. A couple hundred a year is military for licenses that, where they’re actually marking that they are transitional military, that they are, you know, moving here. Um, it’s just a couple of hundred a year. I think one year we had like 700 and something. But don’t quote me on the numbers, ’cause I don’t have my spreadsheet right in front of me. Um, but it’s … That’s very little comp- when you compare it to all the licenses that we do here.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

You have a question, Senator David?

Speaker 3:

Not that she can answer right now. I was just kind of curious what we’re getting for that additional 1200 hours worth of training, without knowing what the thing was. Um, it … There are some … That’s gonna come to something else we talk about, is the number of hours we’re requiring for some of this stuff.

Sara:

Right.

Speaker X:

[inaudible] good lawyer question.

Yeah.

(laughs) Uh …

Sara:

(laughs)

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

Sara:

I’m not a lawyer. (laughs)

Speaker 4:

[inaudible] last night. Um, my question was what year this law was- was passed. For Sara I guess, what year was this federal law passed?

Speaker X:

This new, the new one-

Speaker 4:

Right.

Speaker X:

… is this year-

Speaker 4:

So-

Speaker X:

… 2023. And it went into effect, it was signed and went into effect.

Speaker 4:

So then Texas sued. Um, or is anybody challenging the constitutionality of the law overall, the idea that the federal government is going to require this? The reason I ask that question is, if- if so, uh, are we prudent to really not focus too much on this federal law until we see where this thing goes in the federal courts?

Speaker X:

Yeah.

Sara:

I- I don’t know if th- that was raised in the, in the case. The … Her case actually started before this case, I mean, before the law changed. And then it was brought in and the federal government s- sent in a letter or a statement of interest, which I think is unusual.

Speaker X:

Right.

Sara:

So right, there is an argument for let’s see. W- this appeal process, you know, appeal up the, up their side. And there’s, and another case we’ve got coming that, there’s appeals. But I think the, you know, the- the- the federal government is sending us signals to help its service members, to make their lives easier. And all of this, remember, all of this is based on trying to help our active military who have been called, you know, called up and are- are moving. They’re moving, whatever it is. So it’s not … So it’s, it is, um, a small subset of- of-

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

Sara:

Yeah. So … All righty, we’re good?

: Chairman Sen Walker:

[inaudible]

Sara:

Okay. All right, let’s-

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Thank you.

Sara:

All right, let’s see where we are. Sorry.

 Chairman Sen Walker:

Interstate compacts, I think.

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

Sara:

Okay. So interstate licensure compacts, um, which is an exception to the, um, [inaudible] portability rule, law. So, let’s see if this works. [inaudible] Ah, here we go. (laughs) [inaudible] My head is gonna explode. Okay I’m not sure where to look or read but … (laughs) So, um … So if you go to this website, uh, we have a, um, occupational licensure compact. Actually, there are a lot of compacts in our OSGA. It has to do with agreements, like on water, borders, or, uh … There’s just a lot of compacts. But, uh, we’re focusing just on occupational licensure compacts. There are about 15 available.

Um, and actually if you scroll down, so it’ll say … This is a great website you can go to. Just keep going down, down, down, down. Here’s our list of the 15. Um, Georgia has signed onto, uh, about eight of those. Seven are in Title 43. And then one is in another title. And just a head’s up, there’s, um, a dietician compact coming and a school psychologist compact coming. Um … Let me see, so is there a way to … [inaudible]

So actually, I’ve got a l- uh, a list of which ones we’ve gone to. Can we c- can we click on this one? Um, and this was … Oh good, that came up. This was m- just, I’d like to point out that the, uh, Department of Defense is very much aware of these, uh, licensure compacts. And this is posted on- on their website. And there’s a whole bunch of links so that service members and their spouses are aware of which compacts are working and- and where their licensure can be eased along. Um … Okay. This …

So, most of the licensure compacts are in Title 43. Um, the- the point of, um interstate com- licensure compacts, is to, um, make it easier for people to get licensed, to use their license, but also to provide some safeguards. So there’s some better exchange of data and information between states. Um … Okay, so [inaudible] did I skip one? Oh, I think I might’ve. So this, um … Sorry, there’s all … You- you never want to let a lawyer talk. There’s all these things I wanted to talk about. I was gonna tell you about each bill that went through and what year it went through, but you’ll just have to read it in the news.

So in, (laughs) in addition to licensure compacts, we’ve got some great law that, um, and this is one section in Title 43 s- it’s 43-134, and then the next ones we’ll do also. Um, and this is for transitioning service members. Um, and- and it gives them, um … As you’ll see in, on line B, it sort of, it, and this I think is where she’s saying, like, since 2018, this has been con- this can been a- has been a priority. So they get sort of front of the line, temporary licenses, license inducement, exp- expedited licenses or accommodation.

So Georgia has been really, um, positive about helping its military. It’s, and this is specific to transitioning service members, as you know like with any bill, there’s a lot of give and take and chaos at the new session. So things get added, things get taken out. So we do the best we can to get a good law for you. Um, but this one has been on the books probably since two thousand- since 2017, with some adjustments.

And then, um, this past year, this section of the law was amended heartily. Um, 43-135, which is, uh, more about, um, um spouses and individuals. And this one, we really worked hard to try to get this, uh, to protect, uh, the licensing part of the world, but also to keep- keep businesses op- keep the licensing going. Um …

If you’ll see under Section B. See I, uh, you know, I don’t want to read this, ’cause I’m … But I love this. It’s great language. Um, again, it’s for an expedited license by endorsement. So this part of the law is for spouses of a service member or a transitioning service member stationed in Georgia.

And then we added, um, a little bit more. And I- I did think about this with Senator Walker’s concerns. Do we need to adjust this? And I think in my opinion, and I am gonna go talk to some of my senior attorneys about, you know, “Do we need to change B3?” And I don’t think we do. But that is something I am, um, I’m wondering if that’s in conflict or if it’s okay, because this is really just for a- a- a different group. The SCRA is for active military under order, transferring under orders. And this is a little bit different.

The second part of this law, well, third part of this law, is about, is, we really opened it up to any individuals crossing borders. Um, so this was kind of an exciting, uh, change to the law. Um, this of course is not affected by SCRA at all. But this was an exciting, very exciting to put in- into place.

Whoops. Oh, and in the end, of course we’ve got the little [inaudible]. We also say, if you look under, um, G, you know, the licensing compacts, these are agreements made, we made with our brethren states. We honor those agreements. And those- those agreements, um, control. So I know I’ve been talking a lot. And I just, I do want to show you, if this works [inaudible]

Well, it may not work, but I did … Do you think you can get it? If you can get it to work, it’d be great. Um, you know, you never want to leave an attorney with time on their hands. So in May, after the session, after I recovered from the session I was like, “Hey, what is going on in Title 43?” So I painstakingly went through every chapter and said, “Okay, what, this becomes an issue, is what constitutes a professional licensing board? What is an other board? Um, what is under the Secretary of State’s office?” And I probably, I’m gonna get your business card. Um, what do they consider, um, under their wings or under their whatever, shield? Um … No working?

Speaker X:

We’re getting there.

Sara:

Ah, it’s a beautiful spreadsheet with multiple colors-

Speaker X:

(laughs)

Sara:

… blue and green and yellow. And I worked really hard on it. And it’s got, uh, you know, 10 columns about what, what, how many boards we have, which, 43. Uh, we just lost one, (laughs) maybe. We’ll talk about that in a minute. And which ones are under the Secretary of State’s office. Well, not really [inaudible] well, there’s a case. Um, it’s not lost. It’s, there was just, um … No … Well, I’ll send you an email with a beautiful spreadsheet. [inaudible]

That’s okay, that’s okay. Maybe the n- … I’ll try the next …

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

Sara:

No? Okay. Well, you’ll just have to imagine. It’s a spreadsheet-

Speaker X:

(laughs)

Sara:

… with lots of, um, (laughs) colors and, um, I think I figured out, there’s like nine, I think, eight or nine that are specifically not under the Secretary of State. And then some that are specifically under the Secretary of State’s office. And then some that are squishy that I assume are probably under the Secretary of State’s office. So …

And lest you forget, not everything is in Title 43. We have plenty of licensing outside of Title 43. And this is just a list of random things I just kind of gathered. Um, so there’s lots of licensing that even when we cover it in Title 43, it may not, it doesn’t reach out, unless we say it’s gonna cover it. Um, and just to give you an example, of course this becomes a big deal, um … We, we have not signed onto, to my knowledge, I didn’t see it, we didn’t sign onto a teacher compact.

And teaching is kind of a hard one I think for people to agree, for states to agree to, because you’re … There’s of state requirements. And, um, so we do have two statutes on the book for transferring out of state and, um, military spouses. And that’s, that’s about all I could find as far as, um, the, um, getting, letting out of state people get licensed.

Okay, so the big winner Jackson v. Raffensperger [inaudible] … So, as, uh … This is an exciting, exciting case that, um, the complaint was filed in 2018, just after the, um, Georgia Lactation Consultant Practice Act was, um, um, enacted. And the challenge was based on two, uh, they challenged the constitutionality of the act on due process, Georgia due process clause violations and equal protection clause violations. So of course, I put those two up there.

The plaintiffs were Mary Jackson and, uh, Reaching Our Sisters Everywhere, a nonprofit organization. Uh, the acronym was ROSE. And the defendant, I think it started out under Kemp and then Raffensperger was substituted. Um, so this was, um … This case has gone up and down. Um, Jacks- what we call Jackson one, um, the- the- the lawsuit was filed and the trial court dismissed the claim saying that there was no, there was, they failed to state a claim, upon which re- relief could be granted. And that was appealed.

And the Georgia Supreme Court reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to reconsider. And they said that they had a long history of interpreting the Georgia Constitution as protecting the right to work in one’s chosen profession, from unreasonable government interference. And that’s the key phrase there. And then [inaudible] and they said that the trial court erred in concluding the plaintiffs are not similarly situated. So that was Jackson one. And this is just a quick overview. So that was in 2020.

And then it went back to the trial court. There was some discovery and negotiations and talk and what not. And on remand, um, the trial court, uh, granted one motion for summary judgment for one side, and, uh, motion for summary judgment for the other side. And both sides appealed. So then we got to Jackson two. And, uh, that, this is the case that just came out this, uh, May, 2023. And the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the act was unconstitutional on due process grounds, but did not reach the equal protection claim.

So due process, here’s your five second law school, uh, intro to due process. So there is a due process clause in the, I already put it up there, but in the Georgia Constitution, it’s always been there. And the- the supreme court is very proud that they’ve long recognized it. And I bolded the phrase, “lawful occupation of their choosing, free from unreasonable government interference.”

And then, uh, this is also from that, the case, where they say, um, provide some guidelines on, um, when can the government interfere. uh, when there’s public health, safety, morality, and other [inaudible] of general we- welfare. Um, generally the burden, step one, the burden is on the plaintiff to show the occupation is lawful and the regulation burdens them. Then the step two is the government must offer a legitimate interest. And then step three is the plaintiff has to prove that it’s unre- it unreasonably interferes. So in five seconds or less, now you can all go to law school. (laughs)

Speaker X:

(laughs)

Sara:

And, um … I’m happy to answer questions. I know I went a little long. It’s … I’ve got lots of hand- you know, I printed things and I know the website links didn’t work, but I’m happy to send you information if you want. My contact information is there. It’s a fascinating, uh, subject, always interesting and always a pleasure to work with my colleagues. Thank you.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Any questions for Sara? Thank you so much Sara, that was a very informative and we’ll make any of this material available to anybody that wants it. Um, and I … Are these PowerPoints gonna be available-

Sara:

It’s online.

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

… uh, online? All right. Thank you. All right, last thing on our agenda, we’ve got Mr. Gabe Sterling, Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Secretary of State.

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

Is it … We ought to … We’ll have it memorized then by the end.

Speaker X:

[inaudible]

(laughs)

Just making sure this [inaudible]

1/3 start: Chairman Sen Walker:

[inaudible] (laughs)

Speaker X:

I think he’s coming.

[inaudible]

 

“Along with ending “sanctuary city” policies, readers may remember that Kemp pledged to crack down on “criminal illegals” when he ran for governor in 2018. He didn’t.”

For someone who has been fighting illegal immigration in Georgia for twenty years, the endless news stories coming out of Florida regarding Gov DeSantis’ “toughest state illegal immigration law in the nation” crackdown on that organized crime is both familiar and sadly entertaining. It seems that the vast corporate-funded, anti-enforcement media lobby is crazed over the promise of future enforcement.

Headline after headline screams that “the undocumented” are leaving Florida out of fear.

“Migrant Workers Flee Florida as New Immigration Law Takes Effect” from the July 3 edition of the Wall St. Journal is but one example.

In a statement, Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said the new Florida provisions could prompt “discrimination and racial profiling, and give rise to hostile environments, intimidation” and (wait for it)…”hate crimes.”

“Criminalization is not the way to resolve the phenomenon of undocumented migration,” the Mexican government said, describing the new measures as driven by xenophobia and white nationalism.”  Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador urged U.S. Latino voters to reject DeSantis, accusing the politician of trying to win votes at the expense of illegal aliens (he may have said “migrants,”…but “tomato” –  “tomahto”).

This entire scenario is well-known to this writer because I recall when Georgia was passing “the toughest state illegal immigration law in the nation…” – multiple times. In 2006 GOP legislators passed the thirteen-page SB 529, “Georgia Security & Immigration Compliance Act.” Then-Gov Sonny Perdue signed it into law and was reelected the same year.

To get started the bill had to pass out of the Senate Public Safety Committee where a state Senator named Brian Kemp was the tough-talking Republican chairman.

Kemp told the liberal Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper then that “many Georgians are “fed up” with illegal immigration.” He was a candidate for Agriculture Commissioner at the time.

In 2011 Gold Dome Republicans put in place the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011” – HB 87. Twenty-three sections of enforcement promises in twenty-seven pages. Today, Georgia is home to more illegals that Arizona.

In both above years a different Mexican president offered up the same race-baiting goop attacking our Georgia legislation we are now hearing about Florida’s.

Each time we saw the same panicked news stories we now see from Florida courtesy of the outraged liberal media.

The head of metro-Atlanta’s rabidly anti-enforcement “Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights” (GLAHR), Mexican immigrant Adelina Nicholls, recently told the AJC that she fears another move towards enforcement promises here. “It wouldn’t surprise me if some provisions of the law or even the whole thing was introduced at the next legislative session here in the state of Georgia,” she said.

Good one. Nichols must be having a little fun with the AJC reporter. She has nothing to fear here. The Republicans who run the state legislature are going in the other direction. Examples? HB 136, a simple, short bill that would merely require a quarterly, public count of the number of illegal aliens in the state prison system and reveal their crimes is stuck in the Republican-led House committee process.

In February all but one of the Republicans in the state senate voted to provide taxpayer-funded Adult Education to illegal aliens. Pushed by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, there is an endless effort to provide a greatly reduced taxpayer-financed instate tuition opportunity to illegal aliens that is not available to Americans who live in other states.

Much if not most of the laws already put in place here are treated as optional by the people elected to enforcement them. Kemp is allowed to be silent on illegal immigration in Georgia by dutiful and obedient dollar-first GOP voters who would rather silently watch their countrymen be harmed by criminal illegal aliens than risk accusations of being “anti-Kemp.” It’s not just the Rule of Law that is on sale.

Along with ending “sanctuary city” policies, readers may remember that Kemp pledged to crack down on “criminal illegals” when he ran for governor in 2018. He didn’t.

• Related: Sanctuary Georgia: Another law that is ignored on “criminal illegals”

The illegal aliens flowing out of Florida are reminders that even the threat of enforcement results in their outward migration. Where will they go? Georgians should expect an influx of newly arrived illegals with a Florida accent.

A version of this column is published in the July 10, 2023 edition of The Islander newspaper in Glynn County, GA.

Voters should talk back to the politicians they send to Atlanta

One of the glaring realities realized after nearly two decades as a reluctant denizen of the Gold Dome is that most voters have little idea about what really goes on there. A pending Democrat bill related to immigration and the cost of higher education with three Republican cosponsors is likely an example.

Senate Bill 264 is sponsored by Stone Mountain Democrat Sen. Kim Jackson. The number two signer on the bill is Republican Sen. Mike Dugan of Carrollton. The other two Republican cosponsors are Senators Billy Hickman (Statesboro) and Dalton’s Chuck Payne.

If passed and signed by Governor Kemp, this bill would remove the requirement now in state law that new Georgia residents must live here for a year before they can access the much lower instate tuition rate in our public colleges and technical schools.  Including the Republican cosigners, we urge all concerned to read lines 22 & 23 in the bill as introduced (LC  50 0510).            

But the proposed change would not apply to Americans.

The Democrat legislation these Republicans have decided to support only applies to foreigners with refugee and “special immigrant” status along with otherwise illegal aliens who the Biden administration moves into the U.S. as recipients of temporary “Humanitarian Parole.” Under SB 264 these lucky folks could legally “migrate” to Georgia from other countries and immediately access instate tuition rates. They would not have a twelve-month residency waiting period as do Americans.

U.S. citizens moving here from other states would still pay the much higher out of state tuition rate for their first year as a new Georgian.It’s easy and accurate to refer to this gem as an “Americans last bill.”

The measure  has been assigned to the Senate Higher Education Committee where Hickman is the chairman and saw an initial hearing on March 16, 2023. Along with Sen. Payne, with his question to the sponsor, Chairman Hickman demonstrated that that he did not understand the Democrat, immigration related bill he has cosponsored (transcript here).

How much more tuition would an American pay in our public colleges than foreign nationals?

In Carroll County, where Sen. Dugan lives, the University of West Georgia charges $2,732 (15+ hours) for instate tuition. The out of state rate is $9,641.

• Related: Dugan’s senate email address is mike.dugan@senate.ga.gov .

According to the Georgia Southern University website, the instate tuition for undergraduates was $2732.00 for fifteen hours in the Fall 2022 semester and $9641.00 for out-of-state rate (it’s the same for Spring, and Summer 2023). Our math tells us that is a difference of $6909.00 per semester.

As per the Dalton State website, for on campus students the estimated tuition and fees per semester is $2,123.00 for instate tuition. It’s $6,334.00 for students being charged the out-of-state rate. That’s a difference of $4211.00 if my American math is correct – per semester.

Based on a 9-month academic year for an average undergraduate student, tuition and fees at UGA for instate tuition is $12,080.00 The out-of-state tuition/fee cost is $31,120.00  “based on a 9-month academic year for an average undergraduate student”  (UGA website, May 30, 2023).

My guess is that cosponsoring SB 264 wasn’t at the top of any “end of session at the Gold Dome wrap up” presentation at a grassroots GOP meeting for Dugan or the other Republican cosponsors.

Pushed in the state Capitol by the leftist Coalition of Refugee Service Agencies (CRSA), Mark Zuckerburg’s little-known, pro-amnesty ‘FWD.us’ lobbying enterprise and the powerful Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the same bill (then from a Republican) died without a vote last year as HB 932. When this writer made it public during the 2022 legislative session that Speaker Pro Tem Rep Jan Jones (R – Milton) had cosponsored that bill, she went to the Clerk of the House office and scratched her name off the list of cosponsors.

• According to their website, the CRSA mission is “to engage a broad coalition to highlight the cultural, social, and economic contributions of refugees and immigrants in Georgia.”
• A quote on “immigration reform” on the FWD.us website goes like this: “A majority of Americans support immigration and criminal justice reform, and we’re working with legislators and groups on both sides of the aisle to drive real change at the local, state, and federal levels.” Jaime Rangel, the lobbyist in the state Capitol for FWD.us is an illegal alien.
• The Georgia Chamber website tells us “for over 100 years the Georgia Chamber of Commerce has worked to keep, grow and create jobs to make Georgia a better state for business.”

I can sadly tell you that the list of lawmakers who have an “Americans First” mindset on business, benefits, law enforcement and educational matters when it involves immigration is short and shrinking. Voters can and should change that fact by paying attention and talking back to the politicians they elect to serve them.

There is a companion bill in the House, HB 640. Democrat Rep Scott Holcombe (Atlanta) is the lead sponsor, Republican Rep Bill Hitchens (Rincon) is the only cosponsor. Readers may want to ask their House Rep about that gem too as both bills are viable for the 2024 session. It’s an election year.

You can get more information on these bills and follow their progress at ImmigrationPoliticsGA.com.

“If passed and signed by Governor Kemp, this bill would remove the requirement now in state law that new Georgia residents must live here for a year before they can access the much lower instate tuition rate in our public colleges and technical schools. But the proposed change would not apply to Americans.”

One of the glaring realities realized after nearly two decades as a reluctant denizen of the Gold Dome is that most voters have little idea about what really goes on there. A pending Democrat bill related to immigration and the cost of higher education with three Republican cosponsors is likely an example.

Senate Bill 264 is sponsored by Stone Mountain Democrat Sen. Kim Jackson. The number two signer on the bill is Republican Sen. Mike Dugan of Carrollton. The other two Republican cosponsors are Senators Billy Hickman (Statesboro) and Dalton’s Chuck Payne.

If passed and signed by Governor Kemp, this bill would remove the requirement now in state law that new Georgia residents must live here for a year before they can access the much lower instate tuition rate in our public colleges and technical schools.

But the proposed change would not apply to Americans.

The Democrat legislation these Republicans have decided to support only applies to foreigners with refugee and “special immigrant” status along with otherwise illegal aliens who the Biden administration moves into the U.S. as recipients of temporary “Humanitarian Parole.” Under SB 264 these lucky folks could legally “migrate” to Georgia from other countries and immediately access instate tuition rates. They would not have a twelve-month residency waiting period as do Americans.

U.S. citizens moving here from other states would still pay the much higher out of state tuition rate for their first year as a new Georgian.

The measure has been assigned to the Senate Higher Education Committee where Hickman is the chairman.

It’s easy and accurate to refer to this gem as an “Americans last bill.”

How much more tuition would an American pay in our public colleges than foreign nationals?

According to the Georgia Southern University website, the instate tuition for undergraduates was $2732.00 for fifteen hours in the Fall 2022 semester and $9641.00 for out-of-state rate (it’s the same for Spring, and Summer 2023). Our math tells us that is a difference of $6909.00 per semester.

• Related: Sen Hickman’s senate email address is billy.hickman@senate.ga.gov . 

As per the Dalton State website, for on campus students the estimated tuition and fees per semester is $2,123.00 for instate tuition. It’s $6,334.00 for students being charged the out-of-state rate. That’s a difference of $4211.00 if my American math is correct – per semester.

In Carroll County, where Sen. Dugan lives, the University of West Georgia charges $2,732 (15+ hours) for instate tuition. The out of state rate is $9,641.

Based on a 9-month academic year for an average undergraduate student, tuition and fees at UGA for instate tuition is $12,080.00 The out-of-state tuition/fee cost is $31,120.00  “based on a 9-month academic year for an average undergraduate student”  (UGA website, May 30, 2023).

My guess is that cosponsoring SB 264 wasn’t at the top of any “end of session at the Gold Dome wrap up” presentation at a grassroots GOP meeting for Hickman or the other Republican cosponsors.

Pushed in the state Capitol by the leftist Coalition of Refugee Service Agencies (CRSA), Mark Zuckerburg’s little-known, pro-amnesty ‘FWD.us’ lobbying enterprise and the powerful Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the same bill (then from a Republican) died without a vote last year as HB 932. When this writer made it public during the 2022 legislative session that Speaker Pro Tem Rep Jan Jones (R – Milton) had cosponsored that bill, she went to the Clerk of the House office and scratched her name off the list of cosponsors.

• According to their website, the CRSA mission is “to engage a broad coalition to highlight the cultural, social, and economic contributions of refugees and immigrants in Georgia.”
• A quote on “immigration reform” on the FWD.us website goes like this: “A majority of Americans support immigration and criminal justice reform, and we’re working with legislators and groups on both sides of the aisle to drive real change at the local, state, and federal levels.” Jaime Rangel, the lobbyist in the state Capitol for FWD.us is an illegal alien.
• The Georgia Chamber website tells us “for over 100 years the Georgia Chamber of Commerce has worked to keep, grow and create jobs to make Georgia a better state for business.”

I can sadly tell you that the list of lawmakers who have an “Americans First” mindset on business, benefits, law enforcement and educational matters when it involves immigration is short and shrinking. Voters can and should change that fact by paying attention and talking back to the politicians they elect to serve them.

There is a companion bill in the House, HB 640. Democrat Rep Scott Holcombe (Atlanta) is the lead sponsor, Republican Rep Bill Hitchens (Rincon) is the only cosponsor. Readers may want to ask their House Rep about that gem too as both bills are viable for the 2024 session. It’s an election year.

You can get more information on these bills and follow their progress at ImmigrationPoliticsGA.com.

 

Voters should talk back to the politicians they send to Atlanta

One of the glaring realities realized after nearly two decades as a reluctant denizen of the Gold Dome is that most voters have little idea about what really goes on there. A pending Democrat bill related to immigration and the cost of higher education with three Republican cosponsors is likely an example.

Senate Bill 264 is sponsored by Stone Mountain Democrat Sen. Kim Jackson. The number two signer on the bill is Republican Sen. Mike Dugan of Carrollton. The other two Republican cosponsors are Senators Billy Hickman (Statesboro) and Dalton’s Chuck Payne.

If passed and signed by Governor Kemp, this bill would remove the requirement now in state law that new Georgia residents must live here for a year before they can access the much lower instate tuition rate in our public colleges and technical schools.

But the proposed change would not apply to Americans.

The Democrat legislation these Republicans have decided to support only applies to foreigners with refugee and “special immigrant” status along with otherwise illegal aliens who the Biden administration moves into the U.S. as recipients of temporary “Humanitarian Parole.” Under SB 264 these lucky folks could legally “migrate” to Georgia from other countries and immediately access instate tuition rates. They would not have a twelve-month residency waiting period as do Americans.

U.S. citizens moving here from other states would still pay the much higher out of state tuition rate for their first year as a new Georgian.

The measure has been assigned to the Senate Higher Education Committee where Payne is a member and Hickman is the chairman.

It’s easy and accurate to refer to this gem as an “Americans last bill.”

How much more tuition would an American pay in our public colleges than foreign nationals? According to the Dalton State website, for on campus students the estimated tuition and fees per semester is $2,123.00 for instate tuition. It’s $6,334.00 for students being charged the out-of-state rate. That’s a difference of $4211.00 if my American math is correct – per semester.

According to the Georgia Southern University website, the instate tuition for undergraduates was $2732.00 for fifteen hours in the Fall 2022 semester and $9641.00 for out-of-state rate (it’s the same for Spring, and Summer 2023). Our math tells us that is a difference of $6909.00 per semester.

In Carroll County, where Sen. Dugan lives, the University of West Georgia charges $2,732 (15+ hours) for instate tuition. The out of state rate is $9,641.

Based on a 9-month academic year for an average undergraduate student, tuition and fees at UGA for instate tuition is $12,080.00 The out-of-state tuition/fee cost is $31,120.00  “based on a 9-month academic year for an average undergraduate student”  (UGA website, May 30, 2023).

My guess is that cosponsoring SB 264 wasn’t at the top of any “end of session at the Gold Dome wrap up” presentation at a grassroots GOP meeting for Payne or the other Republican cosponsors.

Pushed in the state Capitol by the leftist Coalition of Refugee Service Agencies (CRSA), Mark Zuckerburg’s little-known, pro-amnesty ‘FWD.us’ lobbying enterprise and the powerful Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the same bill (then from a Republican) died without a vote last year as HB 932. When this writer made it public during the 2022 legislative session that Speaker Pro Tem Rep Jan Jones (R – Milton) had cosponsored that bill, she went to the Clerk of the House office and scratched her name off the list of cosponsors.

• According to their website, the CRSA mission is “to engage a broad coalition to highlight the cultural, social, and economic contributions of refugees and immigrants in Georgia.”
• A quote on “immigration reform” on the FWD.us website goes like this: “A majority of Americans support immigration and criminal justice reform, and we’re working with legislators and groups on both sides of the aisle to drive real change at the local, state, and federal levels.” Jaime Rangel, the lobbyist in the state Capitol for FWD.us is an illegal alien.
• The Georgia Chamber website tells us “for over 100 years the Georgia Chamber of Commerce has worked to keep, grow and create jobs to make Georgia a better state for business.”

I can sadly tell you that the list of lawmakers who have an “Americans First” mindset on business, benefits, law enforcement and educational matters when it involves immigration is short and shrinking. Voters can and should change that fact by paying attention and talking back to the politicians they elect to serve them.

There is a companion bill in the House, HB 640. Democrat Rep Scott Holcombe (Atlanta) is the lead sponsor, Republican Rep Bill Hitchens (Rincon) is the only cosponsor. Readers may want to ask their House Rep about that gem too as both bills are viable for the 2024 session. It’s an election year.

You can get more information on these bills and follow their progress at ImmigrationPoliticsGA.com.

Updated, April 10, 2023. The below story is directly related to this: “US refugee orgs met with racism, sexism, verbal abuse from some (SIV) Afghan evacuees: IG report” – here.

SB 264 (and HB 640) would allow foreign nationals who are Refugees, “Special Visa Immigrants” and recipients of “Humanitarian Parole” (see also Biden’s parole scam) to move to Georgia and immediately access instate tuition rates. Americans migrating to our state would still be required to be residents for a year before they are allowed to pay instate tuition in our public colleges. The same bill died last year as HB 932. We had hoped the House would let us see who would vote for it.

Please read Inger’s terrific column from that adventure here.

• Related: Federal court rules the Biden parole scam was illegal. And Biden won’t appeal.

We may want SB 264 to go to the Republican-controlled Senate floor next year – in order to see who votes “yes” in an election year. It should be noted that the Republican co-sponsors of the Democrat bill don’t seem to understand it. They do seem to know the Georgia Chamber of Commerce wants it passed.

Related: For academic year 2020-2021, the average tuition & fees for Colleges in Georgia was $4,739.00 for in-state and $17,008.00 for out-of-state. Americans who relocate here would pay the higher amount in their first year of residence.

The foreigners there catagories listed above would pay the lower amount. That is a difference of $12,260.90. 

Here are the sponsors of SB 264:

1. Jackson, Kim  (D)	41st
2.	Dugan, Mike (R)	30th
3.	Butler, Gloria (D)	55th
4.	Payne, Chuck (R)	54th
5.	Hickman, Billy (R)	4th
6.	Halpern, Sonya (D)	39th

 

The below transcript from the March 16, Senate Higher Education committee hearing on SB 264 which was dropped  heard for the fist time in committee after Crossover Day, 2023. There is a companion bill, HB 640.

Video here. See March 16, 2023

Transcript by Rev.com

• My cost $50.00 and about 3 hours.
• Note: The Coalition of Refugee Services (CRSA) sent out an action alert on March 20, 2023 telling their supporters to contact the senate and ask this bill be passed. You can sign up for alerts from the CRSA here.

 

Begin bill presentation in Senate Higher Education committee:

Sen. Kim Jackson (D- bill sponsor)

Uh, and we were working off of Senate bill 264, which is LC500510.

Senate Higher Ed committee Chairman, Sen. Billy Hickman

You’re totally good.

Sen Jackson:

All right, thank you. And I- I want to begin by thanking the chairman for allowing us to have this hearing. This is, um, such an important conversation for us to begin. And so, um, as you can see from the sign that was there, uh, many people who are very much interested and invested in this issue. Um, so very briefly, what this bill does is that it allows people who are resettled here in Georgia via a special immigration status, so what we’re talking about specifically are people who served, um, and helped our military in Afghanistan. Um, people who have been, um, clearly on our side when it’s come to those wars.

They’ve come here with special immigrant status and this bill would allow them to receive in-state tuition, uh, upon being resettled here. I think it’s important to note that none of those folks that have come here have come from another state. They don’t have another state where they could get in-state tuition, right? Oftentimes, this is what we’re thinking about. We’re like, “Oh, we don’t want somebody who lives in South Carolina, say, um, where they could get in-state South Carolina tuition, we don’t want them coming to Georgia and getting our in-state tuition.”

For people who come here who are resettled by our federal government, folks who have been our friends, who have gone through extreme amounts of trauma and yet still been dedicated to, uh, this country, people who are resettled here, this is their home state. This is in-state for them. And so, this bill would allow those who have a Humanitarian Parole status, a special immigrant status, to be able to continue their education and to do that in a way that’s affordable by receiving in-state tuition. If, with that, there are a lot of people who signed up. And so I- I’m happy to yield as much time, um, to them, if that would be helpful, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hickman:

Can I ask a, ask a quick question?

Sen. Jackson

Oh, please.

Chairman Hickman:

Um, uh, s- I think, um, maybe Senator Payne and I had a conversation about Dalton, Georgia, and, you know, the Hispanic population, adult and- and- and so forth, and the parents of refugees, but children… I guess the children are also refugees in the school system out there. And [inaudible 00:02:27] when they graduate from the school system, they don’t qualify for in-state tuition. Is- is that a part of all this?

Sen Jackson:

So actually, that’s a separate bill, um, so, and- and one certainly that I hope many of us will support in the future. Um, so, ch- the children that you’re referring to, um, often have DACA status. So, um, they are children who- who came with parents of their own- no- no accord of their own, right? These children are… these young adults, these are, these are young adults or- or children, they’re coming here, um, with legal status from day one.

Um, they, on day one, uh, not only did they come here with legal status on day one, they were picked out, right, from Afghanistan, from the countries that they were, um, and recognized and acknowledged as having either assisted the US military a- as interpreters or, um, being people who are extreme in danger of being harmed because of their, um, support to the US military. So these folks arrived on day one with legal status in our state as a special immigrant, um, whereas the folks that you’re talking about don’t have legal status.

 

Chairman Hickman

Ok..[inaudible 00:03:35].

Sen. Jackson:

So this bill would be very clear, very specific, um, to folks with legal status to be here in the state, and this is their home.

Chairman Hickman:

Senator Payne?

Senator Chuck Payne:

Yes. Uh, this, would this apply to, um, my question is, ’cause I- I’m in the military, I- I remember we had a gentleman that was actually, uh, from Nicaragua, and he was serving in, next to us in the first 504th Second Airborne Division. And you know, was s- and I come to realize since then that we have a lot of noncitizens that are serving in our military. And so, would this… For those who are living here, this would allow them, if they were living in Georgia and states [inaudible 00:04:21] and for, that- that would bene- that would help those to access-

Sen. Jackson

I- I’m gonna bring my specialist here. I- I don’t think that’s accurate. I have a different bill, um, f- to allow those folks to become peace officers in our state. But, um, this is Darlene Lynch. She really is my expert who can answer that question definitively.

Senator Payne:

Okay, thank you.

Chairman Hickman,

So again, tell us who you are and-

Darlene Lynch – (Coalition of refugee Services (CRSA):

Sure.

Chairman Hickman:

… then who you represent.

Darlene Lynch:

I’m Darlene Lynch, and I’m a lawyer here in Georgia, and I represent the Business and Immigration for Georgia Partnership. It’s a partnership of, um, refugee and immigrant serving agencies in the business community, um, and so to answer your question, uh, as- as Senator Jackson said, it’s not possible to become eligible after you’re here. You have to be admitted to the United States as a special immigrant visa holder. So a- an interpreter from, um-

Senator Payne:

Oh…[inaudible 00:05:15].

Darlene Lynch:

… Nicaragua would not have that, w- would- would not have that ability. They’d have to be from Afghanistan or Iraq. However, if they were a Humanitarian Parolee, um, approved before coming to Georgia, yes. They- they’d be-

Senator Payne:

Okay. So this is specifically for those in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Darlene Lynch:

And for others who have Humanitarian Parolee, other special immigrant status.

Senator Payne:

Okay. Okay.

Darlene Lynch:

But it’s not something you can-

Senator Payne:

The reason I identified that, because this was [inaudible 00:05:42] Nicaragua was our [inaudible 00:05:44] (laughs).

Darlene Lynch:

[inaudible 00:05:46].

Senator Payne:

And that is always one of those questions that… He- he fled Nicaragua in a very t- tough time and- and joined the military to serve our country.

Darlene Lynch:

Mm-hmm.

Chairman Hickman:

Senator Moore.

Senator Colton Moore:

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I’m just trying to understand what a special immigration status is.

Sen. Jackson:

Sure.

Senator Moore:

And, um, if I, if I read it off the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Homeland Security website, it says, “Special immigrant is a noncitizen who qualifies for a green card after meeting certain criteria. So, it doesn’t say anything about assisting the US or the state of Georgia, for that matter.

Sen Moore:

Do you want to [inaudible 00:06:27]?

Darlene Lynch:

So the… We’re… this bill addresses three categories of people: refugees, I think most folks are familiar with the US refugee program that dates back from the Vietnam War, and the Un- and Georgia’s program dates back four decades. Special immigrant visa holders are… There’s three programs that the US government have set up. The oldest program, they’re all referenced in the bill, would apply to interpreters from Iraq and from, um, Afghanistan who served as interpreters and translators for certain periods of time and applied for an SIV and then came here.

The more recent programs, there’s another one for Iraqis, and the most recent one for Afghans, who had supported or acted in a trusted role with the US government. They have to get approved by the- the head of mission, um, and then they apply for an SIV, uh, uh, permit. They wait many, many years, up to three years now, to get that. And then they come. So, all three of those SIV programs are for people who supported the US military or the US mission in those countries. And then the last program is for Humanitarian Parolees.

Sen Jackson:

And just to hopefully alleviate some of your concerns, we do spell out the exact code section in the federal law. If you look in lines, uh, 19, starting line 18 through 22. So we’re not, um, we’re not talking about just special immigrants, but we do specify the exact, um, types of special immigrants that, um, Ms. Lynch just a- Attorney Council Lynch just referred to.

Senator Moore:

Okay. Yeah, I’ll certainly have to go read those. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hickman:

Okay. Senator Burns?

Senator Burns:

Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And- and, uh, thank you to the author and to those who support the legislation. I certainly support the concept. Uh, I think, um, it’s a, it’s worthy for us to acknowledge the service of those who’ve helped our country. A few quick questions. Are other states offering similar benefits? Could you, could you, uh, could you share that and kind of give me an idea of what other states might have chosen to do?

Sen Jackson:

Yes. So, uh, there are other states. Tennessee, um, specifically, uh, Council Lynch might be able to add some more. Um, so, some of this is about clarifying the law. If you, if you look there, um, there is a sentence, um, I’ll see if I can refer to the line, where the Board of Regents is given some opportunity to determine. So if you look at, um, I think line, uh, it started on line 12. 12 through 14, um, the Board of Regents has some leeway already written into the law, and so in other states like Tennessee, um, they’ve actually chosen to interpret, um, that those who come as Humanitarian Parolees, who come with these SIVs, that they’re, that they qualify.

They didn’t necessarily… They then interpreted that and decided to have that kind of generous read already. So I know that’s one example, if, uh, Councilor Lynch can offer more.

Darlene Lynch:

Right. And so, different states are doing it different ways, but right now, there are 10 states who passed similar legislations. And some of them include Colorado, V- Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Vermont, both Democrat, Republican states, and now there are five pending, including in Utah as the most recent one. Um, similar legislation to this bill.

Senator Burns:

And thank you. Uh, another followup, Mr.- Mr. Chairman? Uh, how many students do you feel would be a part of this qualifying group?

Sen Jackson:

Yeah, thank you so much for that question, and- and that’s something we’re trying to kind of get a han- handle on. And we’re not, we’re not 100% sure. But we believe it’ll be somewhere in the hundreds. So two, three-

Senator Burns:

You said we’re talking hundreds, not thousands, probably?

Sen Jackson:

We’re not talking, we’re not talking thousands at all. We’re talking somewhere in the hundreds.

Senator Burns:

All right. And then one more. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. But, uh, have you had these discussions with USG and TCSG?

Sen Jackson:

Absolutely. And those s-

Senator Burns:

And are- are they… I- I would… Their response, how do they feel about it?

Sen Jackson:

We- we’re continuing in those conversations.

Senator Burns:

[inaudible 00:10:26].

Sen jackson:

So those discussions have been ongoing. Um, this legislation, I think the fact that we’re having this conversation, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that many of you, um, on the majority side have signed on. Um, I think will help us in that conversation.

Senator Burns:

Yeah, yeah, it w- it would impact their tuition, but, uh, I recognize that, uh, um, the- they just need to be a part of the conversation. That’s all I ask.

Sen Jackson:

And- and they are. They absolutely are. Would you like to answer that?

Darlene Lynch:

No, [inaudible 00:10:51].

Sen Jackson:

Okay.

Senator Burns:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hickman:

Okay. Why- why don’t we bring the company speakers so that they would… Let them have about a minute and a half each.

Sen Jackson:

Excellent.

Chairman Hickman:

And so I’ll- I’ll let you choose.

Sen Jackson:

Um, do you have the list?

Chairman Hickman:

I do.

Sen Jackson:

Actually, I’ve got another list. Do you wanna pick?

Darlene Lynch:

Um, sure.

Sen Jackson:

Which, who’s gonna speak? I think if we have Yonas come first?

Darlene Lynch:

Yes. [inaudible 00:11:13].

Sen Jackson:

Yeah, did you want to testify? (laughs).

Darlene Lynch:

[inaudible 00:11:14].

Sen Jackson:

Well, we’ll begin with Darlene, and then we’ll have Yonas speak.

Darlene Lynch:

[inaudible 00:11:18].

Sen Jackson:

Where do you want them to testify from, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Hickman:

Yeah?

Sen Jackson:

Where- where would you like… Do you want them to do it from here?

Chairman Hickman:

Oh, sure, right there. Yeah. Go ahead.

Sen Jackson:

Yeah? Yeah. Okay. I’ll switch with you (laughs).

Darlene Lynch:

Um, thank you all, and, uh, for the opportunity to share our support for this bill. Um, and thank you for the sponsors of this bill on this committee. Again, my name’s Darlene Lynch, chair of the Business and Immigration for Georgia Partnership. I want to, um, start by saying this bill arose out of months of work on the House side of a bipartisan study committee on how to maximize Georgia’s global talent. And what we recognized is that one in 10 Georgians is foreign born today. One-tenth of our population. Um, one-seventh of our workforce is foreign born. And yet we have so much talent that we have yet to tape.

And so the Global Talent Study Committee, um, looked at what are the barriers? How can remove the, we remove those barriers? And the number one recommendation was to address the barriers to admission to Georgia public colleges. That was the number one recommendation for really strengthening our workforce. Um, and every member of that committee, both Republicans and Democrats, sponsored the- the bill, the version of the, of the bill you have before you today in the House last year. And that was HB932.

So today, we continue the work, and we have a companion bipartisan bill in the House as well. And that bill is sponsored by Sen- uh, Representative Holcomb and Hitchens, both US veterans. Um, so there’s a lot of support for this bill, um, we’ve been doing a lot of education around this bill. And as I said, it’s part of a national effort to recognize the support that people from other countries have given to our country overseas. I just wanna, uh, clarify a little bit about Georgia’s history, uh, in this, uh, regard. Georgia has a-

Chairman Hickman:

30 seconds.

Darlene Lynch:

Okay. Proud history dating back four decades of welcoming refugees. Um, they’re vetted, screened, and approved by the US, and then resettled with the state of Georgia’s help. We have a state refugee program. And so we resettle a few thousand people every year, including many children and youth who had their education, um, disrupted. The bill makes a very small change, um, as we said, um, to ensure that they are treated as in-state students as soon as they are resettled here, because they have no other state, uh, to go. I’ll end by saying this bill addresses several challenges at once.

Chairman Hickman:

Yes, ma’am. Thank you. That- that’s it. I’m sorry.

Darlene Lynch:

[inaudible 00:13:58]. Okay (laughs). Thank you.

Chairman Hickman:

Sorry. Um, we are short on time…[inaudible 00:14:05]…

Sen Jackson:

Yeah. Um, Yonas, if you could [inaudible 00:14:05].

Chairman Hickman:

Thank you, ma’am. I appreciate that. Give us your name and what you do.

Yonas Abraha:

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kim-

Chairman Hickman:

Mm-hmm.

Yonas Abraha – Coalition of Refugee Services (CRSA):

… and Senators, thank you. My name is Yonas Abraha. I am the co-chair for CRSA, which is the Coalition of Refugee, uh, Resettlement, uh, Service Agencies. So CRSA helps the refugee when they arrive here, and the coalition has about 23, uh, different organizations. And before that, if you allow me, I was just sitting here thinking if this would be an opportunity where I come from, I would not have been refugee. So thank you for that. Because most of us end up refugees, leaving our school, our family, everything behind, because of this opportunity democracy offers. So for that, thank you.

So, um, our organization, our coalition supports this bill. The reason we support this bill is as soon as, um, some of the a- agencies receive, they welcome the refugees when they arrive here at the Atlanta Airport. That’s the first airport that they come. Once they come to the airport, the first thing they ask is if they left their school, uh, “I wanna continue my education. I wanna continue my education,” because by doing that is the way for them to give back to the country that has given them opportunity.

And for us to tell them, “Hey, you c- you can’t, you can’t afford it because y- you are considered out of state,” it’s very difficult to explain that, because this is the only state that they have. And a lot of them, they have, s- especially like the Afghanis and now the U- the Ukrainians, they have left s- like, they have certification that they need in order to continue with their career. So for all that reasons, we say this is a fair bill. This is a necessary bill that we needed, because Georgia is one of the best state. I came as a refugee. I’m a [inaudible 00:16:04] refugee.

I came here, went to Cross Hill High School. I went to West Georgia. I went under my undergrad. I like it so much there, I got my master’s from West Georgia. I was even thinking about becoming a professional student, which was not possible, but I like [inaudible 00:16:18]. So, for that, most of Georgians, you know, they help us. For me, for those from my school, for my teachers, all those things I would not have gotten. So we, as the coalition, we are asking for this bill as soon as possible, if it’s possible. Thank you.

Chairman Hickman:

Yes, sir. Thank you. Senator Jackson, one- one more person.

Sen Jackson:

[inaudible 00:16:38]. Just one?

Chairman Hickman:

Yeah. We- we’re running out of time.

Sen Jackson:

[inaudible 00:16:45].

Chairman Hickman:

It’s a great- great presentation. We appreciate them.

Sen Jackson:

[inaudible 00:16:48] fixed here.

Chairman Hickman:

You need to listen up then.

Hassene Alacuzi:

So, thank you.

Chairman Hickman:

Yes, ma’am.

Hassene Alacuzi:

It’s honor to be here and talk about the positive [inaudible 00:17:03]-

Chairman Hickman:

You need to a little louder [inaudible 00:17:03].

Hassene Alacuzi:

… on this bill. I’m Hassene Alacuzi one of the new [inaudible 00:17:08] Afghan refugee in Georgia. I’ve been here for one year and my family relocated here after the Taliban take over the country. Most of my family members are here and we are all excited and motivated to track our career back here. And also we are excited that what the youth provide for us, especially for me as a woman from Afghanistan. Before the Taliban seized in Afghanistan, the number of children out of the school were 3.7. When the Taliban seized in Afghanistan, the Taliban banned women from education.

So the number moved to 6.2 million peoples or children. Today, Afghanistan is the only country that forbidden half of its population from education, which are girls and women. So, the new [inaudible 00:17:59] Afghan and the USA are the only hope of my country. I’m optimistic that one day they leave the country, they break the chain of human right violation, and this inequality of mine, in my country. However, beginning a new life in USA is not easy. We face many challenges.

Since coming to USA or to Georgia, I have been looking for opportunities to obtain my master’s degree in public health in Georgia, and also to support my family financially at the same time. But I couldn’t make this in Georgia. So I didn’t give up. And I lo- I have been, I began looking for opportunities in other state. Uh, happily I made it, and now I’m awarded the prestigious, uh, scholarship of Peter Salama with the School of Johns Hopkins, uh, School of Public Health. And, uh, so, I’m leaving Georgia, but I’m optimistic one day I can be productive to the economy of this country.

Chairman Hickman:

[inaudible 00:19:05].

Hassene Alacuzi:

My second homeland [inaudible 00:19:07].

Chairman Hickman:

Thank you, ma’am. Great. Thank you. Thank you so very much for being here. Um, [inaudible 00:19:12]-

Senator Burns:

Just a, just a quick- quick question, please. First, uh, thank you, thank you for coming and thank you for sharing. Um, where did you, uh, what is your undergraduate work in?

Hassene Alacuzi:

So I did my under-… Ah, yes. I did my undergrad in [inaudible 00:19:23] B- Bachelor of Public Health.

Senator Burns:

Very good.

Hassene Alacuzi:

And then I start working with Minister of Public Health of Afghanistan and then I continue my career with UNICEF or United National Children Emergency Fund as a nutrition officer. And I work with the, uh, Nutrition Emergency and Development program for around five years.

Senator Burns:

Thank you. And- and- and currently, are you employed? Do you have the opportunity to work?

Hassene Alacuzi:

Yes. I’m working as an interpreter with the Department of Public Health of Georgia.

Senator Burns:

Mm-hmm.

Hassene Alacuzi:

With the d-… Yes, thank you so much.

Senator Burns:

Thank you.

Hassene Alacuzi:

Yeah. With the DeKalb County Board of Health Refugee Program.

Senator Burns:

Thank you very much. I appreciate you.

Speaker 2:

Yeah.

Senator Burns:

Thanks for being here.

Hassene Alacuzi:

Thank you. Thank you for the [inaudible 00:20:03].

Chairman Hickman:

Thank you, Senator Burns, for the question. Let’s do one more.

Sen Jackson:

May I have one moment?

Chairman Hickman:

One more please.

Sen Jackson:

Uh, one more speaker or may I close?

Chairman Hickman:

One more, no, one more speaker.

Sen Jackson:

Yeah, oh, well, great. Um-

Chairman Hickman:

I wish we had more time. This is very interesting. But we don’t.

Sen Jackson:

No, that’s- that’s okay. Um, [inaudible 00:20:18].

Speaker 9 (*?):

[inaudible 00:20:18].

Sen Jackson:

David? Um, if David Garcia from GALEO?

Chairman Jackson:

Tell us your name and tell us your, where you come from and tell us what you’re doing now.

David Garcia:

Uh, uh, sure. Thank you for having me. I’m David Garcia. I work for an organization named GALEO Impact Fund. And we advocate for the Latino/Hispanic community throughout Georgia. I’m also a first generation US citizen, uh, Georgia resident, college graduate, and military veteran. Um, I graduated from Marietta High School and joined the Marine Corps shortly after. I served as a US embassy guard in Peru, China, and Serbia, and I also worked as a contractor for the US Department of State in Mexico, Bosnia, and Iraq.

And throughout my time in service, I had the privilege of working closely alongside many host country nationals who- who were vital to- to advancing US entrance worldwide. Uh, during my time in Iraq, I routinely worked with many young Iraqis who had committed most of their lives to supporting our efforts there, and their support, warmth, and commitment to our mission was vital to- to our success. And the same can be said for the thousands of Afghan citizens who’ve supported our efforts out there as well. Um, I currently live in Decatur, Georgia, which is very close to Clarkston, where I volunteer with many refugee serving agencies, including Clarkston Community Center, Refugee Coffee, Friends of, Friends of Refugees, and Clarkston United Methodist Church.

I’ve met many refugees and special immigrant visa holders in Clarkston who served alongside US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And according to the US t- according to the Atlanta History Center, uh, more than 1,500 Afghans have resettled in Georgia over the past two years. Uh, to me this bill is about supporting a group of- of people undergoing major life transitions and- and I can relate to many of the challenges that they face. Um, adjusting, uh, to life after living abroad was very difficult. Um, my first year back in the US after- after serving abroad was- was very challenging, and- and having structure is key in- in transitioning successfully.

Higher education and the opportunities that come with being a student on a college campus can- can help immensely in easing one’s transition, and I think that making higher education more accessible for a group of people who have supported our country and our foreign policies is the least that we can do. And I ask for your support in this bill.

Chairman Hickman:

Timing was just right. Thank you.

David Garcia:

Thank you.

Chairman Hickman:

Thank you for your service, sir. Appreciate it.

David Garcia:

Thank you.

Chairman Hickman:

Yes, sir. Um, we have, um, oh. Senator Hufstetler?

Senator Hufstetler:

Uh, I can do this later, but I guess I wanna make one point. Obviously it’s finance, y’all working incentives and trying to get people, trying to make the state better. The biggest problem we have in the state right now is workers. The limiting factor on our economy in Georgia is workers. And, um, these people are here legally. So I’ll stop there.

Chairman Hickman:

Thank you. Senator Oorock?

Sen Oorock:

Thank you. Uh, uh, I certainly was gonna lo- start with, um, Mr. Chairman, with the- the- the point of our workforce shortage. But number two, we’ve heard from the chancellor of our great university system about the decline in enrollment, and- and the need he states urgently in our budget hearing. So the need to step up, uh, uh, enrollment figures in our university system. And so we certainly have the slots there, uh, uh, and I think the case has been strongly made, uh, [inaudible 00:23:40] for, uh, moving ahead with this initiative. And let’s catch up with Tennessee.

Chairman Hickman:

Thank you. Uh, I think… I think Senator Williams has a statement.

Speaker 13:

No, I’m just [inaudible 00:23:57].

Chairman Hickman:

Y- you had a previous, uh, what? What number are you? Uh, what number is it?

Speaker 13:

[inaudible 00:24:02].

Chairman Hickman:

S- Senator Jackson. Thank you so much. I wish I- I could listen to this for a long time. I appreciate- appreciate your passion and I know the committee appreciates your passion on this. And thank y’all for being here. You know, we, um, let- let- let’s- let’s move it forward. And not next week, but next session, okay?

Sen Jackson:

May I make one closing statement?

Chairman Hickman:

Yes, ma’am.

Sen Jackson:

Uh, so I do wanna thank you so much for having this hearing. I wanna acknowledge that there’s a family that’s come, um, here that’s from Ukraine, um, they came to witness our democracy-

Chairman Hickman:

Oh, wow, cool.

Sen Jackson:

… to be a part of this conversation. Uh, and so, um, I- I understand we’re on a time limit. But I- I wanted to at least acknowledge their presence and, um, and I do hope that we can continue this conversation.

Chairman Hickman:

We will.

Sen Jackson:

Thank you so much.

Chairman Hickman:

Thank you. Thank y’all very much…….

End of bill intro

 

 

In the closing days of the 2023 push for “school choice” in Georgia, Martha Zoller had Rep Todd Jones on her show yesterday (here). He is carrying this year’s school choice bill in the House. I listened in for the first time in awhile.

We were happy (surprised) to hear Rep Jones finally mention illegal aliens as related to the “educational freedom”, “put parents in charge,” “Promise Scholarship” topic. We were disappointed that he didn’t mention that in the current version of SB 233 there is no language that excludes illegal alien parents from the state benefit process or serving on an oversight committee.

There seemed to be some confusion on Martha’s part about what informed, pro-enforcement watchers were saying about illegal aliens as related to being eligible students.

Audio and transcript on the bottom.

Martha found time later in her show to mention me and suggest that I arrange an interview on her show. We were not aware of that possibility. The usual process of radio show hosts having guests on for interviews is that the host invites the guest. But it seems that Martha has some resentment towards me for not memory-holing Gov Brian Kemp’s defiant betrayal on his 2018 campaign promises regarding “criminal illegals,” the promised  public registry of criminal illegals, the “Brian Kemp Track and Deport plan” and his pledge on ending “sanctuary cities.”

We now have sanctuary counties in Georgia.

• Related: Under Gov Brian Kemp, Georgia is a sanctuary state for “criminal illegals”

Martha now says Kemp has done a lot on illegal immigration in Georgia, just different things than he said he would do – while continuing to try to divert listener’s attention to “the border.” During the last campaign Martha explained that Kemp had not done what he promised because things had changed at the border (even more illegal aliens crossing). We’ll get to all that and more after the legislative session is over.

Meantime, I am happy to be on Martha’s show anytime she wants me on. I wonder if I should regard  it as a hostile interview.

Audio (five-ish minutes) & partial transcript

Rep Todd Jones:

“… my swearing in in January of 2017.

Martha Zoller:

And then tell us about Senate Bill 233.

Rep Todd Jones:

Sure. So, Senate Bill 233, uh, effectively the- the Georgia Scholarship Promise Act, is what many are calling a voucher, but to me it’s an opportunity to provide families who are right now districted to a bottom 25% school within the state of Georgia, to provide them with an alternative, provide them with an opportunity. Frankly, to provide them hope.

Martha:

Now, you are getting some pushback from a lot of areas, okay, but one of them is in some of the anti illegal immigration groups, are, and, uh, many of them are Republicans, are- are pushing back saying that this is gonna open the door to illegal immigrants, uh, in education. Now I would argue that we already are required by the, by the Supreme Court to educate all children that are in our country regardless of their immigration status, but is there any foundation or any accuracy to some of the claims being made there?

Rep Todd Jones:

Yeah. So, when we were forming 233 with Senator Greg Dolezal, he’s the primary author of this, uh, on the Senate side. I’m honored to be carrying it on the House side. There was a series of things that we wanted to be able to do to make it clear, uh, what parents would be, uh, allowed to be able to take advantage of this voucher or the students, what a school would have to do. If it was a private school, what would have to occur for a homeschooling student, a hybrid school, et cetera. What would be accountability standards? What were the financial standards? And all the transparency that goes along with it. We wanted to make it the strongest school choice bill in the entire country in terms of, I’ll say, accountability.

Uh, in terms of this question around I’ll say illegal, uh, immigrants receiving the voucher, I can say this. To your point, the Supreme Court’s been very clear in terms of being able or having to educate students within the public school system, but we added in to 233 not only are you an existing public school student, but you also are eligible for HOPE. And HOPE, as you know, is effectively our opportunity to provide kids a pathway into the university system and be able to cover anywhere between 90% to 100% of their cost.

That does not provide for the funding of anyone who is here illegally. So ultimately, putting the guardrails around not just are they in the public school system, but also eligible for HOPE puts the guardrail in in terms of who can and who can’t. But the other thing I like to mention is, is that the voucher itself is not fungible cash. It’s not just cash that’s deposited into the parents’, um, I’ll say bank account, but rather it is a third party administered account that can only be released based on approved or pre-approved expenses that the commission has already reviewed and has indicated that those are expenses that are appropriate to be paid for by the account.

Martha:

You know, since about the 1850s or ’60s in New Hampshire and Vermont, there has been a system called Town Tuition. Uh, it is a system where basically the money follows the child. And it became about because there were a lot of small towns in New Hampshire and Vermont where maybe they didn’t have enough money to have a middle school and a high school, or whatever. So there’s been this, you can go to … It used to be you can go to parochial schools, you can go to private schools. Up until the 1980s, you could go to parochial schools. And they’ve had this in place for, you know, 150 years.

Um, hav- are you aware of that system? Had you heard about it? Has anybody looked at it if so? Because it seems like we got a model that’s worked for 150 years, and, you know, but nobody seems to know about it.

Rep Todd Jones:

So, I would, A, yes, I am aware of it. B, I also agree with you that no one is aware about it, is- is aware of those programs. But you’re starting to see maybe not exact replicas, but at least I’ll say, a- a- a good overlap, uh, in Arkansas, you’re starting to see, in Florida, in terms of what they voted last Thursday in terms of universal money follows the student. So, these are I’ll say concepts that are starting to sweep across the country, especially in those states that lean red or hard red. And we hope that our, and coming back to 233, we feel as if we have tailored this in such a way, uh, that to your exact point, if the school’s in the bottom 25% of our state, we’re not looking to do anything adverse to that school.

I want to be clear. If a student takes a voucher from one of those school systems, the per capita funding actually goes up, not goes down, and that’s a long formula and a, probably for a longer conversation. But we see this as an and, Martha, not an or. We’re gonna continue to fund public education, totally fund public education and provide those students who are districted to a bottom 25% school to be able to have an opportunity to do something else, because let’s face it, education is the great equalizer.

Martha:

Amen to that, you know. Education and economics is what separates us. Okay.

Rep Todd Jones:

That’s right.

Martha:

And that’s what we need to- to look at. Um, of course, I’ve gotten a number of question when the people heard you were gonna be on. I got some questions that I’ve k- kind of compiled because they were all on the same topic. Um, Florida made some big changes in their education system back during Governor Bush. And- and e- essentially by adding choice-…”