Search Results for: school choice

If you don’t hit the links, you will not learn much.

Correction made on bill numbers in the copy below and the headline: 7:40 PM, Feb 10. My fault. I apologize for the typos.

Note to all concerned: The model language for HB 60 & HB 999 came from the Federation for Children. The flyers attacking Republicans who didn’t immediately swoon and support the bills came from…the Federation for Children.

More info on HB 932 here & HB 999 here , here and here.

Info on HB 120 here.

Related: A Breitbart news report on the entire train wreck: Georgia Republicans draft legal giveaways to illegals.

Mark Zuckerburg’s FWD.us is lobbying for Rep Wes Cantrell’s “Americans Last” (HB 932 here.)

It may help people to “get it” if they realize that the corporate-funded FWD.us lobbyist under the Gold Dome lobbying against immigration enforcement is an illegal alien.

Former Gwinnett Republican state Rep Buzz Brockway at the Georgia Center for Opportunity is pushing hard for HB 999. So is state Rep Chuck Eftrastion (R). See also Erick Erickson.

The Coalition of Refugee Services (CRSA) put on a large lobbying event in the Georgia Capitol today for HB 932 & HB 120. It was also available online. CRSA is part of the “BIG” partnership and works closely with the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.*

Info on the CRSA (part of the refugee resettlement industry) Capitol lobbying event for Rep Wes Cantrell’s HB 932 & Kasey Carpenter’s HB 120. (click on “view details” on top)

HB 932 is a product of a special House committee chaired by Rep Wes Cantrell

A “Progressive” woman named Darlene C. Lynch works for both CRSA and the “BIG Partnership” and organized and ran the Georgia House Special Committee “Innovative ways to Maximize Global Talent” that saw three 2021 Summer and Fall meetings – with two in Georgia’s public colleges. HB 932 is a product of those committee hearings. The special committee was created by a resolution that passed unanimously in the House at the end of the 2021 session. Rep Wes Cantrell was the sponsor of the resolution (be sure to see all cosponsors) and served as the chairman of the agenda-driven committee that took zero pubic comment and arranged the witnesses.

*Updated, 5:25: PM Some of the agenda items from the hand-picked, pre-screened witnesses at the special committee mentioned above:

 

• Changing state law so as to allow foreigners to be law enforcement officers in Georgia
• Reciprocal agreements on occupational licensing rules with other states and foreign nations.
• “Relaxing” state law that requires immigration verification of applicants for occupational and professional licensing.
• Lower tuition rates in public colleges for illegal aliens living in Georgia with DACA  status than the rate Americans and legal immigrants fro other states pay.
• Removing the existing 12 month residency waiting period before new Georgia residents can access instate tuition in public colleges for refugees – but not for Americans moving here from other states.
• Reducing the educational period to become a medical doctor by two years, student loan forgiveness for foreign medical students and “relaxing the immigration issues for foreign medical graduates.”
• Creating a new state bureaucracy to accommodate “an office or a division of cultural and linguistic responsiveness.”

I lost track of the number of times “…the number one state for business” was tossed out.

I covered the meetings extensively here.

Related: Where do refugees resettle in the U.S.?

Related: The Libertarian Cato Institute is pushing the “school choice” concept in Cantrell’s HB 99 & HB 60  (see Corey DeAngelis). What is the Cato Institute and what else do they push? Open borders, that’s what. Bonus info: The liberal AJC on open borders.

No public comment allowed on HB 60 committee substitute in the House Education Committee – at Rep Cantrell’s request.

 

 

Note: Feb. 1, 2022: “They” are in hurry up mode. HB 999 passed out of House Education committee today on a voice vote. A very similar bill, HB 60 passed out of full committee today too. Number of committee members who asked about benefits going to illegal aliens? Zero.

* How’s this for speedy service? HB 999 House hopper Jan. 25. Voted out of subcommittee Feb 1 – that’s four session days.  

State payments (grants/cash allowance/state grant or loan) to illegal alien students handled by illegal alien parents with official oversight on compliance by illegal alien parents – what could go wrong?

 Georgia is home to more illegals than Arizona.

 

Update again, Jan. 28 2022, 1:30 PM : Erick Erickson just promoted HB 999 on his national radio show. Listen here. I was allowed on the air for 56 seconds and made the point that the bill won’t fly for many people here and he should consider explaining the reality of payments to illegals in his next pitch for the bill. He hung up, but kept on topic for another few minutes. Listen here.

Update: Jan 28, 2022, 7:50 AM : Radio show host Erick Erickson is on WSB Radio during this morning’s drive time news segment promoting HB 999.” Three Democrats on the bill!” “A bipartisian coalition!” “Sponsor is a preacher!” “First time ever in Georgia!” He is also advancing the cause of this “school choice” legislation on his Twitter feed.  Don’t miss it!

—

• Related: Breitbart News has taken note of this and other Georgia bills with a January 30, 2022 news story.

“The Georgia Educational Freedom Act”

HB 999 – as introduced                                                                                        

LC 49 0739 <–

______

 We see no requirement for student recipients or parents to prove legal immigration status. We don’t see mention of any immigration verification system or check.

Note: The 1982 Plyler v Doe SCOTUS decision mandates states to provide K-12 public education regardless of immigration status. It does not address creation of a special or alternative K-12 system or scholarships.

Reminder to all concerned on amendments to this train wreck: Plyler V Doe prohibits even asking K-12 students about immigration status and that restriction applies to the student’s parents.

______

Executive version at first reading Jan. 27, 2022 1:00 PM (not final analysis):

* Creates state law to provide $6000 per school year “Promise Scholarship” for an alternative to public K-12 school for any student who has a parent, guardian or custodian who lives in Georgia. This would apparently include illegal alien students and/or parents.

* The student must have attended a Georgia public school for six weeks prior to participation in the new taxpayer-funded ‘Promise Scholarship.’ This would apparently include illegal aliens.

* The new “Promise Scholarship” would be funded by the state taxpayers and subject to appropriations. The legislation authorizes the Georgia Student Finance Commission to participate in the new scholarship account program.

* Quarterly payments would be made to an account set up for the student and then parents are designated to handle payment to the alternative schools. This would apparently include illegal aliens.

* A “participating student shall continue to be eligible to receive account funds until the student returns to a public school, graduates from high school, or reaches the age of 20 years, or for special education students, reaches the age of 21 years.” This would apparently include illegal aliens.

* Funds paid shall not constitute taxable income of the parent of the participating student. This would apparently include illegal aliens.

* Establishes an executive director who would appoint a review committee made up of eight parents to monitor compliance in administering the state-provided funds. These review committee parents apparently could be illegal aliens.

* Creates a lottery process governed by chance to award funding to students if either the number of participating students or the number of applications for accounts exceeds the funds available for the new scholarship. This lottery would apparently include illegal aliens.

* “Student information shall be reported and collected in a manner that allows the state to aggregate data by grade level, gender, family income level, and race.” This aggregated data would not include immigration status.

• Related: More from Republican Reps Wes Cantrell and Kasey Carpenter.

HB 999: Covered “qualified education expenses’ means any one or more of the following:
(A) Tuition, fees, and required textbooks at a participating school;
(B) Tuition, fees, and required textbooks at a community college or accredited postsecondary institution;
(C) Tutoring services provided by an educator certified by the Professional Standards Commission;
(D) Payment for the purchase of a curriculum, including any supplemental materials required by the curriculum;
(E) Tuition and fees for a nonpublic online learning program or course;
(F) Services from a physician or therapist licensed pursuant to Chapter 10A, 28, 33, 34, or 44 of Title 43, including, but not limited to, for occupational, behavioral, physical, or speech-language therapies;
(G) No more than $500.00 per year to a fee-for-service transportation provider for transportation to or from a participating school or service provider;
(H) Fees for the management of account funds in accordance with subsection (e) of Code Section 20-2B-7; or
(I) Computer hardware or other technological devices approved by the commission or a physician if the computer hardware or other technological device is used to meet the student’s educational needs.”

 

 

 

 

 

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]

 

 

Sheriff to forward my complaint to GBI

 

Last month I wrote a lengthy column here with an explanation of several state laws passed years ago with the goal of making Georgia less attractive to illegal immigration and a detailed narration of the fact that Carroll County government was (and is) in violation of these statutes.

However dry and boring it may seem to the busy reader now, if they are honored and enforced, the laws create difficulty for illegal aliens to obtain jobs, benefits, and services in Georgia. The politicians elected to lead Carroll County ignored my “heads up” warnings about glaring violations for more than six months.

To repeat another point from last month: With Georgia having a larger illegal alien population than Arizona and the Biden Regime allowing millions of illegal border crossings while choosing not to enforce immigration laws, Carroll County officials took a very similar attitude until they received some public exposure. Illegal immigration is not only a “federal problem.”

Many thanks to StarNews publisher and owner Sue Horn for the space to outline the above.

• Related: Latest development in Carroll County

Please know that if the storyline was about Carroll County government being in violation of any law that grants benefits or privileges to illegal aliens it would have long ago been a lead report on “the news” and in an Associated Press headline. Imagine the media frenzy if illegals were refused a taxpayer-funded K-12 education in Carroll County’s public schools or denied no-cost, no-questions-asked medical care in any emergency room in the state.

It appears that we created enough interest in the multiple Carroll County government violations to stir up some action on corrections.

I received an October 24^th conference call from county attorney Avery Jackson and several county staffers including Mr. Ben Skipper asking me to check the changes they made to the county website and system of issuing public benefits. From here it looks like the changes they made corrected most of the violations.

I write “most” because a law we mentioned last month designed to ensure that taxpayer-funded projects run by public employers exclude black market labor is apparently being bypassed. “Public employers” refers to official entities like Carroll County, the state of Georgia or any other government agency in Georgia.

The law, (OCGA 13-10-91) requires contractors bidding on public jobs to swear on an affidavit they are using the federal E-Verify system to validate work eligibility of new employees and subcontractors. False swearing is a felony. The law is clear on what must be in the affidavit.

In response to my latest open records request to Carrol County government for a copy of the affidavit they use for this purpose Carroll County sent me completely unrelated copies of affidavits used for building permits. I sent a follow up email asking if there had been an error. I have not received a response.

Shorter: It looks like Carrol County government does not offer or collect the paperwork on which contractors are supposed to swear to use of E-Verify before they are allowed to bid on a tax-funded projects. I have no idea how many illegal aliens are working on public jobs paid for by Carrol County taxpayers. Neither do county officials. So much for the law.

As I wrote last month, I sent a request to Carroll County Sheriff Terry Langley to forward my official complaint against Carroll officials to the GBI. The Sheriff was kind enough to call me in late October and informed me that he will grant my request.

The story isn’t so dry and boring now, is it?

Creating the political pressure for enforcement is now up to voters 

Carroll county voters have a choice. Absent outside pressure, it is obvious that little determination exists on the part of county government officials to fight illegal immigration, illegal administration of public benefits and illegal employment. But voting taxpayers do have remedies.

As we pointed out last month, the laws aimed at reducing illegal immigration in Georgia that conservatives fought for more than a decade ago were passed with the promise that state audits and inspection would be forthcoming “subject to available funding’ and “contingent upon appropriation or approval of necessary funding…” Georgia now has a huge budget surplus.

Governor Kemp is boasting of that budget surplus. In 2018 He ran on the promise of fighting illegal immigration in Georgia – it was his first TV campaign ad. He has betrayed us on that pledge. Phone calls to his office (404-656-1776) and unapologetic demands from voters to their public servant, state legislators that money be appropriated for the purpose of monitoring compliance is the only way this anti-enforcement crisis will be solved.

Heads up and a warning to voters who take the time to follow up on this: Not many legislators under the Gold Dome want to hear about or discuss illegal immigration in Georgia.

 

 

 

In an AJC op-ed, Casas pushes multiple amnesty bills and supports ‘Americans last” legislation in Georgia

Updated with photo: Georgia state Republican Party Chairman David Shafer assisting The LIBRE Initiative – Georgia

Former Republican state Rep David Casas is now the director of grassroots operations for the pro-amnesty, leftist Libre Initiative Georgia  (The Freedom Initiative). He has an anti-enforcement column (“Opinion: Georgia must explore immigration reform to keep workforce, economy growing) running at the increasingly pretense free, liberal AJC. It’s a must read.

Don’t look for “the other side” in the newspaper. There was a time when the liberal AJC opinion page editor would run an occasional pro-enforcement piece from this writer but now he won’t even run a 165 word letter to the editor. Because too much information.

Related: The AJC is on record promoting open borders and the free flow of labor

The Casas column also runs at the same time as a very similar op-ed in the liberal AJC from the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and Georgia’s Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. It should also be noted here that Casas and the ‘Libre Initiative Georgia’ organized lobbying efforts for the failed SB 601 that would have allowed state payments to illegal aliens for private school tuition while illegal alien parents would have been in charge of disbursement of those taxpayer dollars.

Republican Casas’ 618-word opinion column promotes not one, but three amnesty bills now pending in congress while two million-ish illegal aliens have come over U.S. borders since Pres. Biden was sworn in.

He goes further and tosses out a Hail Mary promo for Georgia’s HB 932 which is as dead as Pancho Villa unless some Kamikaze GOP lawmaker tries to add its language and intent to a live bill before the end of the 2022 legislative session. We hope that happens for the educational value of seeing who’s who on floor votes – and to see if Gov. Kemp would allow it to become state law.

Readers may remember that HB 932 is the bill from outgoing Republican Woodstock Rep Wes Cantrell that would have altered state law that says all new Georgia residents must live here for a year before they are eligible for the much lower instate tuition rates in our public colleges. The bill, now endorsed by David Casas, would eliminate the waiting period for refugees, certain Afghan citizens and foreign nationals who have been awarded a “Special Immigrant Visa.” That group would be able to access the lower tuition rates the day they arrive in Georgia. Americans who relocate here from other states would still be required to pay the higher rate if they attend college during their first year of residence.

Related: For academic year 2020-2021, the average tuition & fees for Colleges in Georgia was $4,739 for in-state and $17,008 for out-of-state.

Readers may also remember that Republican House Speaker Pro Tem Jan Jones was a signer on HB 932 but scratched her name off after we made the contents of the legislation public.

Cantrell, with cosponsors Republican Rep. Kasey Carpenter and an assortment of Democrats was put up to this little caper with the joint effort and partnership between the increasingly powerful refugee industry and the real power at the Gold Dome, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

But wait, there’s more!

Casas also advances the “logic” of legislation like Carpenter’s HB 120 to grant public college instate tuition to illegal aliens living in Georgia while charging U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who come to Georgia schools from other states pay three times as much.

Conservatives should talk about it.

Two things to insure there is no confusion:

David Casas and the Libre Initiative of Georgia are pushing for Americans to have less freedom and fewer rights in Georgia than foreigners.

I will be happy to respectfully debate this fact and the ‘Americans last’ agenda Casas is promoting in the liberal AJC with him or friend of the Libre Initiative Georgia, Republican Chairman David Shafer if any Georgia “conservative” groups want to arrange that situation. We predict that will never happen.

Casas’ guest column in the liberal AJC a week before the end of the session illustrates the endless determination of dollar-first, bipartisan Establishment to do a repeat of the failed amnesty of 1986 and to speed once bright red Georgia further downhill towards becoming the California of the Southeast.

To be clear: They will never stop and yes, it really is all about the money.

I am wondering – am I the last one to know about David Casas’ transformation?

#