Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee advances bill to raise retirement age for Georgia superior court judges to 65
Summary
A Georgia House committee voted unanimously to advance House Bill 406 (LC 560335S), which would set the retirement age for superior court judges who take office after July 1 to 65 and adds a new code section (47-23-102.1) to govern benefit calculations.
A Georgia House committee voted unanimously to advance House Bill 406 (LC 560335S), a proposed committee substitute that would effectively raise the retirement age for superior court judges from 60 to 65 for judges who begin service after July 1 of this year.
The measure, presented to the committee by Representative Leverett, adds a new code section (47-23-102.1) and revises cross-references in the existing judicial retirement provisions to create an administrative method for calculating benefits for judges who enter the bench after the stated date.
Representative Leverett said the change "is intended basically to take the retirement age of superior court judges and move it from 60 up to 65." He told members the substitute takes a longer, more administratively precise route than an earlier draft to avoid potential legal and contractual issues and to address situations in which a person accrues service in one retirement system and later serves as a superior court judge.
The committee heard from the executive director of the Employee Retirement System, identified in the hearing as Mr. Potvin, who said the system had been consulted on revisions and that earlier drafts contained problematic language. "The first draft that we saw after last week's meeting was a little bit scary, but, I think we've ironed out a lot of that. So we're comfortable with the way it is now," Potvin said. Potvin also noted that the Judicial Retirement System's most recent funded ratio was reported in the hearing as 105.1 and that the change would, if anything, slightly improve that metric.
Members discussed how the bill fits into a broader package of judicial-related measures that are moving through multiple committees. Representative Leverett said the judges have approved the change and that the measure is related to another bill in a different committee.
At the appropriate time, Representative Thomas moved to pass the committee substitute and Representative Horner seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The committee did not vote on an effective date in the hearing transcript; implementation details beyond adding section 47-23-102.1 were not specified in the record provided.
The bill will proceed through the legislative process and is being coordinated with related judicial measures under consideration in other committees.
