Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Monuments And Memorials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to standardize how local governments remove or rehome monuments
Summary
A House Governmental Affairs Committee hearing reviewed legislation that would create a 90-day public-notice process and a voluntary state registry to guide local governments that remove or relocate monuments; the measure drew questions about costs, legal exposure and who would receive contested monuments.
A House Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on proposed legislation to regulate the removal and rehoming of monuments focused on creating a 90-day public-notice process and a voluntary registry under the Department of Community Affairs, sponsor Chairman Powell said.
The bill would let a city, county or other public entity that decides to remove or relocate a monument publish notice in the legal organ for 90 days, collect public comment, and then offer the monument to third parties (preferentially those who agree to keep it within the jurisdiction). If litigation over the monument proceeds and a court rules against the challenger, a similar 90-day process would follow, Powell said.
The measure prompted questions from committee members about standing, local costs and potential limits on protest. Representative Oliver noted prior Georgia Supreme Court rulings involving Decatur and other localities and asked whether the bill changes the court-determined standing for those cases; Powell said the bill does not remove litigation as an option but adds an administrative pathway that a locality can use to resolve disputes without court proceedings.
Representative Sanchez asked whether the measure would restrict political protest; Powell said the bill is intended to “stop some of the disagreement and the political rhetoric” by providing a formal process for removal or relocation. Members raised concerns that the required notice in the legal organ might be inadequate because some residents do not read those publications; Powell said he would be open to amending the bill to allow publication in the legal organ or on county websites.
County officials and association representatives who spoke to the committee raised practical concerns. A representative from the Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) said the bill does not explain how a county should choose among multiple third-party claimants who all meet the preference criteria, and that counties could face litigation and significant costs for removal and storage. ACCG cited an example from New Orleans in which removal of four monuments cost about $2 million, though the ACCG witness said she did not have Georgia-specific cost estimates.
Les Schneider, who said he assisted with drafting, told the committee the bill provides an orderly path to preserve monuments that third parties still want to display and to avoid letting “the political winds” erase history without an option to rehouse memorials. Committee members asked whether state entities including the Georgia Building Authority or the Stone Mountain Authority would be covered; the sponsor said the bill’s definition of “agency” includes state and local governmental entities, so those bodies would be subject to the process.
Several members also asked about privately owned monuments placed on public land and whether the bill could inadvertently affect private owners; Powell said he would discuss language changes offline to avoid ensnaring privately owned monuments on private land. The United Daughters of the Confederacy, the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Sons of Confederate Veterans were cited as groups that had previously brought such requests to the sponsor.
The committee took no vote; Chairman Powell said the item would be a “hearing only.”
