This bill is Rep Bobby Reece’s HB 1141. What this bill does is essentially cuts the number of signatures required for an organization to gain statewide ballot access by a whole order of magnitude. Instead of having to get 1% of registered voters for a statewide race (roughly 50,000 signatures, per Jason Pye), this bill says that a minimum of 5,000 signatures are needed. It also says that for any other office, the lesser of 5% of the registered voters in the district or 5,000 signatures is needed.

The first clause dramatically opens up statewide races for more genuine competition. Instead of having to have a statewide ground game already in place, a political organization can start in one area and grow from there. For example, if a new organization was founded in Lee County and could get roughly 1/3 of the 17,000 or so registered voters in Lee County to sign a petition to allow its candidate to run for State Superintendent of Schools, that candidate could be an “official” candidate for the job, and the new Party could work to extend its reach through the State with that candidate.

The second clause doesn’t open up much more than US Congress to this same scenario. For 5,000 to be less than 5%, you need 100,001 voters in the district. I’ve looked at the numbers available, and you really don’t hit those kinds of numbers of registered voters in the district until the US Congress level. Even State Senators typically have around 50,000 – 80,000 voters in their districts, which doesn’t meet the threshold.

This bill won’t do much for the Libertarian Party of Georgia, but it could provide just the opening other smaller parties, such as the Green Party, Constitution Party, and Modern Whig Party, need to gain a toehold in this State. Note that this bill does NOT give these or any other political organization statewide ballot access simply by getting the 5K signatures. It simply allows them to run individual candidates, who must then get 1% or more of the registered voters in the State to vote for them for their organization to gain statewide ballot access.

I think this bill is a solid step in the right direction for encouraging more competition in Georgia’s electoral systems, and I urge the General Assembly to pass this bill and Governor Perdue to sign it into law. This is about basic fairness in elections, and it is long due.

This morning there were a couple that caught my eye, though only one of them is the subject of this post.

The bill in question goes by a fairly innocent name – the “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” -and is introduced by a “Constitutionalist” – Barry Loudermilk -that clearly can’t read the Constitution.

This bill criminalizes “intent” to perform an abortion if the “intent” is in any way based on race, color, or sex of the fetus and makes performing an abortion with this “intent” a felony.

What Rep Loudermilk doesn’t seem to understand is that abortion providers are businessmen who make business decisions. If a customer comes to them and asks them to perform a service they offer, why should they refuse this customer? If you refuse too many customers, guess what happens to your business – it no longer exists. Oh wait… that is EXACTLY what Rep Loudermilk is trying to do – force people to close their business! In this economy! Shouldn’t he be working to HELP businesses by REMOVING government regulations, rather than hurting them by adding even more?

Also note that “intent” is the keyword in the vast majority of “hate” crime legislation that Republicans typically (rightfully) denounce due to its unprovable and unconstitutional nature… yet this “Constitutionalist” Republican is now introducing a bill that is tantamount to hate crime legislation?

Furthermore, this bill provides legal (civil) penalty for “homicide of an unborn child”. Does this include a potential father who disagreed with the mother’s choice of abortion? After all, under current law only one half of the people responsible for the creation of the child has the right to determine whether that child lives or dies prior to birth.

But this whole discussion misses one very crucial point: Please show me where abortion is discussed in the text of the US Constitution. It isn’t. But there are TWO other clauses that specifically say that rights and powers not enumerated within the Constitution remain with the People – the 9th Amendment, and the favorite of the “States Rights” crowd, the 10th Amendment.

Abortion, like religion, is a subject government should have absolutely no say in whatsoever, either for or against. It is among the most personal decisions any person and couple can ever make, and government should not dictate in any way what choice a person and couple makes in this regard.

Barry Loudermilk doesn’t seem to get that.

I’ve read through the new 47 page proposal to completely overhaul the property tax system. (Who else could read 50 pages of property tax law in less than a week and have a clue what it meant?) While much playing up to the media was done in the previous 12 months to hype this bill, I’ve found plenty of reasons to outright oppose it, as well as complete disappointment in our elected officials to actually address the inequalities, unfairness, and lack of uniformity within the digests. There are a few items which I could support fully, but with the bad portions in the bill, I’d rather keep the current system.

The full bill may be read here.

Below I’ve completely summarized and detailed all the changes this bill proposes as well as stating my support or opposition for such changes and reasoning why.

1. Annual assessment notices for all property owners.
Support This is a change I can wholeheartedly support. This gives each homeowner fair notice, of the value the county is placing on the property without playing any games with forms and deadlines to file. Also the service of the notice is the standard by mail or handing to anyone at the property. This leaves open the fact there is no proof any notice was ever sent or delivered.

2. Creates a standard state form for the annual notices.
Support/Negotiate While this form adds a statement that any and all sales data used in the determination of of the county’s opinion of value are available at the county, it does not appear to show any of the calculations or how the comparable properties values are adjusted to arrive at the county’s opinion of value. Also, there currently are no requirements for the county to explain their opinion or show the math of how that opinion was arrived at.

3. Extends the deadline to appeal the assessment from 30 days from the date of notice, to one year.
Support/Negotiate While I feel the 30 day period is too short for property owners to adequately research their notice, one full year is too long of a period for the local taxing authorities to finalize the digest in a way to keep local funding stable. I would suggest a change to 90 days, or maybe 120 days. Change #5 will create rules for the dates of the notice mailings making the appeal deadline more predictable. Taxing authorities such as the ACCGA and the Municipal Association, and School Boards may oppose this entire bill over this single change. The taxing authorities have their solution to this issue through changes 14 and 15. IF Arbitration is chosen by the property owner, the deadline to file is also extended to one year from the date of notice (ref. 18)

4. Directs the Commissioner to create a uniform appeal form to be provided to property owners.
Support While the form has room for the property owner to state the reasoning and data for their appeal, the law explicitly states the property owner is not required to submit such data.

5. Directs the Commissioner to establish by rule and regulation the dates for the mailing of the annual assessment notice.
Support Currently there are no deadlines on how long the county has to notify you. Under the proposed change, Property owners will know by when they should have received their notice. Today is a guessing game to figure out when notices are sent, and likewise how long the property owner has to appeal based on the date of this notice.

6. Enables the formation of regional Boards of Equalization by intergovernmental agreements between the governing authorities of two or more counties.
Oppose/Negotiate While this seems to make available the cost savings by sharing with other counties the functions and roles of the boards of equalization, there is little intent visible in this change. There are no restrictions that the counties be neighboring. I can imagine this is to handle the issues that come from cities that cross county lines and the future options of multi-county building projects. This change is unnecessary and undermines the trust in the system. A property owner should be able to have full faith in the boards of equalization not only within his own county, but to trust also the BOE of other counties as well. I oppose this change because it needs to be further defined.

7. Requires members of the boards of equalization to take an oath in writing, signed, including the phrase ‘so help me God,’ to faithfully execute their duties.
Oppose/Useless Aside from invoking God into the business of use of force to extort the funding of governments, this is not really a big deal. Swearing an oath to do one’s job is not uncommon, and there is hardly a purpose for needing such documents. I’m not convinced this change is really needed, particularly given the fact an appeal may be furthered beyond this board, by either party, and there is hardly a way to prove the board member failed in his duty, and of course there is no enforcement to even determine such an issue. This is a waste of ink, time, paper and energy, and I’m sure God will be proud.

8. Provides a mechanism to force Grand Juries to appoint members to the Boards of Equalization within 5 days upon the written request of a single taxpayer or the board of assessors.
Support. This ensures a Grand Jury cannot hold the process hostage or delay the process by withholding appointments or ignoring requests. This ensures the process may function in a timely manner in order to provide revenue to the local governments.

9. Grants the County Governing Authority a mysterious position with mysterious new power of oversight of the county’s boards of equalization.
OPPOSE, NO COMPROMISES There is no explanation for this position or it’s oversight authority, and is reason enough for the public to oppose the entire bill. This position does not have a title, and the BOE needs as much oversight as other juries across our state. Currently in our system, if either party is not satisfied with the decisions of the BOE on a case by case basis, they may appeal to superior court and be heard by a full jury. This is growing government and absolutely not needed. If anything the Board of Assessors needs oversight in their choices to take appeals to court to spend a few thousand over just a hundred in revenue. This makes no sense at this time.

10. Grants ‘group appeal’ to condos and tracts of land with common ownership or with common management.
Support/Useless Not a big deal, not sure why this wasn’t already in the law or was at least certainly implied. I see nothing in the law as it is now that ever prevented this type of appeal.

11. Forces automatic appeal to the Board of Equalization after the consideration of the appeal by the Board of Assessors, and creates a mechanism for the termination of the appeal.
Support Under today’s system, the boards of assessors toy with property owners by ‘throwing them a bone’ on the value by betting the property owner will not appeal. With this proposal, the board of assessors has the ability to directly negotiate a value with the contesting property owner, who must agree to a value in writing, in order to terminate the appeal to the board of equalization, otherwise, there is no question the appeal is moving beyond the BOA.

12. Forces the commissioner to adopt uniform standards and procedures, including but not limited to, those similar to those of courts of record, to be followed by the Boards of Equalization in determining appeals. Additionally these rules may be revised and updated periodically every 5 years or less as needed.
Support About time.

13 and 14. Changes how refunds are handled, allowing the government to keep the refund and apply to the next year’s tax bill in some situations. Also defers the additional taxes owed to the next year based on the same appeal decision deadline of Aug 1.
OPPOSE The proposed situation is appalling, to take initially and then after winning appeal, the property owner must provide the funding for an interest free loan to the government based on the date of the appeal decision. While I understand this is provided to ensure the availability of revenue to the governing authorities, it is disgusting to take what could be productive, needed, and most of all, RIGHTFUL, resources of the property owner. Under today’s current system this takes place because there is a long limit for the government to refund monies due after the appeal process, and I don’t believe extending it into new law is fair to the property owners at all. There is too much room for abuse with this set up. But, this kind of situation is necessary in order to allow year long deadlines on appeals and satisfy the needs of the governing authorities. This applies to any final decisions during the process be it arbitration, board of assessors, board of equalization or the superior court.

15. Requires a unanimous decision by the BOE to establish any value higher than that asserted by the property owner.
Support Wholeheartedly support this. Currently, only a majority decision by the BOE is needed to set any value above the homeowner’s declaration.

16. Clarifies how timed deadlines are determined, specifically days and provides for remedies of deadlines falling on holidays or weekends to be given the next business day treatment.
Support This should be standard in the law for everything.

17. In any county with more than $1 Million in commercial property, all commercial appeals will be heard by a licensed appraiser appointed by the tax commissioner in place of the Board of Equalization.
Oppose/No compromise Under our current system, commercial appealss are handled by the same board as residential appeals. I do understand commercial appeals are more complicated and may require a more experienced board of equalization, however, it would make better sense to allow the grand jury to create a commercial board of equalization rather than this proposal. Too much room for abuse, and does not address the core issues of fairness. This also removes the ability to determine the uniformity of assessments between commercial and residential strata within the taxing authorities jurisdictions by the majority of BOEs.

18. Extends the method of requesting arbitration to email and extends the deadline to request arbitration to one year from the notice of assessment.
See #3 The email situation is somewhat silly and over thought.

19. Defines ‘certified appraisal’ as being completed by a registered appraiser in the state of GA for the purposes of arbitration.
OPPOSE/No Compromise Registered appraisers are the least qualified and least experienced appraiser classification as designated by the Georgia Real Estate Appraisers Board. The value opinions of registered appraisers are not acceptable on their own for any loan purposes due to the lack of qualifications. Constant supervision must be given to any registered appraiser according to the GREAB by a licensed appraiser on every report and a registered appraiser must complete 2000 hours within 2 years of supervised work before they can become licensed. At a minimum, only appraisals by licensed or certified appraisers should be used in arbitration. This undercuts the experience and education of the appraisal industry.

20. Provides an appeal process from arbitration to ‘binding arbitration’ and termination of the process upon the failure of the property owner to meet required deadlines.
Oppose I have apposed the entire ‘arbitration’ path since enacted last year, as the existing appeals process should be sufficient to provide for uniformity. This portion only complicates things, although, if the property owner is willing to spend the money, the arbitration process can move along quicker than for the standard appeal process. How much is swift justice worth to you?

21. Places deadlines upon the board of assessors regarding the arbitration process.
Oppose see #20

22. Code section 48-5-299 does not apply to arbitration, or appeals to superior court from the BOE
researching

23. Provides for representing attorneys to be notified of all notices in the same time manner as the property owner in the arbitration process.
Oppose see #20

24. Provides a method through written mutual agreement between the board of assessors and property owner to waive the appeal from the board of equalization directly to superior court.
Oppose Why complicate a process? Leave the appeal in the BOE before tying up the superior courts. Would we favor a law to skip the lower courts to go directly to the state supreme court on appeals without giving the lower court the ability to address the issue?

25. Changes property returns to only returning the value of personal property rather than any property meaning personal and real property.
Support This portion of the change compliments the fact that all real property will be automatically sent notice of assessment.

26. Completely removes the return for real property.
Support See #25

27. Defines ‘local tax officials and staff’ as tax collectors and tax commissioners, all county appraisers and appraisal staff, all members of county boards of assessors and all members of the boards of equalization. Also requires ‘the department’ to provide training and continuing education to local tax officials and staff and make all such training to be online except for courses to be attended in person. Additionally all training must be available to taxpayers and their attorneys upon request and payment of a ‘reasonable instruction fee’ for the course materials as determined by the department.
OPPOSE/NO COMPROMISE There is no reason in which an online course developed by our own government regarding the proper implementation of the law should be be hidden from anyone in the public. This is a ridiculous proposal.

28. Clarifies what is considered a “fair market sale” and makes no difference if the previous owner of ‘comps’ is an individual or a bank as in foreclosures. Meaning, foreclosures, distressed sales, are considered actual sales for the purposes of determining assessments. Additionally, the sale of a property is the maximum allowable assessment for said property for the period of 12 months from the sale date.
Support This clarification has been needed since the Legislature enacted the law last year that county assessors must take foreclosures into account, but did not explain how. This also sets in stone the fact that a property should be assessed no more than it actually sold for within the previous 12 months.

29. Clarifies that only the existing zoning be used to determine the assessment and prohibits assessments based on future highest and best use.
Oppose/negotiate While there is some room for abuse and favoritism with this change, future zoning possibilities are completely hypothetical. According to terminology of appraisals, his would be better defined as stating the assessment must reflect the ‘current highest and best use’.

30. Prohibits the use of “current highest and best use’ as the terms for assessments and limits assessments only to current use.
Oppose/no compromise Every single property transaction is valued according to highest and best use for this is what fully determines a property’s worth at any given point. In order to maintain a fair and uniform standard property must be valued equally for its current value. This will breed growing inequalities throughout every single digest in the state. Every appraiser in the state will oppose this change.

31. Prohibits the use of the “view factor” or similar techniques by assessors as a factor.
researching.

32. Clarifies that inequalities in the digest caused by the moratorium on property assessment increases enacted last year will not penalize counties.
Oppose It was for these very inequalities in which I opposed the moratorium law passed last year. Now that the problem has been created, the state is trying to create a backdoor in which unfairness is okay. The moratorium should be repealed to rectify this situation.

33. Makes a provision that utility property assessments not provided before Aug 1 shall be valued at the previous years assessment.
Oppose/no compromise There should be a reasonable deadline by which these required reports are filed, and they should be subject to taxation just as every other property owner. This gives utilities the ability to delay reporting in order to only be taxed at last year’s reported values.

34. Governing authorities are required to establish by resolution or ordinance due dates for taxes and installment payments.
Support Providing a method for installment payments of taxes will always be helpful to property owners.

35. Governing authorities are authorized through resolutions may elect to receive payment of property taxes by any form of payment.
Support This could allow a property owner to pay property taxes in multiple ways such as check, cash, credit cards and could even offer a method of community service, or civil service without pay in exchange for property taxes owed. This change could be interesting!

36. Changes slightly the requirement of taxing authorities to publicly advertise proposed millage rate changes and the the requirement of such notices being submitted to the Department of Revenue with the digest. Includes specific language and requirements for the advertisements.
Support Transparency Rules!

37. Adds a provision that if the taxing authority does not comply with the advertising requirements in regards to the millage rate change, the commissioner may declare the increase null and void, and order the excess taxes refunded back to the taxpayer at the expense of the taxing authority.
Support By putting this revenue at risk, it ensures the taxing authorities cross their t’s and dot their i’s when it comes to following the intent of the law regarding the rollback rate and millage rate increases and to make it clear to property owners such increases above the rollback rate are tax increases.

Brad Forschner is a Libertarian area who specializes in property tax and SPLOST issues.

I disagree with Senator Unterman’s ultimate intentions here, as she describes in this AJC article, but I do like what she is doing. Senator Unterman wants to take these minors out of a jail cell and put them in a treatment room – still under government supervision, and still being held against their will, and now with the added burden of being “re-educated” according to what the government wants these kids to do.

Of course, none of this “treatment” is mentioned in the actual language of the bill, that was simply what Unterman told the AJC. No, all the bill does is decriminalize prostitution for anyone under the age of 16. I would be in favor of this proposal even if I wasn’t in favor of repealing all laws that criminalize consensual sexual behavior (which I am), and here’s why:

The legal age of consent in Georgia is 16. Anyone younger than that age, even by a minute, cannot legally give consent to sex in this State. How then can someone under that age give consent to exchange sex for money or goods, when they cannot give consent in the first place? The act of having sex with anyone under 16 is already illegal, and there is no need for an additional law further criminalizing the act based on other factors such as possibility of payment.

In this regard, it is much the same situation as we are also fighting with the proposed texting and cell phone bans – there are already laws on the books that deal with the situation, why does there need to be additional laws further criminalizing that which is already criminal?

This bill is admittedly going to be a tough sale during an election year – indeed, the Talibaptists are already planning a protest of this bill on the Capitol steps this coming Weds.

Let’s ignore the Talibaptists and get this bill passed this year, and let’s stop making criminals out of people who cannot legally consent to the basic action we are making them a criminal over.

Before they do so, they connect some form of device from their phone to their ear. This device allows them to use their phone hands-free, thus enabling them to use both hands while driving. A wide variety of people do this. Soccer moms, truckers, business professionals, college students, lawyers, doctors, secretaries, maintenance men… even members of the General Assembly.

And yet, under current Georgia law, use of these hands-free devices is illegal – unless you happen to be driving a motorcycle!

Senate Bill 306, sponsored by Senator Bill Heath (R-Bremen), would remove that prohibition. It would recognizes people’s freedom to choose to make themselves safer or not – not by a government mandate, but by a personal choice.

It had a hearing today in the Senate Public Safety committee, and I hope the Senators on the committee received it well. This is a bill that needs to pass, and it needs to pass soon. Georgians should be allowed to do what they think is best when it comes to their safety, and this is one aspect of that.

[UPDATE]: I’m now told that SB 306 made it out of the Public Safety committee today with a unanimous vote. Now it moves to Rules, and from there to the floor of the Senate.

As I’ve said before, I tend to favor small, incremental steps toward a goal rather than going for everything in one fell swoop. The analogy I most often use is 3 yard plays, every play, vs going for the endzone on every play.

A lot of talk has been going on over the last couple of years about transparency in government. By and large, most in “both” parties want to leave it at that – a lot of hot air, with nothing ever actually getting done. I say this due to the lack of bills and resolutions introduced into the General Assembly regarding these topics – quite simply, there aren’t very many, and there doesn’t appear to be much interest in moving the ones that are there.

But Senate Minority Whip David Adelman (D-Decatur), who is currently being considered for an Ambassadorship to Singapore, introduced a proposed Amendment to the Georgia Constitution right around Crossover Day last year that is a GIGANTIC leap forward in transparency in government in this State – SR 520. It was read in the Senate on March 10, 2009, and referred to the Government Oversight committee, chaired by Senator Renee Unterman (R-Buford) – where it has sat.

The most sweeping changes can often come in extremely simple packaging, and this one is no different. Whereas various candidates at the Statewide level are talking about nitpicking a particular detail or two to change in regards to transparency (such as requiring General Assembly records to be open to the public), this proposed Amendment would change the entire ball game.

This bill would make EVERY meeting and EVERY record of EVERY governmental agency in this State, including all local governing boards and authorities – and even “private corporations performing a public purpose” – open to the public, with NO exceptions unless approved by a 2/3 vote of both the State House and State Senate, as well as the approval of the Governor.

Talk about transforming transparency in government! WOW! No more back room deals made in executive session. No more hiding documents because they could be damaging to your personal goals. No more secrets in government AT ALL.

I’m a bit leery of the “private corporations performing a public purpose” bit, I need someone to please explain to me what that particular part means, as it could be a deal breaker for me. Assuming that the clause in question does not have a meaning adverse to privacy of private corporations (I’m thinking it applies to any State agencies similar in structure to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which are quasi-private/public), I REALLY like this proposal.

Members of the General Assembly, I ask that you have an open debate on this measure and move it forward for public approval this November, possibly with the “private corporations” clause stricken.

After all, we all want open, transparent government, right?

The bill in question is State Senator Judson Hill’s SB 307, the “Teacher’s Bill of Rights”. Yes, it is clearly an election year ploy designed to curry favor for Republicans among a very large voter bloc in Georgia – teachers – but it is something that has been genuinely needed for quite a while, and I would rather it be passed as an election year ploy than not at all.

So what are teachers’ rights, per this bill?

Note that the following bolded list of rights is my own summary of each point of the bill, and the not necessarily from within the text of the bill. The explanations I give detail what the text of the bill says.

1) Right to think independently and express criticism Specifically, the bill states “School board members and administrators shall respect the right of a teacher to exercise independent thought and to express constructive criticism in an appropriate and professional manner”. my questions here are whether local school administration will be held to this, as the prhase “School board members and administrators” could be held to mean central office administration exclusively, and not also local school administration – which would be a severe flaw in this right. Furthermore, who gets to define “constructive criticism” and “appropriate and professional manner”? I know and agree that there are some basic guidelines we as a culture tend to accept, but there is also a wide range of thought on what these terms mean within those cultural guidelines. Also note that in a multi-cultural society, cultural guidelines are simply not enough, as by definition there are muliple cultures, and thus multiple definitions, at play. At a minimum, this section needs to address who decides what these phrases mean. That said, this is not an issue that kills the bill for me – only takes it down from a 10 to a 9.

2) Right to a safe classroom This one says in a nutshell that if a teacher determines that a student is causing a significant disruption to the class, the administrator must remove the student and at a minimum, the student cannot return to that class that day. It also explicitly states “The administrator shall not undermine the teacher’s authority in the classroom by questioning the teacher’s account of what happened in front of one or more students”.

3) Right to file grievance about an evaluation This one is self explanatory in the text of the bill: “A teacher has a right to file a grievance about an evaluation if, in the opinion of the teacher, the evaluation was unfair, false, or retaliatory for the exercise of a right granted by this Code section”.

4) Right to evaluate each administrator at his/her school anonymously This one basically says that each teacher has to have the opportunity to evaluate each administrator at his or her school each year in a way that is absolutely confidential and anonymous. These evaluations are to be sent to the Superintendent who is then to send copies to each member of the local school board. This is one of the most crucial pieces of this bill to me, as it allows teachers to let the school board know what the school administration is like from their point of view without any way for administration to retaliate against an individual or group. Too often administration is seen one way by parents, who can praise/complain at will, vs the complete opposite by teachers, who until this bill becomes law cannot express their opinions due to th very real threat of retaliation. (Yes, I had personal experience there.) The Superintendent and School Board may or may not act on these evaluations, but at least the teachers will have a chance to say their piece.

5) Right to have teacher of the year at each school elected by secret ballot of the teachers at that school I honestly have no clue what goes in to the teacher of the year selection process right now -though I think it is exclusively an administration decision-, but this seems fair. Of course, it also opens up the entire concept to being nothing more than a popularity contest, but I imagine it is already seen as such – just a ‘who is more popular with administration’ rather than ‘who is more popular with their colleagues’ type of situation.

6) Right to fair disciplinary hearings This one is also one that is desperately needed. It says that teacher can have a person of their choosing at any disciplinary proceeding or conference, that they have to be notified of such conference with “reasonable advance notice” except in extraordinary circumstances, and that the teacher is allowed to record the event.

7) Right to speedy hearings and decisions This is the longest and most complex right recognized within this bill. Basically, it says that if the local school board doesn’t hold hearings on complaints and render a decision in the required time frames, the issue is settled in favor of the complainant and the last thing the complainant asked to be done shall be done. The State Superintendent of Schools is to enforce this upon appeal by the complainant within 60 days of the time expiring or the local school board flat out saying they wouldn’t hold the hearing. The time frames can only be extended by written mutual consent or events which close the school system due to weather or some other emergency when the deadlines are extended for a maximum of the number of days the school system was shut down. To extend the deadline even when the system is shut down requires written notification within 5 days of the system reopening. The State Superintendent is authorized to do anything up to and including withholding state funds from the local school board until the local school board fuly and completely complies with the order. If the local school board starts to comply but then goes back on it, the State Superintendent retains the power he/she had if the local board had never even begun to comply.

I have no problems at all with the first two things listed as findings of the General Assembly – that local governments cannot account for roughly 18% of “surface water removed for public use” and that a significant factor in this water loss “is due to aging, faulty, or poorly maintained water infrastructure”. Those two appear to be basic facts to me, from what I have heard from talking to a variety of people across the State, including some who work in local water departments.

However, the remedy proposed per the remainder of the findings is a State-based regulatory solution. The third finding specifically states that “Repair of water infrastructure is in the interest of the state”, which I cannot agree with. It is in the interest of the citizens, and repair of water infrastructure is best left with the levels that installed said infrastructure – namely, the local governments. It is not in the State’s interest to repair Atlanta’s water system, it is in Atlanta’s. They are the ones losing the water, and they are the ones who are having problems getting enough water – problems that could be fixed, or at least significantly improved, by repairing their infrastructure. (I use Atlanta only as one of the more prominent examples, though there are many others.)

Furthermore, while the bill states that the Assembly finds that “Repair of the infrastructure responsible for such water loss is an undertaking that will likely cost millions of dollars”, it isn’t as if this expense wasn’t unplanned. Indeed, part of the consideration of any infrastructure project should be, and hopefully is, the cost of maintenance, repair, and eventual replacement. After all, ALL infrastructure eventually has these needs, no matter how well the system was originally designed. It is only due to short-sightedness on the part of the local governments that these massive costs “spring up” on them, and at that point their lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on the part of the entire State. The fifth legislative finding states that “An unfunded mandate that local governments make the repairs will likely result in substantially higher water rates or local tax increases”. Should not the users of the water pay for the repairs to the infrastructure needed to get them that water?

Finally, the coup-de-grace of the legislative findings, number 8: “A regulatory system should be created…”. This, written by the Honorary Chairman of the Georgia Republican Liberty Caucus. Wow.

On the substance of the bill, it basically does this: It orders the State Environmental Protection Division to figure out how much water each governmental withdrawing entity is losing due to leaky infrastructure. It will then have to notify each entity of how much water it is losing, and each entity will have 90 days to come up with and submit a plan to fix these leaks. Entities can make agreements to fix each other’s infrastructure, and the “salvaged” water may be used as payment.

But then it allows one governmental entity to effectively steal water allocated to another entity. It does this by saying that if the entity with the leaky pipes does NOT submit a plan to fix them within 90 days, another entity can propose an alternative plan. If the alternative plan is approved by the EPD and the original entity does NOT itself make the repairs described in the alternative plan, then the second entity can make the repairs and be entitled to any water “salvaged” as a result. We’re talking about, per the legislative findings, potentially one out of every five gallons the original entity was entitled to!

Let me use an example with that last paragraph to make it easier to understand: Let’s say Atlanta has a permit to withdraw 100,000 gallons of water per day, but they have leaky pipes that lose 18% of the water – 18,000 gallons per day. Atlanta doesn’t submit a plan to fix those pipes within 90 days of being notified, but the City of Duluth submits an alternative plan to fix Atlanta’s pipes within those 90 days. If EPD approves Duluth’s plan and Atlanta doesn’t want to follow it – for whatever reason-, the City of Duluth can fix Atlanta’s pipes and claim that 18,000 gallons as its own, effectively stealing it from the citizens of Atlanta, who originally had the permit for that water.

I agree that something needs to be done about water issues in this State. I do not agree with a “solution” that puts even more power in the hands of the State and that allows effective theft.

Please, Senator Shafer – or anyone in the General Assembly -, give me a plan I can support. This isn’t one.

I needed to look at this bill for a few reasons, and so today I did. What I found was rather interesting, and has changed my views on the bill as it exists at this moment.

First, I think that this bill will pass any Constitutionality challenge based on the requirement of a single subject, as the subject here is gun rights, and the various areas HB 615 changes are all specific instances of laws regarding gun rights.

As far as the various changes made in HB 615, the first is that the phrase “pistol, revolver, or concealable firearm” is replaced with “weapon”, allowing a greater range of weaponry to be legally carried. One problem I have with this is that “weapon” is never clearly defined, and thus a restrictive definition could be added at a later time. Other than that though, this seems like a good move.

Next, the requirement that a concealed weapon be in some form of holster is removed, which is a great change that allows people to carry as they see fit.

However, it appears that the bill then conflicts itself by banning anyone convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from transporting a weapon that is “enclosed in a case, unloaded, and separated from its ammunition”, but then ALLOWING “any person who has been convicted of a felony” to transport a weapon with the stated restrictions. If I understand it correctly, a felony per Georgia law is basically any crime that can be punished by more than one year in prison, hence the apparent contradiction. I have reached out to a few sources for input about this, any obviously, if any readers have any clarification here it would be GREATLY appreciated!

But even the apparent contradiction isn’t where I changed my opinion of this bill – though it certainly gives me pause.

The next change made by 615 is quite possibly one of the biggest reasons to pass this bill. It bans carrying “explosive compound, firearm, or knife designed for the purpose of offense or defense while in a portion of a building that houses a courtroom or a jail or prison.” yet repeals the “public gathering” prohibition on guns and allows carry in every location that does not house a courtroom, jail, or prison while still respecting property owners’ rights to refuse to allow weapons on their premises. It also specifically allows weapons which are used as evidence in a legal proceeding, so long as they are handled as directed by the personnel “providing courtroom security”. Furthermore, it even allows a person to enter a location containing a courtroom, jail, or prison with a weapon, provided that they notify “security or management personnel” of the weapon and follow their directions “for securing, storing, or temporarily surrendering such weapon on site”. However, it also notes that a person shall not be denied entry into such a location due to a lack of secure storage space for their weapon.

The next section, beginning in Section 4 of the bill, is what changed my mind on the bill. Under current law, concealed weapons permits are issued by the local probate judge. Under HB 615, concealed weapons permits would be issued by the Secretary of State. In other words, this is yet another case of the State grabbing power that rightfully belongs at the local level – if it indeed belongs with government at all. The ONLY good thing about this section is that it removes the ability of the person issuing the license to deny it on the grounds that the applicant is “not of good moral character”.

Section 5 of this bill prohibits any State employee or official in any capacity (including the Georgia National Guard when working under the direction of the Governor) from seizing, requiring registration of, or prohibiting the possession or carry of a firearm, even during a declared official state of emergency. It also provides two different legal remedies for people who are subject to officials violating this section, both by suing the people who violated this section and by petitioning the local court to get the gun back. Section 6 of this bill removes the Governor’s power to suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of firearms. Both of these are again good reasons to pass this bill.

In conclusion, HB 615 really has a lot of GREAT things as far as gun rights are concerned. HOWEVER, it also presents an extremely troubling proposal in attempting to make who does or does not get a concealed weapons permit a State, rather than a local, decision. It is specifically because of this provision, encapsulated almost entirely within Sections 4 and 7 of this bill, that I must ultimately determine that this bill is NOT within the best interest of Georgians, and therefore I will work to OPPOSE this measure.

As always, I try to read the bill before I comment on it. I figure that I can’t ask my Representatives to do something I’m not willing to do myself, and I also like to be informed so that I can then pass the knowledge on to y’all and whoever else asks me any questions.

This morning, Senator Hill sent me the text of the bill, which you can see for yourself here.

There are no calls for “states rights”, “10th Amendment”, “nullification”, or any other such thing in this bill – though the first two were mentioned at a press conference last week, by both Hill and Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock).

As far as commentary on the bill itself goes, Paragraph 2 is the “meat” of the bill (Paragraph 1 is the definitions), and section a) I absolutely love. It basically says that government cannot compel you in any way to participate in any health care system and that government cannot penalize you or your employer if you or your employer choose to pay for health care directly (ie, no insurance company involved in any way). If this bill were just section a), it would whole-heartedly get a “SUPPORT” with a 10 ranking.

There is a “but” here though, and that “but” is sections b) and c). Section b) is extremely subjective and states that “Subject to reasonable and necessary rules and regulations that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or by rule or regulation.” The specific language I have a problem with here is “”Subject to reasonable and necessary rules and regulations that do not substantially limit a person’s options”. Who gets to decide what “reasonable” and “necessary” rules and regulations are? I’m likely to have very different views on that subject than, say Austin Scott, and he is likely to have very different views on it than DuBose Porter.

Furthermore, who gets to decide what “substantially limit[s] a person’s options”? Some would argue from a variety of angles that a person’s options are already substantially limited. For example, in Albany due to Certificate of Need issues, your ONLY option for using a hospital to deliver your baby is Phoebe. Are my options not already “substantially limited” due to the presence of only one local hospital permitted to provide this service?

This leads into my issues with section c), which basically says this constitutional amendment won’t affect any health care oriented laws we already have on the books here in Georgia. Again, meaning that all those laws we already have that limit health care options in this state, such as certificate of need and others, get to remain unscathed by this constitutional amendment that purports to ensure that our options regarding health care are not limited.

Overall, as of right now I would rate this proposal as a “SUPPORT” with a rating of 8.

For more coverage of this that you may have missed, check out these three posts on Peach Pundit (Erick Erickson, Icarus, and Senator Hill), this one from the AJC’s Gold Dome Live blog (Aaron Gould Sheinin and others), and this one from AJC’s Political Insider blog (Jim Galloway)