A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | March 13, 2013 | Committee Room | Personnel

Full MP3 Audio File

[Speaker changes.]...our House Sargent-at-Arms today are Fred Hines, Mike Clampett, and Wayne Davis and we're privileged to have two House Pages with us today...Tanner Velton????? from Carteret????? and Jake Parrish?????? also from Carteret County. Thank you, Jake, welcome to the House State Personnel Committee...should be short and sweet. Today we have one bill to hear...House Bill 161 and I believe I saw Representative Glazier walk in a minute ago so, Representative Glazier, we're gonna turn this show over to you. Thank you. [Speaker changes.] Thank you very much, Mister Chairman and Members. This bill, House Bill 161, is pretty much exactly as it reads. It is a bill that's sponsored by Representative McGrady, Representative Jordan and myself...a request from district court judges across the state and it does only one thing. The bill...the current law has a retirement age for judges and judicial officials but it never included magistrates, which are part of the system. This is to simply set the mandatory retirement age for magistrates the same as justices and judges but it does so with an effective date of January 1, 2015 and that was to give any magistrate that is already over age some significant notice and not just tossing him out as soon as we pass the bill if they were over 72. So it creates a fairly significant time frame for planning. I know of no opposition to the bill. It passed unanimously through Judiciary B and I believe it is before you, Mister Chair, because of the retirement system requirement and there is, I think, an actuarial that was also presented that shows no significant impact. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Representative Glazier. Do we have questions? [Speaker changes.] Representative Brawley? [Speaker changes.] At the appropriate time, make a motion. [Speaker changes.] Alright. Representative... [Speaker changes.] 'Scuse me, I have just one question...I know there's been a bill filed and I don't know whether it will move or not or whether it makes any difference...to raise the retirement age of judges to 75. [Speaker changes.] May I respond? [Speaker changes.] ??????????? [Speaker changes.] There is and I think Representative Daughtrey filed it and this, rather than getting into that thicket which has people on both sides of this, whatever it's set at, the magistrates will stay consistent with the judges wherever it ends up being. Right now, my understanding from Representative Daughtrey is it's not likely to move. [Speaker changes.] Mr. ???????? from Staff, did you have somethin' you would like to add to that? [Speaker changes.] Did someone change the effective date from the original bill? [Speaker changes.] I think the proposed committee substitute changes the effective date to January 1, 2015. It was October 1st but there was concern that people have notice. [Speaker changes.] INAUDIBLE [Speaker changes.] This was change in the last committee...this committee substitute, if you'll notice the committee substitute was passed favorably, which means we haven't changed the bill since it left the last committee. Any other questions? [Speaker changes.] INAUDIBLE [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chair...so what if a magistrate doesn't wanna retire? Do we just boot the dude out anyhow? [Speaker changes.] Well, if a magistrate doesn't wanna retire and they're over age, I suspect they'd be like some justices and judges who don't want to at some point, the age has been set for some time and one of the reasons again that we put a later effective date in it is because we do have a few, not many in the state, who are 72 or over, to give them time to be planning and not just do that "tossing out". This effectively ties in to the next date of reappointment for magistrates and that's another reason we used this. It's sort of a time frame for reappointment and the next time will be January of 2015 and that's why this date was chosen. [Speaker changes.] Representative Lucas, I think ????????? may have some numbers as far as how many magistrates we have and how many are affected and all...if you'd like to have that information. I think...right behind you. [Speaker changes.] Mr. ??????? [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir. [Speaker changes.] Members of the committee, this is Stanley ??????? with fiscal research, we pulled data from the beacon system that pays the magistrates and there are about 648 of them and there are 20 that will...when I did the actuarial note, there were 20 of them that would be effected by the October 1, 2013 date. That would increase if you went out to '15. [Speaker changes.] But some of 'em are as high as 83. [Speaker changes.] Follow up? [Speaker changes.] Really, a comment Mister Chair. So, from what Stanley tells us, your bill pretty well tracks reality. [Speaker changes.] I think so. [Speaker changes.] Anyone else? Representative ??????????? [Speaker changes.] I'm sorry to be....

But what is the request, what age is it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Same as the judges, 72, to keep it all consistent. Whatever the judges and judicial officials are at which is 72. As Representative McNiell I think indicated, there's a bill pandering about that might move that age, this would not get involved in that so whatever it is, it stays for everybody, but I don't know that bill's going to move, so this just finally ties the magistrates into what the judges are on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other questions. Seeing none, I believe you had a motion Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would move that House Bill 161 be given a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. Any objection to the motion. If not, all in favor of the motion to give House Bill 161 a favorable report, I don't believe this one has any further. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. Thank you very much for showing up for this meeting and it's adjourned. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you members, thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Glazier.