Georgia passed a 2006 law (HB 101) letting peace officers who were denied membership in the state retirement fund before 1976 because of their race or ethnicity now claim retirement credit for that pre-1976 service. But Georgia has another law that automatically repeals retirement bills if they aren't 'concurrently funded.' Does the funding requirement repeal the racial-justice retirement credit?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, Georgia passed House Bill 101 (Act No. 458, 2006 Ga. Laws 117) creating a new O.C.G.A. § 47-17-71. The new section let any active member of the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund claim creditable service for each month of pre-January-1-1976 peace officer work, if during that period they were denied membership in the Fund or actively prevented from applying because of their race or ethnicity. This was a racial-justice measure addressing the historical exclusion of African American peace officers from the retirement system.

The Director of the Fund had a problem. Georgia has another statute, O.C.G.A. § 47-20-50(a), which reads:

Any retirement bill having a fiscal impact which is enacted by the General Assembly and which is approved by the Governor or which otherwise becomes law shall become effective on the first day of July immediately following the regular session during which it was enacted, but only if the enacted bill is concurrently funded as provided by this Code section. If an enacted bill, including one approved by the Governor, is not concurrently funded as required by this Code section, then such bill may not become effective as law and shall be null, void, and of no force and effect and shall stand repealed in its entirety on the first day of July immediately following its enactment.

Section 2 of HB 101 (2006 Ga. Laws 117, 119) explicitly applied that rule to the new Act: it would become effective on July 1, 2006, only if determined to have been concurrently funded; otherwise it would be automatically repealed in its entirety on July 1, 2006. The Fund Director needed to know whether the new race-discrimination retirement credit was effectively dead on arrival.

AG Thurbert Baker said no. The 2006 Act does not have an immediate fiscal impact for purposes of § 47-20-50(a), because it doesn't directly grant credit on enactment. Instead, it sets up a multi-step process:

1. Application window: July 1 to December 31, 2006. Eligible peace officers (or representatives) submit written applications under O.C.G.A. § 47-17-71(c) (Supp. 2006).
2. Actuarial calculation: after December 31, 2006. The Board of Trustees commissions an actuarial determination of the funding necessary to grant credit to all approved applicants without creating actuarial accrued liability for the Fund. The framework follows the Public Retirement Systems Standards Law (Chapter 20 of Title 47).
3. Funding split. Half the actuarial cost is allocated as employee contributions, with each applicant assigned a pro rata share based on months of credited service requested. Each applicant must pay by March 1, 2007 or be ineligible.
4. State appropriation possibility: 2007 General Assembly. During the 2007 session, the General Assembly may appropriate funds sufficient to cover the other half (plus any unpaid applicant contributions).
5. Credit granted: July 1, 2007. Credit is granted only if the Board receives the full actuarially required amount. Otherwise the Board refunds all applicant contributions with regular interest, and the section "shall thereafter have no effect."

The harmonization analysis. The AG's resolution treats § 47-20-50(a) and § 47-17-71 (Supp. 2006) as not in conflict. The fiscal-impact concern in § 47-20-50(a) targets retirement bills that create immediate funding obligations. § 47-17-71 doesn't do that: it creates an application and contribution mechanism with self-repeal if funding isn't assembled. The cost falls on applicants and (potentially) on a future appropriation by the 2007 General Assembly, not on the 2006 Fund balance. So the bill has no enactment-date fiscal impact within the meaning of § 47-20-50(a).

The Section 2 self-destruct provision. The opinion reads Section 2 of the Act in harmony with § 47-17-71's design: Section 2 prevents the law from having force from the beginning of the fiscal year unless concurrent funding is assembled: and "[t]hat will occur if and when the amount appropriated and the amount contributed by applicants equals the amount determined by the actuary to be necessary for concurrent funding." Concurrent funding under § 47-17-71 happens through the Section 2 + application-and-actuarial framework. The two provisions are consistent.

The interpretive principles. The opinion deploys conventional Georgia statutory construction:
- Look for legislative intent ("the old law, the evil, and the remedy") under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(a).
- Construe statutes on the same subject in pari materia and harmonize where possible.
- Read the act to give a "sensible and intelligent effect to each part": no provision is presumed meaningless.
- Specific statutes control over general statutes when in conflict (Glinton v. And R, Inc. (1999)).

The caption of the Act (which courts may consider as evidence of legislative intent under Sikes v. State (1997)) describes the statute as providing for "provisional applications" and "conditions for an effective date and automatic repeal", language that describes a multi-step contingent enactment, not a self-funding retirement bill.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The application window described in this opinion (July 1 to December 31, 2006) closed long ago, and the funding determination deadlines have likewise passed. Whether the program achieved full funding by July 1, 2007, and how many peace officers ultimately received credit under § 47-17-71 (Supp. 2006), are historical facts that this opinion does not address. Anyone researching the historical implementation should consult Fund records and General Assembly appropriations from the 2007 session.

Common questions

Q: Why was 1976 the cutoff date?
A: The opinion does not explain, but the most likely answer is that 1976 marked when Georgia's law enforcement integration was substantially complete and the practice of denying Fund membership based on race or ethnicity was no longer occurring. Setting the cutoff at January 1, 1976, ensured the credit applied only to historically excluded service, not to ordinary retirement-credit gaps.

Q: How would an applicant prove they were denied membership because of their race?
A: § 47-17-71(b) authorized the Board of Trustees to receive applications and § 47-17-71(c) required written application with "proof that certain conditions were met" (per the Act's caption). The actual evidentiary requirements would have been spelled out in Board rules and likely included documentation of pre-1976 peace officer service plus evidence (testimony, contemporaneous records, statistical patterns, etc.) of the discriminatory denial.

Q: How much would an applicant have had to pay?
A: A pro rata share of half the actuarial cost, based on the months of service the applicant claimed. The actual amount depended on (a) how many applicants the actuary calculated for and (b) the actuary's per-month cost calculation. The Fund Director's office and the actuary's report would have been the source for individual cost determinations.

Q: What if the General Assembly didn't appropriate the matching funds?
A: § 47-17-71(e) said the credit would be granted only "if the board of trustees receives the full amount determined by the actuary necessary to implement the provisions of this Code section." If full funding was not received (whether through legislative appropriation or applicant contributions), the Board would refund all received contributions with regular interest, and the section "shall thereafter have no effect." The remedy was wholly contingent on funding.

Q: Was this part of a broader civil rights settlement?
A: The opinion doesn't address the political or litigation history. The race-discrimination credit framework looks like a legislatively designed remedy rather than the result of a court-ordered settlement, but the broader context of how the bill came to be enacted is outside the scope of the opinion.

Q: What's the broader Public Retirement Systems Standards Law about?
A: Chapter 20 of Title 47 (the "Public Retirement Systems Standards Law") governs the actuarial soundness of Georgia's public retirement systems generally. The concurrent-funding rule in § 47-20-50(a) is a centerpiece: it forces the General Assembly to confront the fiscal impact of any retirement bill at enactment, preventing the legislature from creating unfunded retirement obligations that would weaken the systems' actuarial position.

Background and statutory framework

The Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund (POAB Fund) is one of Georgia's smaller public retirement systems. Funding comes from member contributions (under § 47-17-44) and from withholdings on fines and bond forfeitures (under § 47-17-60). The Fund operates on actuarial soundness principles under § 47-17-26(a)(2) and is subject to the Public Retirement Systems Standards Law under § 47-17-80.

Critically, peace officer Fund benefits do not create a vested right; they are subject to legislative change and fund availability under §§ 47-17-100, 47-17-101, and 47-17-102, and Prichard v. Board of Commissioners of Peace Officers Annuity & Benefit Fund (1954). This vesting framework is what allows § 47-17-71's contingent-credit-grant mechanism to work: the Board can pre-collect contributions and refund them if funding doesn't materialize, without violating any vested-right principle.

The concurrent-funding rule in § 47-20-50(a) reflects a 1980s/1990s reform aimed at protecting Georgia's public retirement systems from underfunded benefit expansions. Before the rule, the General Assembly could enact retirement enhancements without simultaneously identifying funding sources, leaving the systems with growing unfunded liabilities. The concurrent-funding rule forces fiscal discipline by automatically repealing any inadequately funded retirement bill.

The 2006 race-discrimination credit was an attempt to thread the needle between two policy goals: providing a remedy for historical exclusion (by giving denied peace officers retirement credit they would have had absent the discrimination) and protecting the Fund's actuarial soundness (by ensuring full funding before any credit grant). The application/contribution/appropriation/refund mechanism in § 47-17-71 is the fiscal-discipline framework that makes both goals possible.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- O.C.G.A. § 47-17-71 (Supp. 2006) (race-discrimination credit)
- O.C.G.A. § 47-20-50(a) (concurrent funding requirement)
- O.C.G.A. §§ 47-17-26(a)(2), 47-17-44 (Supp. 2006), 47-17-60, 47-17-80 (Supp. 2006) (Fund administration)
- O.C.G.A. §§ 47-17-100, 47-17-101, 47-17-102 (no vested right)
- O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(a) (statutory construction)
- 2006 Ga. Laws 117 (HB 101, Act No. 458)

Cases:
- Thornton v. Clarke County Sch. Dist., 270 Ga. 633 (1999) (statutory intent)
- Wilson v. Bd. of Regents, 246 Ga. 649 (1980) (statutory intent)
- Monticello, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 231 Ga. App. 382 (1998) (in pari materia and sensible-effect rules)
- Glinton v. And R, Inc., 271 Ga. 864 (1999) (specific over general statute)
- First National Bank of Atlanta v. Sinkler, 170 Ga. App. 668 (1984) (specific over general)
- Sikes v. State, 268 Ga. 19 (1997) (caption as evidence of intent)
- Prichard v. Board of Comm'rs of Peace Officers Annuity & Benefit Fund, 211 Ga. 57 (1954) (no vested right in Fund benefits)

Source

• Landing page: https://law.georgia.gov/opinions/2006-4
• Original PDF: not linked from landing page

Original opinion text

This responds to the request of your Board of Commissioners for my official opinion whether O.C.G.A. § 47‑20‑50(a), which requires that retirement bills be concurrently funded, repeals the amendment to Article 5 of Chapter 17 of Title 47 allowing for the grant of credible service to peace officers for prior service prior to January 1, 1976, if the officer was denied membership to the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund because of race or ethnicity. Article 5 of Chapter 20 of Title 47 governs the administration of public retirement systems and Article 5 of Chapter 17 of Title 47 addresses service credible toward the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund. The latter was amended in the last legislative session, 2006 Ga. Laws 117,[1] to create O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71, which provides: (a) It is the intent of the General Assembly to provide for the grant of creditable service to any active member of the fund for each month of prior service as a peace officer rendered prior to January 1, 1976, if during such period the member was denied membership in the fund or was actively prevented from making such application because of his or her race or ethnicity. (b) The board of trustees is authorized and directed to receive the applications of such members as would be eligible to receive creditable service . . . . (c) A member . . . must make written application to the board of trustees during the six-month period from July 1, 2006[,] through December 31, 2006 . . . . (d) As soon as practicable following the last day for application, the board of trustees shall cause the actuary for the fund to determine the amount of funding necessary to grant the creditable service to all members whose applications are accepted and approved in accordance without creating any actuarial accrued liability as to the fund, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20 of this title, the 'Public Retirement Systems Standards Law.' A pro rata portion of one-half of such amount, determined by the number of months of credible service requested by each person, shall be assigned as such person's employee contribution required to receive such creditable service. The board of trustees shall notify each applicant of his or her pro rata share, and each such person shall pay such amount to the board of trustees not later than March 1, 2007, or thereafter be ineligible to receive such creditable service. During the regular 2007 session, the General Assembly may appropriate funds sufficient to cover one-half of the amount determined by the actuary as necessary to grant the creditable service, together with any portion of the total required employee contribution which was not received by the board of trustees from the applicants by March 1, 2007. (e) The creditable service provided for in subsection (a) of this Code section shall be granted on July 1, 2007, only if the board of trustees receives the full amount determined by the actuary necessary to implement the provisions of this Code section. Otherwise, the board of trustees shall refund all amounts received from the members as employee contributions, together with regular interest thereon, and this Code section shall thereafter have no effect. O.C.G.A. § 47‑20‑50(a) provides, however, that [a]ny retirement bill having a fiscal impact which is enacted by the General Assembly and which is approved by the Governor or which otherwise becomes law shall become effective on the first day of July immediately following the regular session during which it was enacted, but only if the enacted bill is concurrently funded as provided by this Code section. If an enacted bill, including one approved by the Governor, is not concurrently funded as required by this Code section, then such bill may not become effective as law and shall be null, void, and of no force and effect and shall stand repealed in its entirety on the first day of July immediately following its enactment. The General Assembly considered O.C.G.A. § 47‑20‑50(a) when drafting O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006)in that section 2 of 2006 Ga. Laws 117, 119 provides: This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2006, only if it is determined to have been concurrently funded as provided in Chapter 20 of Title 47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the "Public Retirement Systems Standards Law"; otherwise, this Act shall not become effective and shall be automatically repealed in its entirety on July 1, 2006, as required by subsection (a) of Code Section 47‑20‑50. Any conflict between O.C.G.A. § 47‑20‑50(a) and O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006) can be resolved by applying the rules of statutory construction. The initial rule of statutory construction is to construe the law to implement the purpose and intention of the General Assembly in enacting the law. The courts must "look diligently for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy." O.C.G.A. § 1‑3‑1(a); see Thornton v. Clarke County Sch. Dist., 270 Ga. 633, 634 (1999); Wilson v. Bd. Of Regents, 246 Ga. 649, 650 (1980). Statutes must be construed in relation to other statutes relating to the same subject matter and harmonized wherever possible. Monticello, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 231 Ga. App. 382, 383-84 (1998). The statutes should be construed to give a "sensible and intelligent effect to each part, as it is not presumed that the legislature intended that any part would be without meaning." Id. Furthermore, a specific statute governs over a more general statute when the statutes are in conflict. Glinton v. And R, Inc., 271 Ga. 864, 866-67 (1999); First National Bank of Atlanta v. Sinkler, 170 Ga. App. 668, 670 (1984). The legislative intent with respect to Article 5 of Chapter 17, as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71(a) (Supp. 2006), is to "provide for the grant of credible service" for any peace officer denied membership to the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund "because of his or her race or ethnicity." Additionally, the courts may look at the caption of an act "to ascertain the legislative intent of a doubtful statute." Sikes, 268 Ga. at 21. The caption of the Act provides that the intent is to amend Article 5 of Chapter 17 of Title 47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to service creditable toward retirement under the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund, so as to provide a statement of legislative findings and intent; to provide that the board of trustees of such fund shall accept provisional applications for creditable service for certain prior service; to provide for proof that certain conditions were met; to provide for funding by the General Assembly; to provide for the payment and possible refund of employee contributions; to provide conditions for an effective date and automatic repeal; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. 2006 Ga. Laws 117 (emphasis added). The caption shows that the intent of the legislature is for the board of trustees to collect "provisional applications" from the affected class of peace officers starting July 1, 2006. The Act provides that applications will be received from the eligible peace officers from July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71(c) (Supp. 2006). The Act also provides that the eligible officers will be contacted after December 31, 2006, and notified of the amount they must pay into the retirement fund to be eligible to receive benefits. O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71(d) (Supp. 2006). The eligible officers will have until March 1, 2007, to pay the amount. Id. During the 2007 session, the General Assembly may appropriate funds to cover the remaining cost of the retirement program. O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71(d) and (e). Thus, based upon the General Assembly's clear statement of intent, O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006) will not require any funding until the 2007 legislative session. Any conflict between the statutes is resolved by construing the statutes together. The provisions of O.C.G.A. § 47‑20‑50(a) protect against the enactment of retirement and pension plans for which there is no funding by requiring concurrent funding for "any retirement bill having a fiscal impact." The language in O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006), however, neither requires concurrent funding nor guarantees future funding. Instead, it merely creates a process to collect applications and payments from potentially eligible peace officers. The Act plainly states that the credible service will only be awarded "if the board of trustees receives the full amount determined by the actuary necessary to implement the provisions of the Code section." O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71(e) (Supp. 2006). Since O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006) does not have a fiscal impact, O.C.G.A. § 47‑20‑50(a) does not repeal it. O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006) will only be repealed if the board of trustees does not receive sufficient participation and funds from eligible officers. [2] Likewise, O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006) is not repealed by section 2 of 2006 Ga. Laws 117, 119. Section 2 mandates that the Act be "automatically repealed in its entirety on July 1, 2006, as required by . . . Code Section 47-20-50" unless the Act "is determined to have been concurrently funded as provided in . . . the "Public Retirement Systems Standards Law." Subsection (d) of O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006) also provides specifically that Board of Commissioners must commission its "actuary . . . to determine the amount of funding necessary to grant the creditable service . . . without creating any actuarial accrued liability . . . in accordance with . . . the 'Public Retirement Systems Standards Law.'" Under the well-established principles of statutory construction jurisprudence set out above, the statute must be read to give a "sensible and intelligent effect to each part, as it is not presumed that the legislature intended that any part would be without meaning." Monticello, 231 Ga. App. at 383-84. Reading the Act in its entirety, the intent of Section 2 is to prevent the law from having force from the beginning of the fiscal year unless the conditions required for concurrent funding of new benefits are satisfied. That will occur if and when the amount appropriated and the amount contributed by applicants equals the amount determined by the actuary to be necessary for concurrent funding. Therefore, it is my official opinion that O.C.G.A. § 47‑20‑50(a), which requires generally that retirement bills be concurrently funded, and section 2 of 2006 Ga. Laws 117, which requires a specific determination of concurrent funding regarding O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006), do not repeal O.C.G.A. § 47‑17‑71 (Supp. 2006), which allows for the grant of creditable service to peace officers for service prior to January 1, 1976, if the officer was denied membership to the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund because of race or ethnicity. Prepared by: JULIE ADAMS JACOBS Assistant Attorney General [1] Act No. 458 (H.B. 101), (approved April 18, 2006). [2] This is consistent with the program as it stood before the amendment. With respect to the program as a whole, the Board of Commissioners of the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund is required to limit its annuity benefits to maintain actuarial soundness, specifically in regard to the standards of the "Public Retirement System Standards Law." O.C.G.A. §§ 47‑17‑26(a)(2), 47‑17‑80 (Supp. 2006). The Fund receives revenue from member contributions and from fines and bond forfeitures. O.C.G.A. §§ 47‑17‑44 (Supp. 2006), 47‑17‑60. The program does not create a vested right; it is subject to legislative change and fund availability. O.C.G.A. §§ 47‑17‑100, 47‑17‑101, 47‑17‑102; Prichard v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Peace Officers Annuity & Benefit Fund, 211 Ga. 57 (1954).