Tennessee House Bill HB0280

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/19/23
• Refer: 1/21/23
• Refer: 3/21/23
• Refer: 4/4/23
• Refer: 4/12/23
• Refer: 4/18/23
• Chaptered: 5/17/23
• Passed: 5/17/23

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 82, Part 3 and Title 66, relative to utility districts.

Impact

The introduction of this bill reflects a broader legislative action aimed at adjusting the governance rules regarding local utility agencies. By allowing per diem payments rather than regular salaries, HB 280 aims to attract qualified individuals to serve on these boards without the financial burden that might otherwise deter participation. The bill specifically applies to districts within counties that have populations within certain ranges, thereby targeting regions that may require focused governance adjustments in utility management.

Summary

House Bill 280 aims to modify the compensation structure for the members of utility district boards of commissioners in certain specified counties in Tennessee. The bill specifically stipulates that members will serve without compensation, although it allows for per diem payments for up to twelve meetings per year at a rate not exceeding $500 per meeting, contingent upon a resolution passed by the board. This structure is designed to ensure that while board commissioners are not compensated on a regular basis, they can still receive some remuneration for their service if deemed necessary by the board's decision.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 280 has been largely neutral, focusing on practicality rather than ideological divides. Supporters may argue that this bill creates a more efficient governance model that encourages board membership without the worry of ongoing financial compensation. However, some may view the allowance for per diem payments as a potential concern regarding the financial motivations of board members, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in public service roles.

Contention

One point of contention surrounding the bill may involve discussions on whether serving without compensation will deter qualified candidates, or conversely, whether it promotes a more community-focused mindset among commissioners. Further, the specified population parameters could spark debate on fairness and equity—whether this standard should apply uniformly across all counties or whether adaptations are needed for differing local circumstances. The legislation underscores ongoing discussions about local governance and the balancing act between incentivizing public service while maintaining control over taxpayer funds.