Tennessee House Bill HB1788

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/24
• Refer: 1/11/24
• Refer: 1/30/24
• Refer: 2/7/24
• Engrossed: 2/13/24
• Enrolled: 3/5/24
• Passed: 3/15/24
• Chaptered: 3/26/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 12, Chapter 3, Part 6, relative to records retention for state contracts.

Impact

The enactment of HB 1788 will directly impact how state agencies manage their records pertaining to contracts for goods and services. By requiring a longer retention period, the bill potentially allows for better historical analysis of state expenditures and procurement practices, which can lead to improved governance and public trust. This increased retention period also aligns with best practices in records management and compliance, fostering an environment of responsible stewardship of public resources.

Summary

House Bill 1788 seeks to amend the records retention requirements for state contracts under Tennessee Code Annotated. Specifically, it extends the retention period of records related to state contracts from three years to five years. This change aims to enhance transparency and accountability in state government by ensuring that records are available for a longer duration, allowing for more robust oversight and review of state contracts and expenditures.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1788 appears largely positive, with support from various stakeholders who view the extension of records retention as a necessary step towards improving government accountability. Advocates for transparency and responsible governance are likely to endorse the bill, emphasizing its potential benefits for public oversight and historical accountability. However, there may be some concerns about the implications of increased record-keeping demands and associated costs for state agencies.

Contention

While there does not appear to be significant contention surrounding HB 1788, concerns may arise related to the practicality of implementing the extended records retention period. Some may argue about the administrative burden placed on state agencies to maintain these records for an additional two years, including the costs and resources required. Nonetheless, the overall consensus seems to favor the bill as a means of augmenting state accountability without significant adversarial debates.