Tennessee House Bill HB2153

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/25/24
• Refer: 1/31/24
• Refer: 3/5/24
• Chaptered: 4/17/24
• Passed: 4/17/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Chapter 289 of the Private Acts of 1976; as amended by Chapter 241 of the Private Acts of 1978; Chapter 92 of the Private Acts of 2000; and any other acts amendatory thereto, relative to the Scott County Attorney.

Impact

The enactment of HB2153 will directly influence employment practices regarding the Scott County Attorney's financial compensation. By enforcing a set salary, the bill aims to provide financial predictability while still allowing for adjustments for cost of living. Moreover, the clear stipulation regarding travel reimbursements reinforces the support for the attorney's role, recognizing the need for appropriate resourcing to perform duties effectively, thereby potentially improving the legal services offered in the county.

Summary

House Bill 2153 aims to amend specific provisions relating to the compensation of the Scott County Attorney, establishing a fixed annual salary of $65,000, which is to remain unchanged during the term of the elected official, except for cost-of-living adjustments aligned with state law. The bill clearly delineates the financial responsibilities pertaining to the office, stipulating also that travel expenses incurred during county business outside Scott County will be reimbursed, and the attorney will receive subscription access to online legal research resources. This change is intended to standardize payment practices and outline responsibilities for the county attorney within the specific local context.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment around HB2153 appears to be supportive among local legislators, reflecting a desire to provide clear and fair compensation structures for public officials. The bill passed unanimously in the most recent vote, indicating bipartisan agreement on the importance of managing county-level positions responsibly. However, discussions around the bill highlight varied interest in the implications of fixed salary roles, particularly in light of future economic fluctuations and the ability to adapt salaries accordingly.

Contention

Notable points of contention in the discussions surrounding HB2153 involved the predictability of funding and the potential stifling of salary negotiations for future attorneys holding the office. Some legislators expressed concerns about locking in salaries without considering future economic conditions, while others argued that establishing a standard could prevent salary disputes and ensure fair treatment across subsequent administrations. Ultimately, the bill's language reflects a balance between maintaining a consistent compensation framework while still addressing potential budgetary needs.