Tennessee House Bill HB2873

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/24
• Refer: 3/13/24
• Refer: 3/19/24
• Refer: 3/27/24
• Engrossed: 4/2/24
• Enrolled: 4/10/24
• Passed: 5/1/24
• Chaptered: 5/13/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 8; Title 40 and Title 41, relative to state government.

Impact

The passing of HB 2873 on April 9, 2024, will significantly impact the governance of state boards, extending the governor's authority in matters of board member removal. This alteration could lead to more accountability within state appointed positions but may also raise concerns about political influence over board operations, as the selection and removal of members could become more subject to the governor's discretion.

Summary

House Bill 2873 is a legislative measure aimed at amending various titles within the Tennessee Code Annotated, specifically Titles 4, 8, 40, and 41, which pertain to state government functions. This bill allows the governor to remove members of certain boards for cause, ensuring more direct oversight and control over these entities. The change reflects a shift towards a more centralized authority within state governance structures, specifically regarding appointed board members.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 2873 appears to be neutral to positive from legislative supporters, with proponents arguing that this measure enhances accountability and responsiveness within state government. However, potential critics may view this as a consolidation of power by the executive branch, raising questions about independence and potential political coercion in state governance.

Contention

Notable points of contention in the discussions surrounding HB 2873 include the balance of power between the executive branch and independently functioning boards. Advocates tout the importance of transparency and accountability, suggesting that allowing the governor to remove board members for cause is a necessary check to ensure adherence to state laws and policies. Critics, however, may argue that it undermines the autonomy of boards that could perform better without direct political interference, highlighting concerns over the politicization of board appointments.