Tennessee House Bill HB0258

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/25
• Refer: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/10/25
• Engrossed: 2/20/25
• Enrolled: 2/25/25
• Passed: 3/14/25
• Chaptered: 3/24/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 16, Chapter 3, relative to the private probation services council.

Summary

HB0258 makes a narrow administrative change to Tennessee law concerning the private probation services council. The bill removes the council from one statutory list of state entities in Title 4 and adds it to a different list of entities in Title 4 that are tied to the state’s general provisions for boards, commissions, and councils. In practical terms, the measure updates how the council is recognized in the Tennessee Code rather than changing the council’s substantive duties or authority. The bill’s caption also references Title 16, Chapter 3, which is where the private probation services council is created, but the text provided only amends the state’s codified listings of entities. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting a standard housekeeping or technical correction to keep the code current with the council’s status.

Impact

HB0258 affects Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4 by deleting the private probation services council from one statutory subdivision and adding it to another, thereby updating the state’s official list of boards, commissions, and councils. The bill does not appear to alter the council’s membership, powers, duties, or regulatory responsibilities over private probation services; instead, it changes the council’s placement within the code and its administrative recognition under state law.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad, bipartisan support and little controversy. The House Government Operations Committee recommended passage unanimously, and both floor actions shown passed without any recorded dissent. The absence of committee transcript discussion also suggests the bill was treated as a routine technical measure rather than a policy dispute.

Contention

No notable substantive contention is evident in the available materials. Because the bill appears to be a code-correction or administrative cleanup measure, there is no indication of disagreement over private probation policy, council authority, or the regulation of probation services. The unanimous votes and lack of recorded debate point to consensus that the bill was noncontroversial.