AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 5, relative to county legislative bodies.
Summary
SB2276 amends Tennessee law governing county legislative bodies by adding a new protection for certain county finance officials from being terminated or discharged without approval of the county legislative body. Under existing law, a director in one narrowly defined county population bracket could not be removed without legislative-body approval; this bill retains that structure and adds a second, similarly narrow population-based provision for the director of accounts and budgets in counties with a 2020 census population between 22,500 and 22,600. The new provision applies only if it is approved by a two-thirds vote of the county legislative body.
The bill is highly targeted and applies only to counties that fit the specified census ranges, meaning it functions as a local or private act affecting a very small number of counties rather than a broad statewide change. It alters Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 5, Section 5-13-103, by limiting the ability of county officials to remove these positions without local legislative approval. The act takes effect upon becoming law.
Impact
SB2276 changes the removal process for certain county administrative finance positions by requiring county legislative-body approval before termination or discharge in narrowly defined counties. It amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 5-13-103(f)(1), and adds a new subsection for the director of accounts and budgets in counties meeting the 2020 census population range of 22,500 to 22,600, contingent on a two-thirds vote of the county legislative body. The practical effect is to give county commissions or similar bodies greater control over the job security of these officials in the affected counties.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate State & Local Government Committee unanimously, 9-0, and then passed both floor votes without any recorded opposition, including 31-0 on third consideration and 91-0 on final passage. The voting history suggests consensus around the measure.
Contention
No significant opposition is reflected in the available record. Because the bill is narrowly tailored to specific county population brackets, any potential concern would likely center on local control, personnel authority, or the unusual use of population-based classifications in state law. However, the committee and floor votes show no recorded contention, and the bill advanced with unanimous or near-unanimous support at each stage.