[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6629889,"mediaKeyId","2702107-d867cf73080221979b1e55d523ad294c","parentId",2702107,"title","Subcommittee advances bill banning DEI-based hiring decisions in public employers; witnesses debate meaning and effects","audioSeconds",1059,"startMs",4586000,"endMs",5645000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2702107-d867cf73080221979b1e55d523ad294c&start=4586&end=5645","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2702107-d867cf73080221979b1e55d523ad294c/thumbnail_4586000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6629889/Tennessee/Subcommittee-advances-bill-banning-DEI-based-hiring-decisions-in-public-employers-witnesses-debate-meaning-and-effects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629889-a4d0aae960838fcc867c48ff24106058/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135499&Signature=Irj1TDwE1C1wJkB-yCBwBWyqdCkbWP1TucvFwt6eVdIVyrjfVNhK2jJBTwBaRqEG32nu2ctH0ZEuol~niweVkse9AsvOWQ85YoDfnHmc-u7mZmCWa3paEaLqowv~thQVMDQ1PmcVIk4l~GUqgv7~xUFxWBiGWdtcBcpVH424MYNWTry7DjymKgRXoLMSwyOCK~Lvn3muhyB8Dtyl~JyejYSzrM0jGUvL9c8OUsEbZKDDP38Yhf3Xo2nPUvQ9MybVy11jZbXtD8f6UFP6fY~87wfE6UMF--SgtOQ4WlH8ayi~oEEEg5RxiRMFwMAROBqRwZcXaGhZPeciCO1oxU1Iog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","TN State Legislature","date","2025-03-19T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Mayberry’s House Bill 622, as amended, passed the Cities & Counties subcommittee on March 19, 2025, by a 5-2 vote. The bill would bar state, county, municipal and local governments, local education agencies and public higher-education institutions from making hiring decisions “based on diversity, equity and inclusion” goals; it would require hiring decisions to be made on merit — qualifications, experience and skills.

Why it matters: The measure touches hiring rules at public employers and drew testimony from workers and advocates who argued that programs described as DEI are meant to correct long-standing disparities, while the sponsor and supporters said the bill simply requires merit-based decisions and does not remove federal protections against discrimination.

Sponsor statement and scope: Representative Mayberry told the committee the bill is designed to ensure hiring is based on merit and does not eliminate statutory protections against discrimination. He said the bill applies to state and local public employers and public higher-education institutions.

Public testimony and debate: The committee heard from at least one witness, Megan Gohane, who described workplace experiences where customers or colleagues assumed that women or other groups could not perform certain roles; she said that programs focused on diversity, equity and inclusion broaden candidate pools and help correct implicit bias. Committee members and other representatives debated whether DEI programs are political and whether the bill would worsen hiring shortages in certain sectors such as education.

Legal context: Committee discussion referenced Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and existing anti-discrimination law; the sponsor and legal counsel said the bill would not remove those protections. Representative Mayberry said the bill would not affect civil-rights protections and that complaints under federal law would still be permitted.

Outcome: The subcommittee approved the amended bill by a 5-2 vote and moved it to the next available calendar. Committee debate and public testimony indicate the issue remains contested and will likely draw attention in subsequent committee consideration and public comment.

Provenance: The committee transcript records the sponsor’s explanation, witness testimony and the recorded committee vote; all quotations and attributions here come from those recorded remarks.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Cities & Counties Subcommittee\tMar 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Mayberry’s House Bill 622, as amended, passed the Cities & Counties subcommittee on March 19, 2025, by a 5-2 vote.","taxTitle","Cities & Counties, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Tennessee","taxId",79852,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6629894,"Committee sends contested residential property-classification bill to summer study after fiscal-note dispute",1586,7910000,9496000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2702107-d867cf73080221979b1e55d523ad294c&start=7910&end=9496","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2702107-d867cf73080221979b1e55d523ad294c/thumbnail_7910000.jpg","/articles/6629894/Tennessee/Committee-sends-contested-residential-property-classification-bill-to-summer-study-after-fiscal-note-dispute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629894-6499cc7a22abe9df5ac741055abcddf8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135499&Signature=lv9xyxfoXhPS9ZCf5e-mdeuahQen3ztXObilsCvfrpoEebdUWT3CGQi1U18cDd-Oe08MJfkHf4kQknEKJ45bwREc3MM6CRDG2UC451TGOb7mnCbojDi97GR7VeugXI6lHyVhaGWfPDGRt0lz~nTZMlc0CGspEKegkwkLlOqKcC9zJyiwbK6gw8MaiL3F5QkolIqIsUSP0s8iffkKVu2wMR6r7E~2tflTDTidwaQCaxYL6xesnJNV62ZnijFjpOJbUnVIXnQRDBT1eak6mg2H11hcm3I1QMJucpi6tlXPmJi6Tqh1uUtCWbshC7WreVPtzFeynsLrhuwtfBYydP~xGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Rudd presented House Bill 319 to the Cities & Counties subcommittee on March 19, 2025, describing the measure as a cleanup to reaffirm long-standing state practice that single-family homes should be assessed using residential standards rather than commercial rates.

Why it matters: The bill addresses how residential rental houses are classified for property-tax purposes. Opponents said a recent comptroller/DPA interpretation would reclassify many owner-occupied and single-family rental houses as commercial, producing substantial local tax increases; the comptroller’s fiscal note cited a possible statewide revenue effect (transcript cites approximately $78 million) that committee members disputed.

Sponsor’s explanation: Representative Rudd told the committee the bill restores the assessment approach that the state and most counties have followed since 1973 and that recent DPA directives and a Memphis judge’s decision have created an inconsistent patchwork of classifications across counties. The sponsor said the bill does not target short-term rentals or timeshares and clarified that townhomes and owner-occupied condominiums are treated as residential under current practice.

Public testimony and concerns: Multiple witnesses appeared.
- Bruce McNealage, housing owner/operator, testified that reclassifying single-family rental homes as commercial would raise operating costs and likely be passed through to tenants as rent increases.
- Jim Dooley, former county assessor, said in his 40 years a single-family property had not been assessed commercially and recommended the bill move forward.
- David Connors, representing the Tennessee County Services Association, said the Comptroller’s Division of Property Assessments (DPA) had identified a large number of properties currently assessed at commercial rates; he warned that the amendment’s section 3 would require local governments to adjust tax rates to make up lost revenue, effectively mandating rate changes across jurisdictions.

Committee debate and procedural outcome: Committee members questioned the inconsistency between the DPA fiscal note and their knowledge of county practice. Representative Rudd and other members said only a handful of counties had acted on the DPA directive and that many counties continued to follow the prior practice. Given the contested fiscal assumptions and the proximity of reassessment schedules, the committee voted to send HB 319 as amended to summer study so legal and fiscal issues can be further vetted.

Next steps: The committee’s decision to send the bill to summer study pauses immediate statutory change and directs further review by staff and stakeholders. If work over the summer resolves the contested fiscal and legal questions, the sponsor may recalendar the bill for future action.

Provenance: Quotations and descriptions above are taken from the committee transcript of March 19, 2025, including sponsor remarks, witness testimony and the recorded motion to send the bill to summer study.","Representative Rudd’s bill intended to clarify single-family residential assessment practice was sent to summer study after extended debate, public testimony and disagreement over a comptroller fiscal note that committee members said misstates current practice.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6629899,"Subcommittee advances bill letting local governments set standards for sober-living homes after testimony from providers",424,3336000,3760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2702107-d867cf73080221979b1e55d523ad294c&start=3336&end=3760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2702107-d867cf73080221979b1e55d523ad294c/thumbnail_3336000.jpg","/articles/6629899/Tennessee/Subcommittee-advances-bill-letting-local-governments-set-standards-for-sober-living-homes-after-testimony-from-providers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629899-837fc36bec71c01265fb5f1685c4e59d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135499&Signature=Knbs40Yu8hWWsS79~AQbCKwbWgKfBid35O0-7htlGch8xfP0FXYzaLNjDCF0AiixdZZmVm2iliIr6P1SJg-gI5LY4D5v8FBg~VDWFUWV4v0mkpRpeaF6SLsrN9HH0iypJUTHi0ckM9IEJD4FN4Wp6ZaLyvOcSSVkgrgzoMFVsffrFAIiPsdlgFnYrItoQuw893olu1dkvg4ojjxDAbqj9axpuF4qegKuSyoBcoxNepn5eQKRt4uRd7UqNmZ6BWhrxp4VxDc2Xx05~t62D-GiffvYRBk3HaR4a64FJY4Jneot2~HAmRuTEgZWQTb8RtNhrR-GhwFzYnwF87PcY4jHUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Martin's House Bill 783, as amended, cleared the Cities & Counties subcommittee on March 19, 2025, by a 5-2 vote. The measure would allow — but not require — local governments to set certification requirements and operational rules for sober-living homes located near schools or daycares, and would require any local rule to comply with the federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Why it matters: Advocates for recovery housing and local officials testified that the bill balances accountability and legal limits. Providers warned the committee that requirements such as mandatory clinical referrals or distance-from-school rules could reduce access to recovery housing for people with low incomes and no documented medical referral.

What the bill would do: The amended bill gives local governments permissive authority to adopt ordinances or resolutions setting minimum standards for sober-living homes, including certification with best-practice organizations, compliance with health and building codes, and requirements for referral by a licensed provider or a recovery court. The sponsor and committee emphasized that the bill is permissive and states that local adoption must comply with federal civil-rights laws.

Public testimony: Two witnesses representing recovery-housing operators urged caution.
- Scarlett Bowman of Launchpad of Chattanooga described operating five houses serving roughly 50 women and said the distance-to-school and referral requirements could “criminalize recovery” and block low-income women without formal medical documentation from entering housing the Launchpad provides.
- Sammie Hartley of Oxford House, Inc., representing a national peer-run recovery-residence model, opposed mandatory referral or medical-necessity requirements and said such requirements would “restrict people's ability to access care” and likely violate the Fair Housing Act. Hartley described Oxford House operations as self-supporting, member-run homes that require no clinical referral for admission.

Sponsor response and committee debate: Representative Martin said the bill is permissive, that houses tied to churches or schools would be grandfathered, and that section language requires local rules to comply with federal law. Committee members pressed on how certification, referral and enforcement would work in practice and how the bill would interact with the ADA and the Fair Housing Act. Legal staff told the committee the bill requires compliance with federal law; sponsors said they had consulted the attorney general’s office.

Outcome and next steps: The committee approved the amended bill on a 5-2 vote and moved it to the next available calendar for the state and local government committee. The transcript records a mix of support and opposition and shows the committee placed clear limits on local authority by referencing federal law compliance.

Provenance: The committee transcript records the sponsor’s explanation of the bill, public testimony from Launchpad and Oxford House, and the committee vote; quotations and summaries above are drawn from those recorded remarks.","A bill that would allow local governments to require certification and local standards for sober-living homes passed the Cities & Counties subcommittee March 19, 2025, after testimony from operators and national providers who warned the measure could restrict access to recovery housing.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6629904,"Cities & Counties subcommittee advances multiple local-government bills; key votes recorded",2189,2077000,4266000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2702107-d867cf73080221979b1e55d523ad294c&start=2077&end=4266","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2702107-d867cf73080221979b1e55d523ad294c/thumbnail_2077000.jpg","/articles/6629904/Tennessee/Cities-Counties-subcommittee-advances-multiple-local-government-bills-key-votes-recorded","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629904-7f4e908e8e23d51029393a95fd95a9d2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135499&Signature=Me2rg8tbW9lsNZyLX1Cxa4DqdHivss1zPMJyQ5sYuhWoWV794hv~glW4EFhPjwDw3iQ433ENm3txrDMP-ZeZQEe0Yk1nL7NhoWgfPzfRdu6LDbkapbbhpOkf9F5z8LQhkXTvH9tINs73zbXjg44KgMGMQIKUb5Itkj6iL5n7Ib7of-AOQoLqXNuhRAMBe6N4gxRGL6-ouLB0~R8-GLPdJiuoNHi7sx6iWg2UV3FG4XoovwNr8QI~4PqL~bcIjhCgB4Chk3saLjxRSHOpvPxeh0~DkQRMISwtgB-gGo3Q-8VnYGJAd4Q~zozCA4G7kOgvGE~o0-ZTxz1z~e5LF8lnFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Tennessee House Cities & Counties subcommittee meeting on March 19, 2025, advanced a series of state and local government bills, recording final committee votes on multiple measures and taking several items off the calendar.

The committee moved most bills to the “next available calendar” in state and local government. Votes recorded on the transcript include unanimous and split tallies depending on the measure.

Why it matters: The bills cover technical changes to local practice (surveyor legal descriptions, performance-bond procedures), housing incentives and tax relief for veterans and seniors. Advancing a bill to the next calendar puts it in line for further committee consideration or a floor vote and signals the legislature’s near-term attention to those policy areas.

Votes at a glance:
- House Bill 480 (surveyors — legal descriptions): Passed in committee, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 863 (amendment changing affordable-housing requirement from “in perpetuity” to 30 years, as amended): Passed, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 335 (allowing Blountville utility-district board pay increase, as amended): Passed, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 795 (standardizing performance-bond release and development-application timelines): Passed in committee, recorded 4 ayes, 3 noes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 1128 (constable/post-certification training provision, as amended): Passed, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 636 (residential-buildings/provisions as amended): Passed, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 79 (revitalization program changes, as amended): Passed, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 783 (sober-living regulation, as amended): Passed in committee, recorded 5 ayes, 2 noes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 405 (hotel-occupancy tax collection where occupant dies during a long stay, as amended): Passed, recorded 6 ayes, 1 no. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 48 (disabled-veteran property-tax relief cap removal): Passed, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 436 (disabled-veteran reimbursement change): Passed, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 842 (wetlands/TWRA fund use, as amended): Passed, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 733 (zoning appeals procedure change): Passed, recorded 5 ayes, 2 noes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 83 (study on ambulance service funding): Passed, recorded 7 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.
- House Bill 935 (permissive competitive bidding for insurance brokerage in self-insured counties, as amended): Passed, recorded 6 ayes. Moves to the next available calendar.

Taken off notice or rolled: Several bills were taken off notice or rolled by sponsors during the hearing; examples include House Bill 808, House Bill 544, House Bill 889, House Bill 1083, House Bill 11761 and others as recorded in the transcript. Several sponsors requested more work or to recalendar the bills.

Sent to summer study: House Bill 319 (property-classification cleanup intended to reaffirm decades-old practice on single-family residential assessment) was sent to summer study after extended debate and public testimony; the committee recorded a motion and voted to send that bill to summer study.

What the committee did not decide: A number of bills were discussed briefly and the committee either advanced them with amendments or agreed to return them to sponsors for further work; no floor actions were taken at this hearing.

Votes and formal actions listed above come from the Cities & Counties subcommittee transcript for March 19, 2025, as recorded by the committee clerk. Specific vote tallies and the committee’s recorded outcomes are reproduced above as stated on the record.","The Cities & Counties subcommittee moved a slate of bills to the next calendar on March 19, 2025, approving measures on surveyor legal descriptions, developer incentives, zoning appeals and veteran property-tax relief among others. Several bills were taken off notice or rolled; one measure was sent to summer study.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Subcommittee advances bill banning DEI-based hiring decisions in public employers; witnesses debate meaning and effects

Committee sends contested residential property-classification bill to summer study after fiscal-note dispute

Subcommittee advances bill letting local governments set standards for sober-living homes after testimony from providers

Cities & Counties subcommittee advances multiple local-government bills; key votes recorded