Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tennessee House expands public-comment rule to allow comments on matters germane to local governing bodies
Summary
The House passed House Bill 22 on third and final consideration after the sponsor described personal reasons for broadening public-comment rules so speakers may address matters germane to local governing bodies even when not listed on an agenda.
The Tennessee House of Representatives on Wednesday passed House Bill 22, a measure that expands the state'statute governing public comment so residents may speak on topics that are germane to a local governing body'even when those topics are not specifically listed on that body's meeting agenda.
Sponsor Representative Jim Davis said the bill preserves local control over time limits and sign-up procedures but would prevent local bodies from restricting speakers to only items explicitly printed on an agenda. "Our locals will still have control," Davis said. "I am not changing any of the restrictions that are in place." He described repeated personal experiences seeking redress from local officials as part of his rationale.
Davis told members a family medical emergency led him to advocate for more ability for citizens to address governing bodies. "If we tell them we don't have two minutes to listen to you, but yet I want your vote," Davis said, adding the change is meant to protect the public's First Amendment right "to address our government and to petition them."
Opponents warned the bill could disrupt local deliberations and undermine local control. Representative McKenzie said allowing public comment on any germane matter could let speakers interrupt deliberations and hamper methodical decision-making on local matters such as roads, sidewalks and budgets. "That to me is a problem," McKenzie said, arguing the existing agenda-based approach preserves a deliberative process.
Other members spoke for and against the bill during debate, and Representative Todd argued for broader notice and access to meetings, saying the current statutory notice standard is insufficient for many constituents to participate.
The House had adopted a committee amendment that rewrote the bill's language before the floor debate. On the final vote the bill passed by the required constitutional majority: the clerk recorded the tally as 60 yeas and 30 nays (other recorded notations indicated present/not voting), and the speaker declared the bill passed on third and final consideration.
The legislation now moves to the next steps required by the legislative process for enactment.
