Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Enforcement Private Probation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Tennessee private-probation council warns one provider, fines another $1,000 for missed filings

2248903 · February 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Tennessee Private Probation Services Council accepted its attorney’s recommendations to issue a letter of warning to one provider for a first missed quarterly filing and assess a $1,000 civil penalty against a second provider for a third missed filing; the council approved the action by unanimous roll call.

The Tennessee Private Probation Services Council voted unanimously to accept its attorney’s legal report, issuing a letter of warning to one probation services provider for a first missed quarterly filing and assessing a $1,000 civil penalty against a different provider for a third missed filing.

Council attorney Michael Underhill presented the report and recommended the two measures to bring the providers back into compliance. “My recommendation would be a letter of warning,” Underhill said of the first matter. Of the second case, he told the council, “my recommendation... to assess the statutory maximum of $1,000 for this violation.”

Underhill told members the council’s enforcement authority is limited by a statutory cap on civil penalties: “we are capped at a thousand dollar civil penalty per violation,” he said. He added that, in one of the earlier enforcement actions, the council had assessed a $500 civil penalty and that provider had paid it.

The council adopted Underhill’s recommendations on a motion by Judge Joel Perry, seconded by Judge Brody Kane. A roll-call vote recorded five aye votes from Judge Brody Kane, Judge Jason Hudson, Judge Joel Perry, Stacy Kelly and Michael Wright; the motion passed.

The action was recorded as administrative enforcement of the council’s provider-reporting requirements. The attorney characterized both matters as failures to submit the quarterly provider fee and required paperwork on time; the first was characterized in the report as a first offense and the second as a third offense. The council did not direct additional investigatory steps at the meeting.

The council’s acceptance of the legal report closed the legal-business portion of the agenda; members moved on to other business after the vote.