Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances two rule changes; proposal to add “random” to audit rule held for further review
Summary
The Tennessee Private Probation Services Council voted to move two proposed rule changes toward the governor’s office and deferred consideration of adding the word “random” to its audit rule.
At its Aug. 1 meeting, the Tennessee Private Probation Services Council moved two proposed rule changes forward for executive review and deferred a third after department leadership raised concerns.
The council’s rulemaking package originally included three items: a signature requirement on the quarterly report to confirm the report had been provided to the court clerk; insertion of the word “random” into the audit rule; and a reduction of required annual in‑service training from 20 hours to 8 hours, with two of the eight hours designated for ethics training. Michael Underhill, legal counsel to the Tennessee Private Probation Services Council, told members that executive leadership recommended sending the signature requirement and the reduced training requirement to the governor’s office for further review while holding back the proposed change to the audit rule.
Underhill said executive leadership believed adding the word “random” to the audit rule was “redundant because the audit rule sets aside a time period that they are to keep certain information in their possession,” and therefore asked the council to consider that change at a later date. He said the council will vote on the two advancing rules during a formal rulemaking hearing at the council’s next meeting in November.
The council had authorized a rulemaking hearing in February and, because the May meeting was canceled, Underhill said the pending package is the same three items previously discussed. He said the two items moving forward have completed departmental review and will be routed to the governor’s office as part of the rule‑making process.
Members did not debate the substance of the two advancing rules at length during the Aug. 1 session; Underhill provided the procedural update and said the council will take a formal vote at the November meeting during the rulemaking hearing. The transcript shows no formal vote on the rules themselves at this meeting; the council instead accepted the legal report that described the status of the rule package.
The council also deferred two legal matters (items 4 and 5 in the legal report) to its November meeting and voted on the remaining matters in the legal report, as recorded in the meeting minutes.
