Industry group supports Tennessee rules but urges statutory alignment, electronic filings

An Association for Consumer Debt Relief (ACDR) submission — read into the record by Joseph Wharton during the Jan. 13 hearing — expressed conditional support for the department's proposed rules and offered technical recommendations the group said would promote clarity and preserve access to lawful debt resolution services.

The written comment, signed by Jason Mulvihill, president and CEO of ACDR, said members “support the department's efforts to establish a clear, stand alone regulatory framework that protects Tennessee consumers by ensuring that lawful, well regulated debt resolution services remain available to households facing unmanageable, unsecured debt.” The comment urged the department to align rule language closely with the statute to avoid introducing duplicative or ambiguous obligations and to expressly permit electronic submissions and participation in multi-state electronic licensing systems where authorized by statute.

During the hearing an ACDR representative (self-identified as Ashka, government relations manager, central region) reiterated the group's recommendations orally, saying the rules should be calibrated to protect consumers “without unintentionally limiting access to lawful services that may represent a meaningful alternative to bankruptcy.” The representative noted members’ experience in other jurisdictions and recommended clarifications on fingerprinting standards and objective standards for circumstances when paper fingerprint cards are required.

Assistant Commissioner Reed Witcher acknowledged the association’s written submission and said the department would take the comments under consideration and provide a written response in the rulemaking record.

What ACDR asked for (high-level):

- Closer alignment of rule text with the statute and express preservation of statutory flexibilities. - Explicit permission for electronic submission of application and renewal materials, including multi-state licensing systems where statutorily allowed. - Narrower, objective standards for allowing paper fingerprint cards and clarification that qualified entities conducting criminal background checks should be law-enforcement or otherwise authorized entities. - Carve-outs or edits to provisions ACDR characterized as potentially duplicative or overly broad (for example, certain wording in standards of practice and recordkeeping) to avoid unintentionally restricting consumer access.

ACDR's written comment was read into the hearing record and the department committed to a written reply before final rule adoption. The public comment period for the packet closed at the hearing’s conclusion.