Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy Personal Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tennessee committee presses pause on bill to make elected officials' personal data confidential
Summary
Lawmakers debated House Bill 1862, which would require redaction of elected officials' personally identifying information; critics warned it would be administratively onerous for thousands of offices statewide and unclear on implementation. The committee heard legal clarification and voted to place the bill on the first calendar in January.
Representative Brooks introduced House Bill 1862, which would require governmental custodians to redact personally identifying information for elected officials and certain family members, including home and personal cell phone numbers, addresses and financial-account numbers, while preserving access for law enforcement, courts and other government agencies.
The bill prompted detailed pushback from Representative Rudd and others about scope and implementation. "There are 6,800 elected positions across the state and local governments in Tennessee," Representative Rudd said, arguing the redaction requirement would impose a massive administrative burden on records custodians, who would have to identify officials and their immediate family members across many record types and frequently update lists of appointees.
Legal counsel told the committee there are comparable protections already in state law for broad classes of state and local employees and for law-enforcement personnel, but that public officials traditionally have not been included in that automatic protection. Counsel also noted criminal penalties exist for unlawful release of statutorily protected information.
Committee debate focused on practical questions: who compiles the protected list of officials; how frequently it must be updated; how custodians would handle high-volume records like nominating-petition signatures; and whether the change would slow public-records responses. Representative Rudd and others urged more time for elections-related offices to review the bill.
After discussion and an informal motion, the committee voted to roll the measure to the first calendar in January to allow further review and drafting work.
Ending: The committee did not adopt the bill at this meeting; sponsors and opponents signaled a need for additional drafting and implementation guidance before further action.
