Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Personnel topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Panel moves TMAC 2.0 overhaul forward after contentious hearing over removing 'step‑3' appeals

State and Local Government Committee · March 24, 2026
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

Committee advanced HB 25-40 (TMAC 2.0), a reworking of the state's personnel appeals that removes the neutral 'step‑3' administrative hearing and clarifies appeals to chancery court; guest testimony from the Department of Human Resources and concerns from members over removing independent review were recorded (vote: 13–9).

The committee considered an administrative rewrite of the 2012 TMAC appeals process that sponsors described as "TMAC 2.0." The amendment removes the neutral, third‑step administrative hearing and instead clarifies that employees may appeal agency decisions to chancery court after internal review; the measure also consolidates internal review steps and seeks to speed resolution of disciplinary matters.

Eric Mayo, senior policy adviser for the Tennessee Department of Human Resources, told the committee the change was negotiated with the Tennessee State Employees Association and intended to reduce long delays: "We wanted to be clear ... the amendment creates a process for those ... to go to a different court in each grand division to help speed up that process." Several members expressed concern that eliminating step‑3 removes an independent neutral review. Representative Dixie said, "Back in 2012, we had the 5 step to TMAC... And now we we was nationally noted for going down to this 3 step." The committee advanced the bill to Government Operations by recorded vote (13 ayes, 9 nos), after extended questioning and testimony.

Supporters argued the change shortens a process that can take months and rarely changes decisions; opponents urged preserving an independent adjudicative step to protect employees' livelihoods.