WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1698

General Assembly - As introduced, authorizes the chair of a committee of the general assembly to require an executive branch employee to take an oath prior to testifying before the committee subject to the penalty of perjury; authorizes the chair of a committee or the executive director of fiscal review to require any documentation submitted by such employee for the purpose of evaluating the merits of a legislative measure or generating a fiscal note to submit an affidavit with such documentation attesting to the accuracy of the information subject to the penalty of perjury. - Amends TCA Title 3; Title 4; Title 29; Title 39 and Title 40.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Tim Rudd

Allows legislative committee chairs to require sworn oaths from executive employees during testimony and affidavits on submitted documents, with perjury penalties for false information.

Rec for pass if am by s/c ref. to State & Local Government Committee
#generalassembly
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1698

Legislative bill overview

HB 1698 empowers legislative committee chairs to require executive branch employees to take sworn oaths before testifying and to submit affidavits attesting to the accuracy of documentation provided for legislative evaluation or fiscal note generation. Violations would constitute perjury, a criminal offense. The bill amends multiple Tennessee code sections governing state operations and legal procedures.

Why is this important

This measure directly affects the accountability mechanisms between the legislative and executive branches by adding legal consequences to false testimony and documentation. It could influence the quality and candor of executive branch communications to lawmakers and potentially alter how agencies present information during budget and policy reviews.

Potential points of contention

  • Executive branch concerns: Agencies may argue this creates a chilling effect on candid internal communications or expert analysis, as employees face criminal liability for minor inaccuracies or good-faith disagreements about data interpretation
  • Scope ambiguity: The bill doesn't clearly define what constitutes "documentation submitted for evaluating merits" or clarify who determines when an affidavit is required, potentially creating uncertainty and inconsistent application
  • Procedural burden: Requiring affidavits for routine fiscal note submissions and documentation could create administrative delays and increase legal exposure for state employees performing standard duties

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.