►
Description
House Business and Utilities Subcommittee - March 16, 2022 - House Hearing Room 3
A
A
A
A
D
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
bill
has
amanda
deals
with
the
regulation
of
decentralized
autonomous
organizations,
otherwise
known
as
daos.
Essentially,
a
dao
is
an
organization
represented
by
rules
encoded
as
a
transparent
computer
program
and
controlled
by
the
organization's
members.
As
the
rules
are
embedded
in
the
code,
no
managers
are
needed,
thus
removing
their
bureaucracy
or
hierarchy
bodies.
The
key
understanding
these
organizations
is
the
word
automated
there's
an
automated
aspect
of
these
organizations.
For
instance,
you
could
have
a
bank
account
that
is
governed
by
all
people
in
llc
or
certain
triggers
in
the
economy.
D
The
llc
may
decide.
That
is
what
happens
economy.
The
llc
will
invest
in
x.
This
is
essentially
how
a
do
works.
The
reason
it's
so
important
is
that
there
are
already
organizations
being
formed
in
the
state
around
the
country
that
are
being
transacted
with
this
and
making
automated
decisions
already
hiring
people
etc.
D
So
this,
given
this
new
concept,
are
this
is
there's
very
little
oversight
to
these
organizations
and
regulating
and
legally
recognizing
these
organizations
by
the
state
incentivizes
these
groups
to
not
only
do
business
in
the
state
but
to
be
answerable
to
reasonable
constraints
and
regulations.
In
any
other
business
organization
in
the
state,
this
would
ensure
that
people
that
are
hiring
the
business
they
are
doing
the
entities
they're
working
with
are
known
and
regulated.
D
D
We
want
to
be
a
forward-thinking
state
when
it
comes
to
this,
and
this
is
very
important,
I
believe,
for
the
state
to
establish
these
daos
and
if
I
could,
mr
chairman
actually
have
one
gentleman
who
would
like
to
provide
testimony.
That's
a
someone
transacting
business
using
one
of
these
platforms.
Actually,
two
folks,
I'm
sorry.
If
I
could.
A
F
It's
one
of
the
many
reasons
I
moved
my
business
here
during
the
pandemic,
and
one
of
the
many
reasons
I
was
excited
to
receive
an
investment
from
launch
tennessee,
a
statewide
program
that
you
all
helped
authorize
as
a
state,
we're
also
known
for
being
willing
to
be
on
the
front
lines
we
are.
After
all,
the
volunteer
state,
decentralized
organizations,
also
known
as
daos
or
daos,
are
another
opportunity
to
do
exactly
that,
be
on
the
front
lines
of
innovation.
F
F
Both
of
these
items
already
exist
and
were
put
there
unanimously
by
both
chambers
here
in
the
state
of
tennessee.
What's
missing
is
the
who
of
crypto
and
that's
exactly
where
daos
or
daos
or
decentralized
organizations
come
in
while
it's
not
entirely
accurate.
If
it
helps,
it
may
be
easier
to
think
of
dowse
as
ellcs
similar
to
how
email
is
an
electronic
form
of
postal
mail.
F
These
organizations
have
governance,
balance
sheets
and
employees
as
a
business
category.
They
are
growing
extraordinarily
fast,
with
a
market
cap
growing
from
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
tens
of
billions
in
just
a
couple
of
years
solely
in
the
u.s
market,
but
they're
all
operating
off
the
books
in
most
states,
with
no
assistance
or
oversight
from
business-friendly
governments
like
ours.
How
can
these
businesses
engage
in
real
estate
transactions,
hire
personnel
or
contribute
to
campaigns
without
legal
recognition?
F
The
bill
you're
reviewing
today
in
subcommittee
allows
for
the
creation
and
recognition
of
decentralized
organizations
in
the
state
of
tennessee.
This
bill
allows
dallas
to
engage
in
business
here
in
the
state,
while
also
positioning
tennessee
as
the
hub
for
decentralized
organizations
and
the
capital,
jobs
and
innovation
reputation
that
it
brings
here
to
the
state.
I
also
let
my
colleague,
jules
miller,
speak
on
her
business
as
a
case
study.
E
Hello
and
thank
you
for
having
me
so
I've
been
a
venture
capital
investor
for
a
while
also
an
entrepreneur
with
two
venture-backed
companies.
I
moved
to
tennessee
when
I
got
pregnant
to
be
closer
to
my
family
and
have
been
very
very
impressed
with
the
the
entrepreneurial
community
here,
but
we
could
do
better.
E
So,
if
you
look
at
the
regulatory
environment,
the
best
thing
you
can
do
for
investors
and
entrepreneurs
is
to
have
clarity
in
the
regulations.
I
think
we
are
comfortable
operating
in
a
little
bit
of
uncertainty,
but
not
knowing
if
we
have
liability
for
something
that's
brand
new
and
we're
doing
our
best,
but
we
don't
have
real
clarity
is
super
important
and
I
think
that
that
is
where
this
bill
comes
in.
E
E
E
When
you
have
professional
managers
who
are
managing
dows,
you
can
be
more
effective
and
efficient
setting
them
up,
and
you
can
also
decentralize
much
faster
because
you
have
people
who
know
what
they're
doing
who
are
like
fully
working
on
this
rather
than
a
lot
of
dows
are
people
it's
not
their
full
job
right.
It's
members
who
are
maybe
participating
but
not
necessarily
focused
on
it.
E
So
I
think
that's
a
really
important
piece
of
the
legislation
overall,
so
I
think
there's
an
opportunity
here
to
be
an
early
leader,
and
I
think
that
this
is
a
place
that
people
want
to
move
and
live
and
start
companies
and
and
make
investments
in,
and
I
think
if
tennessee
can
be
an
early
leader
in
daos,
it's
there's
like
unlimited
opportunity
and
we're
just
at
the
very
beginning
of
it.
So
thank
you.
A
G
G
F
C
A
Members
of
the
committee
do
we
have
any
other
questions
or
comments,
if
not
derek
and
jules.
Thank
you
so
much
for
coming
out.
It's
great
hearing
from
you
today,
members
we're
going
back
into
session.
Thank
you
and
representative
powell.
We
are
back
on
your
bill
as
amended.
Do
you
have
any
further
explanation?
A
A
H
A
A
H
All
righty,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
and
that
amendment
writes
the
bill,
but
I
would
hope
that
we'll
I'll
I'll
talk
now
and
then
we
can
do
whatever
whatever
you
see
fit,
I'm
actually
kind
of
embarrassed
that
I'm
having
to
bring
this
this
bill
to
the
state
legislature.
It's
due
to
a
lack
of
transparency,
that's
inherent
with
the
utility
provider
and
monopoly
that
serves
shelby
county.
H
They
are
reluctant
to
provide
the
estimates
whenever
you
receive
a
fee
quote
from
them
for
either
the
extension
of
into
a
new
development
or
perhaps
what
they
give
to
municipalities
rare.
Do
they
give
you
a
breakdown
of
what
it
is
that
they're
charging
you
for?
We
heard
through
our
hearings
that
tva
does
not
allow
discrimination
between
rate
payers.
H
H
That's
when
they
are
required
to
give
you
your
fee
quote
and
they
have
to
show
their
work
and
that's
the
that's
where
this
bill
originates
from.
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
silly
that
we
have
to
bring
that
to
this
body,
but
we
do
believe
that
transparency
is
important,
especially
when
dealing
with
these
monopolies,
and
so
with
that,
sir
I'll
answer,
any
questions
you
may
have.
Thank.
A
I
H
Representative
thompson,
usually
it
is
here's
your
price,
and
there
is
your
price
when
speaking
with
management
of
mlg,
they
have
said
well.
I
can't
believe
we
do
that,
and
so
this
will
provide
more
impetus
for
them
to
come
around
to
where
they
can
shine
a
little
bit
of
transparency
in
their
organization
representative
thompson
go.
I
I
H
No
sir,
I
have
not,
but
I
I
can
say
this
with
with
all
certainty,
representative
thompson.
This
is
a
good
bill
for
not.
It
was
brought
due
to
my
issues
with
shelby
county,
but
I'm
sure
there's
other
places.
What
in
the
world
could
be
wrong
with
requiring
utilities
to
show
how
they
how
they
generate
their
fee
basis?
H
Whenever
we
heard
from
their
de
facto
regulator
I'll
say,
or
let
me
say
that
not
de
facto
they're
about
to
put
regulator
in
quotes
tva
that
they
do
not
allow
discrimination
within
their
ratepayers.
How
are
we
able
to?
How
are
we
as
individuals
able
to
determine
that
unless
there
is
some
mechanism
of
a
database
of
costs
and
being
willing
in
being
able
to
determine
who's
paying?
A
Members
any
other
questions
for
the
chairman
question
has
been
called
on
the
amendment
without
objection.
Members
we're
voting
to
put
amendment
number
zero
one.
Five
one,
eight
six
on
house
bill,
1987
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed,
say
no
eyes
have
it.
The
amendment
goes
on
the
bill
chairman
vaughn
you're,
recognized
on
your
bill
as
amended.
If
you
have
any
further.
A
Questions
being
called
without
objection,
members
were
voting
to
send
house
bill
1987
as
amended
to
full
commerce,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed,
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it,
sir.
Your
bill
is
on
its
way
to
full
commerce
and
back
on
item
number
four
house
bill
28,
led
by
representative
hardaway,
is
off
notice
and
item
number
three
by
representative
harris.
I
saw
him
come
in
representative
harris.
A
C
C
You
so
much
so
after
taking
into
consideration
some
of
what
my
colleague
from
also
from
shelby
county
had
brought
up
in
last
week.
I
have
made
some
adjustments
and
changes
to
this
legislation,
and
so
what
this
piece
of
legislation
now
will
do
is
change
from
six
months
to
30
days
the
amount
of
time
that
a
landlord
has
to
hold
the
remaining
balance
that
is
left
over
after
they've
paid
any
leftover
attorney
fees
or
rent.
C
So
that
way
they
don't
have
to
keep
holding
on
to
those
funds
on
their
books,
and
it
also
allows
a
landlord
to
donate
to
a
charitable
calls
the
the
property
that
is
left
behind
if
they
choose
not
to
sell
or
just
dispose
of
the
the
property.
So
everything
else
was
removed
from
it,
and
I
think
I
just
received
notice
from
apartment
association
of
tennessee
that
they
are
in
good
favor
of
this
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
Representative
harris,
we
appreciate
you
amending
that,
and
I
know
the
folks
that
have
problems
with
it
are
very
happy
with
that.
Well
as
well,
I
don't
know
if
you're
tracking
the
senior
this
gosh
the
the
senate
version
of
this
bill,
but
it
actually
was
gen
subbed.
So
it's
been
common
practice
in
the
legislature.
If
you're,
if
the
senate
version
is
dead,
that
normally
you
you
take
it
off
a
notice,
so
we
don't
make
you
do
that,
but
I
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out
there.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
and
to
my
colleague
from
shelby
county.
I'm
going
to
talk
about.
One
of
the
things
I
talked
about
earlier
this
morning
with
a
fellow
member
from
shelby
county
is,
is
the
the
results
of
this
vote
will
either
put
a
bill.
It
will
either
defeat
this
bill,
or
this
bill
will
be
moved
on
to
full
commerce,
where
we
will
again
be
hearing
it
without
a
senate
companion
bill.
H
C
A
A
B
I'm
going
to
be
caught
between
competing
or
dueling
amendments,
so
let
me
first
say
conceptually
what
this
bill:
what
house
bill
1439
is
doing
tennessee
electric
rate
payers
protection
act.
This
is
a
consumer
protection
bill
dealing
with
municipally
owned
utilities,
in
this
case
electricity,
when
the
municipality
wishes
to
terminate
sale,
the
electric
utility,
what
happens
with
the
proceeds.
B
B
Should
the
consumers
being
protected
have
a
right
to
a
referendum
and
then
through
all
of
this,
what
are
the
ways
out
through
going
to
court
and
then,
lastly,
something
that
overrides
everything
we
do?
What's
the
transparency
of
what's
taking
place,
how
will
meetings
be
conducted
and
things
along
that
line?
A
You
representative
wright,
for
that
that
background
on
the
issue
so
back
to
the
amendments,
I
understand
that
you
had
an
amendment
that
you
were
coming
with,
but
there's
a
committee
amendment
by
chairman
vaughn
that
I
think
you
guys
have
agreed
upon
so
are
we
taking
up?
Are
you
deferring
on
your
amendment
and
we
going
with
with
chairman
vaughn's
or
or
what's
the.
A
B
A
A
H
You,
mr
chairman,
and
I
appreciate
my
colleague
representative
wright,
being
nice
about
and
very
open
and
and
willing
to
listen
with
regards
to
this.
I
also
appreciate
my
friends
at
the
tennessee
municipal
power
association
for
for
providing
being
very
responsive
and
providing
input
on
this.
Let
me
give
you
all
a
little
bit
of
background
on
on
why
this
is
necessary
and
particularly
it's
of
interest
to
me
moving
forward
again.
We
know
that
the
municipalities.
H
H
Some
of
these
municipally
owned
utilities
are
ran
by
different
organizations,
but
in
our
neck
of
the
woods
it's
owned
by
the
city
of
memphis
and
it
is
controlled
by
the
memphis
city
council.
They
do
have
a
board,
but
it
is
controlled
by
the
memphis
city
council
that
has
been
a
very
successful
utility.
They
provide
services
to
all
five
municipalities
outside
of
the
city
of
memphis,
plus
unincorporated
shelby
county.
In
addition,
they
40
of
their
ratepayers
are
not
memphians,
yet
they
are
controlled
by
the
city
council
of
the
city
of
memphis.
H
So
with
that
being
said,
we
really
don't
have
in-state
law
much
that
talks
about
the
disposition
of
utilities
by
municipalities.
Again
tva
is
the
regulator
or
customer
service
representative,
whichever
one
that
you
want
to
choose
and
when
it
comes
to
how
these
they're
going
to
wind
up
and
retain
a
customer
regardless.
H
H
We've
worked
on
them,
representative
wright
has
a
has
an
amendment.
Mind
differs
from
it
slightly
and
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
bring
light
on
this
subject
that
there's
number
of
folks
in
the
state
who
are
represented,
who
buy
utilities
and
do
not
have
representation
or
any
matter
of
redress
against
the
people
who
provide
those
services.
H
They
would
receive
nothing,
and
so
memphis
is
sitting
on
a
tremendous
asset
that
affects
many
other
people.
And
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
come
up
with
a
structure
and
an
order
of
what
what
our
intentions
are
and
how
we
address
the
citizens
of
the
needs
of
the
citizens
of
tennessee,
because
I
think
we've
heard
in
our
testimony
from
tva
that
tva
again,
they
only
regulate
the
people
who
they
buy
power
from
I'm,
not
sure
that
they
are
going
to
look
out
for
the
interest
of
the
citizens
of
tennessee.
H
As
and
I
don't
want
to
seed
this
bodies,
responsibility
of
regulating
that
utility
interest.
I
I
think
that,
while
they
are,
do
indeed
have
federal
regulatory
oversight,
that
does
not
preclude
us
as
a
state
body
from
also
putting
our
rules
and
requirements
on
them
and,
as
we
see
these
entities
consider
more
out-of-the-box
thinking
again,
such
as
not
renewing
a
power
contract
and
buying
power
on
the
off
on
the
off
market.
H
Those
are
things
that
I
think,
especially
when
you're
looking
at
a
utility
that
controls
10
percent
of
tva's
load
factor.
What
does
that
do
to
other
other
utility
districts
and
other
consumers
within
the
state
of
tennessee?
So
I
don't
see
how
those
those
decisions
can
be
made
in
a
vacuum.
This
is
the
very
first
start
at
us
trying
to
provide
a
different
perspective
on
electric
utility
regulation
within
this
state
and
making
sure
that
all
views
of
all
ratepayers
are
considered
whenever
transactions
that
affect
them
are
taken
into
account.
H
Now
then,
I'm
done
preaching,
but
let
me
let
me
give
you
some
some
sharp
differences
between
the
amendment
that
representative
wright
has
and
the
amendment
that
I
that
I
have
said
in
representative
wright's
amendment.
It
calls
for
a
referendum
of
the
of
the
rate
payers.
No
referendum
of
the
tax
of
the
residents
of
the
municipality
of
the
ownership-
I
I
don't
think
that's,
I
think,
that's
what
elected
people
are
for.
H
I
think
that
that's
the
representatives
have
the
right
to
determine
that
if
they
want
to
have
a
referendum,
which
I
think
would
be
a
very
smart
thing
to
do,
I
think
that's
up
to
them,
but
the
reason
I
say
that
is
because
voters
have
the
opportunity
to
redress
their
the
people
that
make
bad
decisions.
If
I'm
making
a
bad
decision
that
people
don't
like,
I
suspect
my
opponent
will
get
a
vote
and
so
that
that's
my
position
on
on
that
issue.
H
H
My
bill
considers
the
fact
that
the
the
seller
determines
what
to
do
with
the
proceeds,
and
so
there's
a
little
bit
different
perspective
with
regards
to
it,
and
the
last
major
difference
is:
is
that,
from
a
standpoint
of
providing
a
business
plan
to
the
comptroller,
I
don't
have
as
aggressive
a
role
in
the
comptroller,
because
again
back
in
the
city
of
memphis
should
be
regarded,
and
when
I
speak
of
said,
this
is
not
a
particular
bill.
This
is
a
statewide
application.
It's
just
what
I
know
and
what
I'm
familiar
with.
H
If
they,
if
they
decide
that
they
want
to
make
a
change
in
the
way
they
do
it,
I
think
we
should
allow
that
to
happen.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
rate
payers
are
protected
and
that
it
they're
they're,
not
inhibited
or
precluded
from
being
able
to
do
that,
and
with
that.
Mr
chairman
I'll
answer,
any
questions.
A
A
If
not,
we
are
voting
to
send
amendment
number
voting
to
put
amendment
number
zero
one.
Five,
eight
three,
seven
on
the
bill,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed,
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it.
The
bill
is
amended.
Representative
right.
You
are
recognized
on
your
bill
as
amended.
Do
you
have
any
further
explanation
of
the
amended
bill?
Thank.
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
We
need
a
motion
and
second,
on
the
amendment
we
have
a
motion.
We
have
a
second,
we
are
voting
to
put
amendment
number
zero
one.
Three,
four,
five,
three
on
house
bill,
2283
all
in
favor,
say
aye,
all
right,
all
opposed
to
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it.
Representative
becky
were
recognized
on
your
bills
amended.
Thank.
J
You,
mr
chairman
committee,
and
thank
you
very
much
to
chairman
vaughn.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
apologize
for
this
being
a
little
bit
tardy
to
the
to
the
chairman
and
the
committee.
I've
been
working
diligently
with
the
commerce
and
insurance
abc
and
the
shareholders
stakeholders
to
make
sure
I
got
this
right.
J
J
Bodyguard
are
not
body,
guardings
excuse
me,
the
the
untrained
guard
and
the
ones
that
work
for
an
agency
so,
and
we
also
were
asking
in
the
training
that
they
be
certified
in
cpr,
and
they
also
have
some
de-escalation
techniques,
proper
safety
and
restraint
techniques
in
in
their
training.
And
so
that's
that's
what
we
have
today.
This
was
a
tragedy
in
in
our
city.
A
A
A
A
K
A
K
All
right,
thank
you
house,
bill.
2369
will
designate
social
media
platforms
as
common
carriers
house
bill
2369
comes
to
us
from
a
growing
number
of
concerns
and
outrage
from
our
constituents
around
our
state,
who
have
been
centered,
blocked
and
banned
by
big
tech,
a
primary
venue
for
free
speech
and
sharing
of
ideas
or
social
media.
The
structure
of
this
bill
is
built
on
an
opinion
of
justice.
K
Clarence
thomas
wrote
in
the
vine
versus
night
case,
and
he
said
if
part
of
the
problem
is
private,
concentrated
control
over
online
content
and
platforms
available
to
the
public.
Then
part
of
the
solution
may
be
found
in
doctrines
that
limit
the
right
of
a
private
company
to
exclude
in
many
ways
digital
platforms
that
hold
themselves
out
to
the
public
resemble
traditional
common
carriers.
K
So
you
may
have
been
told
some
misinformation
about
this
bill
and
I
just
want
to
clarify
this
is
no
growth
in
government
and
it's
protecting
the
free
speech
of
everyone,
all
tennesseans
that
they
may
have
that
all
we're
asking
for
is
that
you
do
not
ban
political
speech
and
political
viewpoints
and
I'll
give
an
example.
I
did
want
to
weigh
in
on
just
a
couple
of
things
that
we
had
done.
Well,
I
missed
the
anyway.
K
So
with
that,
we
just
believe
that
it's
constitutional
under
u.s
code,
title
47,
chapter
5,
sub
chapter
2,
section,
230.
and
I'll-
give
you
examples
of
some
people
just
that
I
know
that
have
been
banned.
My
cousin
was
banned
for
for
two
months
just
because
he
made
a
political
viewpoint
about
the
current
administration.
Another
knox
county
republican
party
was
banned
for
two
months
because
they
made
it
and,
as
we
know,
former
president
trump
has
been
banned
and
yet
the
alato
homeani
in
iran
who
said
death
to
america
has
not
been
banned.
K
Therefore,
the
legislation
that,
before
you
simply
tries
to
accommodate
these
by
asking
the
tennessee
code,
annotated,
title
4,
title
47
and
title
65
relative
to
social
media
and
would
bring
these
companies
under
the
common
carrier
law
so
that
tennesseans
and
the
public
at
large
are
not
discriminated
against.
And
with
that,
mr
chairman,
I
renew
my
motion.
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
sponsor
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill.
I
actually
was
working
with
speaker
sexton
on
a
bill
very
similar
to
this.
With
this
with
very
similar
language,
I
appreciate
you
bringing
it
in
the
heavy
lift,
so
that
way,
I
don't
have
to
do
it.
So.
Thank
you
just
a
couple
of
things.
I
think
it
is
important
to
remember
so
much
of
the
conversation
related
to
this
is
centered
around
the
communication
decency
act
of
1996
and
section
230.
G
so
many
times,
and
I
think
we
even
had
somebody
testify
there.
We
have
conversations
here
about
government
overstepping
its
bounds,
and
sometimes
the
conversation
is
made
about
this
argument.
But
it's
important
to
remember
that
when
government
interjects
itself,
when
government
interjects
itself,
then
we
are
part
of
the
process.
So
then
we
have
a
responsibility
to
course
correct,
especially
on
the
state
level,
when
the
federal
government
continues
to
fail
as
they
do
over
and
over
again,
it's
important
to
remember.
G
There
are
supreme
court
there.
There
are
questions
related
to
precedent,
the
supreme
court,
about
how
constitutional
rule
230
is,
and
so
everything
that
we're
talking
about
is
based
on
rule
230,
and
so
with
that
being
the
case,
the
only
thing
the
carriers
can
do
is
look
at
this
as
common
carrier
law
and
to
regulate
big
tech.
Companies
is
common
carriers,
because,
if
we
think
of
verizon,
we
think
of
at
t
we
think
of
lumen
whoever
it
may
be.
G
It
would
be
absurd
if
we
sat
here
and
talked
about
regulating
the
information
flow
that
goes
on
with
carriers,
and
so
that's
simply.
What
we're
saying
here
is
that
this
is
when
you
regulate
these
guys
as
a
common
carrier,
which
the
state
has
the
ability
to
do.
There
is
no
supreme.
There
is
no
supreme
court
precedent
related
to
regulating
regulating
tech
companies
as
a
common
carrier,
so
with
putting
them
as
common
carry
we're
simply
saying.
G
The
information
flow
goes
back
and
forth
because
to
your
point,
when
you
talk
about
sensors,
when
you
talk
about
censoring,
suppressing
suppressing
and
de-platforming,
that's
exactly
what
we're
talking
about,
and
some
local
examples
examples
to
give
you.
I
presented
a
bill
last
year
where
youtube
took
the
video
down
I
presented
in
committee.
They
took
the
video
down
and
all
I
did
was
quote
ronald
reagan
and
quote
the
constitution.
There
was
no,
there
was
not
much
opinion
or
conjecture
and
they
took
that
down.
G
Mayor
jacobs,
who
is
our
mayor
in
knox,
county,
put
a
statistic
in
a
study
related
to
mask
and
he
his
youtube.
Twitter
did
the
same
thing
to
him.
Alex
berenson,
who
was
a
new
york
times
journalist,
has
been
banned.
A
sitting
congressman
has
been
banned
from
youtube.
Dr
robert
malone,
who
is
the
inventor
of
the
mrna
vaccine.
He
has
been
banned
from
twitter
for
providing
expert
opinion,
and
so
the
list
goes
on
and
on
so
I'll
stop
there.
G
But
those
are
the
most
recent
examples
and
if
the
states
don't
get
control
of
this
issue,
the
federal
government's
not
going
to
do
anything
and
again,
both
sides
they've
proved
their
inability
to
tackle
tough
issues.
We,
as
the
states
must
protect
the
first
amendment
rights
of
tennesseans.
It
becomes
a
first
amendment
right
because
of
what
congress
did
in
1996
with
rule
230,
so
it
absolutely
does
because
government
stepped
in
to
regulate
now.
The
states
have
to
take
a
step
to
protect
the
the
freedom
of
speech
and
the
voices
of
tennesseans.
G
So
I
just
said
all
that
really
not
a
question
more
comments,
mr
chairman,
but
I
appreciate
you
bringing
the
bill
that's
needed.
This
has
already
passed
seven
to
one
in
the
senate
committee,
so
I
appreciate
their
efforts
and
I'll
be
supporting
the
bill.
Thank
you
for
carrying
it
brian.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
G
K
I
K
Well,
let
me
let
me
just
read
you,
and
this
is
a
good
example
of
what
we
were
talking
about
a
moment
ago.
Here's
some
things
that
that
facebook
does
ban
and
they
do
a
great
job
of
doing
this.
This.
This
is
only
last
quarter
of
last
year,
four
million
pieces
of
drug
content,
1.2
billion
pieces
of
spam
content,
905
000
pieces
of
content
related
to
terrorism,
and
these
are
all
increases
over
the
previous
quarter,
so
they
do
a
great
job
of
doing
that.
K
I
I
I
see
people
putting
thoughts,
information
out,
I'm
just
skip
over
it
and
and-
and
you
know
forget
about
it-
but
would
a
regular
behavior
of
a
false
information
of
of
of
a
offensive
nature
to
a
lot
of
people.
Would
that
be
considered
a
a
reason
to,
or
is
that
protected
they
can
a
common
carry
or
not
ban
somebody
from
their
site?
I
K
They
have
a
lot
of
flexibility
under
under
rule
230
about
offensive
material,
but
I'll
give
an
example
of
misinformation.
We
we've
heard.
If,
a
year
ago
I
had
got
on
and
on
any
social
media
platform
and
said
that
the
vaccine
doesn't
work,
that
it
doesn't
prevent
someone
from
getting
covered.
I
had
both
shots,
I
had
a
and
a
booster.
I
still
got
covered
so
yeah
it.
It
probably
was
a
therapeutic,
but
it
didn't
prevent
culvert.
K
But
if
I
had
said
that
one
year
ago
I
would
have
got
banned
from
many
social
media
platforms
same
thing
with
the
mask.
If
you
said
mass,
don't
work
now
the
cdc
has
come
out
and
said:
no,
they
don't
work.
So
their
definition
of
misinformation
could
be
anything,
and
so
it's
about
offensive
material.
That's
what
rule
230
is
about
and
they're
missing
information.
It's
just
their
interpretation
of
it,
so
they're
actually
preventing
free
speech
when
they
do
that.
I
K
Powers
yeah
not
not
under
rule
section
230,
you
know
they
they
have.
They
have
that
rules
where
they
can
do
offensive
language
and
all
the
things
that
we
covered
a
minute
ago.
But
if
somebody's
putting
out
information
or
a
political
viewpoint,
you
know
some
doctors
have
come
out
and
said
that
the
vaccine
did
more.
Other
doctors
said
that
they
did,
but
that
was
just
really
their
opinion,
so
there's
never
been
any
type
of
scientific
fact,
and
we
know
now
that
it
doesn't
work
in
every
case.
I
Representative
thompson:
yes,
I'm
I'm
I'm
not
very
comfortable
with
this.
I
think
that
you
know
we
have
a
trend,
drive
of
government
getting
involved
in
private
businesses
and-
and
this
just
seems
to
be
another
one-
I
see
a
lot
of
your
points,
but
I'm
I'm
probably
not
going
to
support
it.
For
that
reason,
chairman.
K
B
K
Yeah
yeah
that
that's
incorrect
yeah
that
we
have
an
agency
that
will
that
can
take
it
over
through
the
public
utility
commission.
They
can
do
it,
but
they
would
not
be
regulating
free
speech
at
all.
All
they
would
be
doing.
Is
somebody
filed
a
complaint
for
what
we
were
talking
about
a
minute
ago.
If
they
had
been
shadow
banned
or
de-platformed,
then
it
would
go
back
as
a
complaint
through
the
public
utility
mission
has
nothing
to
do
with
them
banning
free
speech.
This
is
about
protecting
our
free
speech,
representative
kathy.
B
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
in
some
of
the
previous
comments,
one
of
the
reasons
for
banning
or
suppressing
or
censoring
has
been
misinformation.
I
think
it's
important
to
read
the
language
of
rule
230
and
how
rule
230
has
been
distorted
by
the
by
the
tech
companies.
The
actions
that
can
be
restricted
are
as
quoted
in
rule
rule
230,
obscene
lewd,
filthy,
filthy
accepts
excessively
violent,
harassing
or
objectionable.
G
Misinformation
is
not
part
of
that.
The
bottom
line
is,
is
adults
or
whomever
when
you
get
on,
you
have
to
use
a
certain
amount
of
discretion
if
a
politician
from
the
left
or
the
right
or
a
doctor
whomever
it
may
be,
puts
information
out
on
twitter
or
facebook
whatever,
but
it
is
important
to
remember.
Clarence
thomas
has
referenced
this
in
his
in
his
opinion
on
this
as
well
that
that
we
have
allowed.
G
They
have
taken
great
leeway
and
congress
has
done
nothing
to
bring
them
back
in
based
on
a
law
that
they
passed
in
1996,
and
so
I
think
it's
important
to
remember
that
misinformation's
got
nothing
to
do
with
this.
We,
the
people,
have
allowed
congress
to
allow
this
to
reach
this
point
and
that's
part
of
the
problem,
and
so
all
we
can
do
is
handle
this
on
the
state
level.
G
Both
texas
and
florida
have
passed
legislation
related
to
this,
but
it
has
been
recommended
by
most
think
tanks
that
the
only
way
to
really
address
it
is
common
carrier,
because
some
of
the
challenges-
texas
and
florida
have
faced
with
that.
So
again,
thank
you
for
bringing
this
and
it's
important
to
make
sure
that
we're
looking
at
the
facts
and
the
the
proper
wording
of
rule
230
as
we
talk
about
what
the
federal
government
has
done,
interjecting
themselves
into
this.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
K
Powers
yeah-
and
I
agree
completely
with
what
you
said
and
the
thing
about
it
is.
If
you
look
at
the
facebook
website,
let
me
just
quote
something:
we
want
updated
internet
regulations
to
set
clear
guidelines
for
addressing
today's
toughest
challenges.
They
also
said:
should
regulation
define
harmful
content
should
be
prohibited
from
the
internet,
but
they've
actually
they've
addressed
congress
and
asked
them
for
the
regulation,
because
another
thing
that
they
said
was,
I
don't
don't
know
if
it's
right
to
have
a
private
corporation
like
facebook
dictate
what
those
boundaries
are.
K
L
L
K
K
And
it's
all
about
it's,
not
the
objectional
language
that
we're
looking
at
it's
deplatforming,
someone
shadow
banning
them
which
is
moving
them
down
the
list
of
of
when
you,
google,
someone
or
whatever
and
you're
putting
them
down
at
the
bottom
list
or
on
a
bad
page
or
whatever.
But
those
are
the
two
things
that
we're
talking
about
d,
platforming
and
shadow
banning
or
or
banning
someone,
but
the
objection
of
language
that
they're
looking
at
on
here.
It
would
still
fall
under
rule
230.
K
L
I'm
sorry
I
misspoke
my
my
concern
was
the
banning
and
who
would
determine
I'm
just
you
know
it
seems
we're
ceding
a
lot
of
control
and
authority
to
the
public
service
commission
or
whomever
to
determine
in
their
viewpoint
if
this
took
place.
My
follow-up
question,
because
these
are
very
significant
fines
that
we're
talking
about
so
would
those
fines
be
put
into
place
from
the
date
of
the
filing
from
the
dates
of
the.
L
L
So
there
would
be
no
back
dating
of
the
fines
again.
I
I
very
much
appreciate
what
you're
trying
to
do,
because
it's
a,
I
don't
think
anybody
would
deny
that
it's
an
issue.
I
I
just
have
concerns
about
the
process,
and
it's
just
something.
I
think
we
really
need
to
be
very
careful
and
judicious
about
as
we
set
up.
You
know
any
time
that
you
give
that
sort
of
authority
to
to
any
group.
I
think
we
need
to
be
very
cautious
about
it,
but
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
K
Thank
you
and-
and
I
agree
and
we've
done
everything
and
we're
trying
to
bring
in
all
the
stakeholders
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
any
unintended
consequences
too,
that
we
might
be
possibly
affecting
some
company
that
that
really
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
social
media
platform.
So
we're
working
on
that
too.
A
Chairman,
I
have
a
sort
of
a
technical
question.
Last
time
we
discussed
this,
you
would
mention
the
attorney
general's
office.
You
were
considering
using,
and
I
noticed
you
moved
it
back
to
tpuck,
but
you
did
say
the
consumer
adequate
advocate
division
which
we
were
was
had
a
bill
up
in
your
committee,
the
other
day
on
that.
So
it
actually
would.
It
would
go
through
t-puck,
but
ultimately
they
would
be
using
the
resource
over
in
the
attorney
general's
office.
For
the
investigation
is
that
correct,
chairman
yeah.
K
Yes,
and
actually,
we
have
talked
with
both
and
we're
looking
at
this
and
see
if
there's
any
available
vacancies
open,
that
we
might
be
able
to
do
it
through
tp
and
and
maybe
not
have
any
kind
of
physical
note
to
it,
and
it
looks
like
we
might
be
able
to
do
that.
If
not
we
we
have
talked
to
the
attorneys
general's
office
and
and
they
will
be
glad
to
handle
it-
we're
we're
in
negotiation
with
both
of
them
right
now,.
G
A
You
chairman
powers,
members
do
we
have
any
other
question
for
chairman
powers.
If
not
members,
we
are
voting
to
send
house
bill
2369
as
amended
to
full
commerce,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed,
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it,
sir.
Your
bill
is
on
its
way
to
full
commerce.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
committee
and
I'm
going
to
be
handing
the
gavel
off
to
chairman
vaughn
for
item
number
six
hospital
2288
by
myself.
H
H
A
Sorry
a
10-day
time
period
by
which
they
can
get
out
of
one
of
those
contracts,
but
you
actually
have
to
hand
deliver
or
mail.
Their
notice,
which
is,
is
cumbersome
and
sometimes
stuff
gets
lost
in
the
mail
and
people
can
be
avoided.
So
what
this
bill
does
it's
very
simple.
It
adds
language
to
the
statute
that
gives
the
consumer
a
third
option,
and
that
is
to
do
it.
I'll
read
it
to
you
by
electronic
means,
as
long
as
the
means
include
a
digital
time
stamp.
H
H
A
Be
off
members.
That
concludes
our
regular
calendar
for
the
day.
So
we're
now
taking
up
our
special
calendar,
we've
got
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping
on
it
item
number
one
hospital,
two
one:
zero
zero
is
referred
back
to
the
clerk's
desk
item
number
two
house
bill.
1757
is
referred
back
to
the
clerk's
desk
and
item
number
four,
that's
house
bill.
28
is
refer
back
to
the
clerk's
desk.
A
M
A
A
A
A
G
G
A
Thompson:
okay,
members:
do
we
have
any
other
questions
for
chairman
zachary?
If
not
members
will
vote
in
amendment
zero,
one,
five,
nine
zero
one
on
house
bill,
645
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye,
all
opposed,
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it.
The
amendment
goes
on
the
bill.
Chairman
faison.
You
are
recognized
on
your
bill
as
amended.
A
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
members,
pleasure
to
be
with
you
today.
My
name
is
tom
lee
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
nashville,
pleased
to
talk
to
you
today
about
house
bill
645
and
I'd
I'd
like
to
sort
of
start
by
addressing,
I
think,
a
principal
issue
for
many
of
you,
because
last
night,
in
the
senate,
hearing
on
this
bill,
an
issue
was
raised
as
to
whether
the
city
of
nashville's
council,
legislative
body
has
legislation
pending
presently
in
front
of
it.
That
would,
in
some
way,
ban
prohibit
effectively
prohibit
owner-occupied,
short-term
rentals.
N
N
That
would
create
the
owner-occupied
short-term
rental
overlay
district,
so
that
people
who
want
to
operate
and
owner-operated
short-term
rental
could
do
so
in
districts
of
the
city,
where
the
zoning
code
would
otherwise
prohibit
it.
The
only
legislation
pending
before
the
metropolitan
council
right
now
that
overlay
bill
would
expand
the
availability
of
short-term
rentals
by
the
expansion
of
these
districts.
Having
said
that,
that
bill
has
been
parked
for
two
years
and
has
not
moved
there
is
no
legislation
banning
owner-occupied,
short-term
rentals
before
the
metropolitan
council.
N
In
fact,
nashville
is
open
for
business,
for
short-term
rentals
and
for
owner
occupied.
We
have
six
thousand
one
hundred
forty
permits
right
now.
Four
thousand
six
hundred
thirty
of
those
units
are
owner
occupied,
that's
the
most
in
the
state,
and
it's
not
close,
it's
good
for
our
guests.
We
have
a
lot
of
places
for
them
to
come
and,
as
you
know,
we
like
to
have
guests
in
nashville.
N
It's
good
for
our
property
owners.
88
of
all
applicants
for
permits
get
them
received
timely
88,
that's
over
the
period
of
time
since
2015.,
that's
good
for
our
our
property
owners
and
they
are
profitable
air
dna
says
this
is
the
fourth
most
profitable
airbnb
market
in
the
country.
Finally,
good
for
our
communities,
our
compliance
rate
with
our
regulations
is
over
90.
Very
few
communities
hit
that,
so
we
want
policies
that
are
good
for
our
guests,
good
for
our
property
owners
and
good
for
our
communities.
We
think
we've
achieved
those.
N
N
They
are
not
other
communities
that
have
read
this
amendment,
since
it
became
available
a
couple
of
days
ago
have
come
to
realize
that
they
too
are
covered.
We
know
now
of
the
city
of
chattanooga,
we
know
now
of
the
city
of
gatlinburg.
We
know
now
of
the
city
of
pigeon,
forge
all
of
whose
law
directors
have
come
forward
to
say
we
believe
we
are
covered
by
the
provisions
in
the
bill
that
appear
to
apply
only
to
nashville.
N
N
You
will
find
it
more
difficult
to
punish
bad
actors.
You'll
have
to
be
able
to
find
them
guilty
of
three
strikes,
not
just
ever
but
within
one
year,
which
means
not
just
administrative
hearings
but
court
processes.
Why
will
people
want
to
go
to
court,
and
this
is
the
last
thing
I'll
say.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Is
this
this
bill
allows
for
persons
who
feel
aggrieved
by
the
actions
of
a
local
government
to
go
to
court
and
get
punitive
damages
this
provision
of
the
bill.
N
N
A
You'll
stand
by.
We
may
have
some
questions
for
you,
so
while
we're
out
of
session
do
we
have
any
questions
for
for
mr
lee,
if
not
tom.
Thank
you
so
much
for
coming
appreciate
your
time.
Thank
you,
chairman
all
right
members,
we
are
going
back
in
session
and
we
are
back
on
house
bill
zero.
Six,
four
five,
as
amended
chairman
fazin,
you
are
recognized.
Thank.
M
You,
mr
chair
and
committee,
I
want
to
just
kind
of
give
us
a
brief
history
lesson.
One
of
the
things
that
is
so
special
about
our
country,
that's
kind
of
from
the
inception,
is
that
we
have
an
expectation
as
a
as
united
states,
citizens
of
of
the
behavior
of
our
government
there.
If
you
look
at
other
countries,
there's
no
expectation
you
might
be
guilty
today
might
not
be
guilty
tomorrow.
M
M
M
M
If
you
would
remember,
nashville
started
giving
up
permits,
left
and
right
anybody
who
wanted
a
permit
to
do
a
short-term
rental.
You
were
able
to
get
it.
Obviously
they
saw
there's
there's
some
situations
here.
There's
there's
some
partying
going
on,
so
they
started
just
making
all
types
of
regulations
fast
forward
from
2015
to
2018..
M
Then
chairman
sexton,
now
speaker,
sexton
realized
that
there
was
we've
gone
too
far
and
over
correcting
which
we
do
in
legislative
bodies.
We
we
go
too
far.
We
set
out
to
see
what
we
could
do
to
preserve
some
property
rights
and
make
sure
that
the
government
hasn't
gone
so
far
that
they've
just
squashed
property
rights.
Since
that
time,
we've
we've
we've
passed
a
few
bills
about
collecting
taxes,
making
sure
that's
right,
there's
always
been
a
fight
with
it.
M
But
since
we
passed
that
in
2018
there
has
been
fudging
on
those
laws,
there's
been
manipulation
on
those
laws.
One
of
the
things
that
this
bill
does
is
make
it.
If
you
have
a
permit
and
you
and
your
wife
or
your
partner,
whoever
you're
with
go
through
a
divorce,
you
split
up,
you
lose
your
your
permit
to
have
an
airbnb.
I
also
want
to
let
you
know
that
this
is
only
for
the
people
who
live
in
their
dwelling.
M
This
isn't,
for
somebody
be
able
to
come
outside,
buy
a
bunch
of
houses,
buy
a
bunch
of
condos
and
rent
them
out.
This
is
for
the
people
who
actually
live
and
sleep
according
to
our
tca
where
their
address
is
where
their
voter
registration
is
right,
then,
and
there
so
we're
talking
about
people
who
who
are
wanting
to
be
able
to
rent
out
their
mother-in-law
or
rent
out
the
basement.
We're
not
talking
about
people
wanting
next
door
right
here,
so
where
they
sleep.
This
is
going
to
take
care
of
them.
M
People
say
well.
How
does
this
only
impact
nashville?
If
you
look
at
section
8
on
page
3,
section
on
or
before
may
1st
2015.?
We
have
had
legal
look
at
this
and
from
what
we
can
research.
There
was
nobody
in
tennessee
who
gave
out
permits
for
short-term
rentals
before
this
point
except
nashville.
That's
how
this
brings
this
only
to
right
here.
M
A
M
M
I
think
it's
interesting
that
the
the
the
previous
speaker
said
if
they
get
three
complaints,
but
that
could
be
three
complaints
over
a
five
to
ten
year
period.
So
I
we
looked
at
this
same
thing
with
your
driver's
license.
If
you
get
three
tickets
in
a
year,
obviously,
you've
got
an
issue.
We
would
say
the
same
thing
for
that.
If
you
get
three
complaints
in
a
year,
you've
got
an
issue
and
nashville
should
have
the
right
to
be
able
to
say,
hey,
something's,
going
on
here
great
standards
for
violations.
M
M
Now
I
heard
that
was
a
sticking
point
and
I
just
wanted
to
bring
this
around
and
and
people
were
like
you're
setting
it
up
that
they
can
sue
for
punitive
damages.
Well,
when
a
person
doesn't
obey
the
law
such
as
me
and
you
we
get
a
ticket
or
we
get
taken
to
court
that
that's
just
what
happens.
There
has
to
be
some
type
of
teeth.
When
you
tell
government
you're
going
to
behave
like
this,
and
then
government
doesn't
behave
like
this
and
it's
egregious
to
the
people.
M
There's
got
to
be
teeth,
so
we're
setting
this
in
to
make
sure
that
city,
council
and
the
metro
government
follows
exactly
the
letter
of
the
law
which
we
want.
We've
seen
historically
how
we
have
people
who
are
supposedly
to
enforce
the
law
here
in
nashville
and
they
go
on
before
anything's
happened,
preemptively,
say:
well,
I'm
not
going
to
enforce
that
law.
There
is
a
track
record
of
this
community,
thumbing
their
nose
at
the
general
at
the
general
assembly.
M
M
Adds
the
ability
for
permit
holders
to
receive
court
costs
and
attorney
fees
if
they
prevail
in
court?
The
amendment
would
require
them
to
send
renewal
notices.
This
other
thing
they'll,
let
their
permits
go
if
you're
a
permit
holder
for
an
airbnb
and
never
let
the
the
owners
know
that
your
permits
up.
So
this
requires
that
they're
going
to
have
to
have
a
90
days
prior
to
the
permit
saturation
require
them
to
issue
permit
within
at
least
30
days
after
receiving
the
renewal
application.
M
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
suppose
this
is
a
comment
as
much
as
a
question,
but
I've
been
advised
this
afternoon
that
there,
even
though
the
date
that
is
in
the
legislation
that
the
chairman's
brought
would
supposedly
eliminate
most
cities
in
in
the
state
it
actually
one
of
my
cities,
I
had
an
ordinance
on
the
books
much
earlier.
That
would
impact
it
and
there's
just
a
great
deal
of
concern.
I
represent.
I
have
five
cities
in
my
district
from
small
to
large
and
there's
just
a
great
deal
of
concern
about
what
this
could
mean.
L
While
I
appreciate
that
we
don't
want
government
overreach,
I
am
also
concerned
that
we
would
tie
the
hands
of
local
government
because
we
have
had
we've
all
known
about
bad
actors
and
things
that
can
happen
that
none
of
us
would
be
appreciative
of
if
those
things
were
occurring
next
door
to
us
so
chairman,
I
love
you
and
I
know
that
you
love
me,
but
I
I
won't
be
supporting
your
bill.
Thank
you.
M
M
L
And
that
may
or
may
not
be
the
you
know
the
thoughts
and
will
of
the
body
as
a
whole,
but
that
is
a
huge
step
in
a
very
different
direction
than
we've
ever
taken
before,
and
I
just
think
if
we're
going
to
go
down
that
route,
it
certainly
is
worthy
of
a
lot
more
conversation,
a
lot
more
investigation
and
again
that's
just
a
serious
drawback
and
a
big
red
flag
for
me.
Thank
you.
N
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
You
know
the
whole
idea
of
of
rights
in
this
country
of
us
having
rights
is
that
we
should
have
these
rights
as
long
as
they
don't
impede
on
the
rights
of
others,
and
I
just
feel
that
that
saying
we
cannot
regulate
airbnbs
in
a
a
reasonable
manner
impedes
on
the
rights
of
those
neighbors
who
who
you
know
like
assad
and
all
of
us
and
the
city
young.
We
have
to
live
sort
of
close
together.
I
I
Well,
that's
that's
a
full
year
of
somebody
having
to
put
up
with
with
with
a
problem
without
being
able
to
have
any
solution
to
that
problem,
and
that
means
that
that
family,
who
lives
in
that
quiet
house
next
to
the
party
place
a
part
of
a
place
where
they
they
have.
The
bachelor
at
parties,
or
whatever,
would
have
to
suffer
for
a
full
year
before
they
have
any
relief.
I
C
M
Thank
you,
representative
alexander.
This
bill
is
for
the
people
who
live
in
their
house.
You
have
to
be
owner
occupied
house
now.
If
it
was
a
condo,
you've
got
hoas
at
a
condo
that
would
preclude
anything.
This
bill
has
nothing
to
do
with
with
hoas
and
condos.
This
has
to
do
with
your
single
family
dwelling
single.
M
M
So
to
answer
your
question:
they're
not
going
to
have
crazy
wild
bachelorette
parties
where
you
live.
This
is
this
is
to
rent
your
mother-in-law
suite
out
of
your
basement
and
if
there
is
and
also
if
there
is
it's,
you
don't
have
to
wait
a
year.
If
there's
three,
if
there's
three
complaints
within
a
week,
they
revoke
your
permit
it.
You
don't
have
to
wait
for
the
year
for
that
to
be
revoked.
E
E
Additionally,
the
last
amendment
that
was
added
on
further
limits,
this
to
say
local
governing
body,
means
the
legislative
body
of
a
city,
municipality,
county
or
other
political
subdivision
of
the
state
that
has
authority
to
enact
zoning
ordinances
and
employs
at
least
one
full-time
or
part-time
law
enforcement
officer
which
would
further
limit
it.
But
again
I
do
not
have
a
list
of
those
who
would
have
fell
either
under
that
or
a
list
of
those
that
would
have
fallen
under
the
ordinance
language.
A
L
E
Jamie
shanks
office
of
legal
services
if
they
had
met
the
qualifications
before
the
may
1st
2015
deadline
and
they
had
issued
permits
or
approved
applications
and
they're,
also
a
local
governing
body
that
employed
at
least
one
part-time
or
full-time.
It
appears
that
that
new
language
dealing
with
this
would
apply
to
them.
E
Jamie
shanks,
the
only
language
that
I'm
aware
of
that's
talking
about
the
punitive
damages
piece
is
in
that
section:
8
c2
that
just
simply
says
the
court
may
award
punitive
damages
to
a
plaintiff
who
prevails
in
a
civil
action
brought
pursuant
to
this
new
language
against
the
governing
body.
I
don't
believe
the
legislation
addresses
that
point
further.
A
A
H
I
I
don't
know
that
there
is,
and
so
whenever
I
think,
of
local
governments
who
have
made
decisions
that
they
believe
that
are
in
the
best
interest
of
their
community
and
stick
by
those
decisions,
and
everybody
knows
what
the
rules
are.
The
last
thing
I
want
to
do
is
undermine
that,
and
so
I'm
stuck
between
a
rock
and
I'm
in
a
little
bit
of
a
quandary
in
the
fact
that
I
don't
want
to.
H
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
want
to
negatively
impact
people
who
have
played
fairly
and
have
been
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
for
their
community
again.
I
have
no
patience
with
people
who
do
not
observe
private
property
rights
and
don't
observe
non-conforming
uses
and
granting
those
rights,
and
so
I
guess,
kind
of
the
way
I'm
going
to
shake
out
on
this
chairman
faces.
H
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
vote
yes
today,
but
I'm
going
to
go
back
and
I'm
going
to
research
and
make
sure
that
there's
no
harm
to
the
communities
in
my
area
that
are
going
to
be
would
be
negatively
affected
by
this.
Who
have
done
the
right
thing
who
have
followed
the
rules
we
set
in
place?
Who
have
said
that
this
is
the
way
that
you
deal
with
these
because
again,
there's
a
lot
of
homeowners
associations
and
property
owners
association
that
makes
this
moot
in
in
many
cases.
H
So
I
I'll
tell
you
this
as
I
I'll
be
an
eye
today,
but
if
I
find
that
it,
it
does
not
honor
the
good
works
of
the
communities
that
I
represent.
Who
thought
they
were
doing
the
right
thing
and
allow
them
to
continue
to
to
obey,
to
use
the
ordinances
they've
put
in
place,
then
I'll
be
the
most
vocal
know
that
this
committee
will
have,
and
so
because
there's
a
lot
of
complicated
moving
parts
to
this
thing.
And
so
that's
that's.
What
I'm
gonna
do.
H
H
But
anyway
I
hate
this
back
and
forth
back
and
forth
back
and
forth.
I
find
it
distasteful.
But
again,
if
somebody
has
a
cause,
has
needs
to
be
have
a
problem
fixed
due
to
actions
of
others.
Then
that's
what
we
signed
on
for,
but
I
don't
want
innocent
bystanders
to
be
caught
in
this
in
this
back
and
forth,
and
that's
what
I'm
going
to
be
looking
at
and
research
researching
hard
if
this
bill
does
in
fact
move
forward
chairman.
A
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
would
I
would
just
remind
the
committee
and
the
gentleman
from
collierville
that
it's
never
good
when
we
trump
local
government,
but
we've
done
that
recently
as
recently
as
monday
night,
because
the
local
government
in
your
area
wasn't
doing
right
by
the
people
and
it
was
settled
for
them,
and
the
city
council
was
one
way
and
there's
times
that
we
have
to
say.
You
know
what
this
isn't
fair,
what's
happening
to
the
people.
M
A
Members
before
we
vote
on
this,
I'm
told
by
legal
that
we
need
to
do
a
little
housekeeping.
These
three
amendments
are
going
to
roll
into
one
amendment
and
without
objection
they
are
all
rolled
into
one
amendment
as
it.
If
it
moves
forward
members,
do
we
have
any
other
questions
for
the
sponsor
of
the
bill,
see
and
none.
We
are
voting
to
send
house
bills
645
to
full
commerce,
all
in
favor,
say
aye,
all
the
posts
say.
No,
no,
the
eyes
have
it.
A
Members-
this
is
our.
This
was
our
final
calendar
today,
so
real
quick
before
we
adjourn
for
the
final
time.
I
want
to
thank
the
members
of
this
committee.
It
has
been
an
honor
to
serve
as
your
chairman
this
year,
chairman
vaughn.
It's
been
a
lot
of
fun.
I've
enjoyed
it.
I
want
to
thank
our
sergeant-at-arms,
mr
tommy
woodard,
our
clerk,
mr
jack
arrington,
our
attorneys,
jamie
shanks
and
lovin,
middleton
dunn,
our
research,
analyst
ben
voitos
and
my
legislative
assistant,
ms
sarah
noel
and
members
without
objection.