H.B. 186 Judicial Conduct Commission Amendments: transcript

Thank you Madam Chair. Uh, members of the committee. Um, we do have a, uh, a handout here. Do you mind if I intern hands that out to the committee members, Please? Thank you. I'm joined here with, um, Alex Peterson. He's the Executive Director of the Judicial Conduct Commission. And, uh, really excited to have a fellow member of the commission here with, um, Representative Miller, uh, who knows about the Comm, the Commission. Um, many of you may or may not have a lot of familiarity with the Judicial Conduct Commission. So I just wanna spend a couple minutes, uh, talking about the commission. And if you do have any questions about the commission, we've got the expert right here next to me that can take all the, the hard questions. But the Judicial Conduct Commission, um, is actually established in the Utah Constitution. Um, it is the 11 member independent fact finding body that investigates any allegations of judicial misconduct, um, by state, county, or municipal judges. Um, so really any member of the public that has a concern about a judge that feels like they violated, um, one of the rules of ethics, uh, or judicial cannons, uh, can file a complaint. That can be done online. It can be done through an email. Um, I've actually having served on the commission for a little over a year about almost exactly a year, um, uh, been interested in how, uh, uh, accommodating the commission is in receiving those complaints. They really receive it in almost any type of manner, and they, uh, they take those complaints and investigate them. Uh, they have a couple investigators that go out and, and find if there's any basis for the actual violations. Um, the commission itself then reviews the complaints that are filed. The, um, investigate the reports from the investigation. They can ask for more investigation or they can move forward with either dismissing the complaint or moving it into, um, more investigation or, um, hearings on it or, um, uh, potentially sanctions. Uh, if, if there has been a violation that then those sanctions go up to the Supreme Court to, to be ratified. Um, the, the JCC is made up of four members, um, that are appointed. Two from the house, two from the Senate, one from each party, um, and then four members from the courts. Two that are, uh, currently serving judges, two that are attorneys, and then three members of the public that are not attorneys that are nominated by the governor and, uh, confirmed by the Senate. Um, so when I got into the JCC, um, I talked with Alex and said, you know, I'm here, are there any things that we need to clean up in this section just to make sure that it's operating efficiently? And so we, we talked through that, we talked with the courts and, and what you see in HP 180 6 is the result of that. Just a, a few little cleanup things that will make it clear, um, the, what, you know, making sure the statute meets, it meets, um, the practice of the JCC and also, you know, a couple areas where it could make it a little more efficient. So let me just go through really quickly, um, some of the things that it does. Um, one thing in there, uh, currently the JCC records are not subject to grandma. Um, but it is a little convoluted in the statute of how they get there. And so this makes it just a little bit, uh, more clear in the statute, um, that, uh, those are not public records. Um, also, and I thought this was really important, um, HB 180 6 says that when a prosecutor, uh, files a, an information or indictment against the judge, they must also file it with the JCC. So there are certain situations where we know that there is a criminal case now pending against the judge, there's been a, um, a news article about it, but there isn't anything in front of the JCC that can actually do something about the judge and, and their ability to continue to serve on the bench. And so this makes it clear that they should also file that with the JCC so that JCC can work in tandem. Now, often the JCC is going to wait, um, to see what happens in the criminal court, but they don't necessarily have to. It's really up to the commission how they wanna move forward, um, with those complaints and, uh, making sure that that justice is being served and that, um, that judges are, are meeting their judicial, uh, ethic responsibilities. Um, it also clarifies that when the administrative office of the court files a complaint against a judge, they also need to file that with the JCC. Um, it has some clarity around, uh, what happens if, uh, a Chief Justice or another, um, justice on the Supreme Court is placed on administrative leave and, um, and having a complaint filed against them with the JCC. Um, it, it, uh, includes information that, um, if one of those bodies, uh, right, right now, the way I understand it, in the code, it says that, um, uh, we have to give some notice to the administrative office of the court when there's been a complaint filed. And I think this clears up that if they file it themselves, that we don't have to then go back and tell them that we filed it. And then lastly, um, it, uh, right now I think there's a little bit of a disconnect between what the JCC is doing and the legislature and understanding that process. And so we thought it would be good to include some reporting requirement, um, to get Alex in front of some legislators and report back on what happened this year, how many complaints were there, um, what did they see, and be able to answer questions from legislature so that, uh, is included in statute. So with that, let me turn some time over to Alex, uh, who can add a little more color on this and, and answer any questions.

Thank you, sir. Uh, thank you, uh, for letting me be here. Alex Peterson, executive Director. Um, and it's nice to see you, grant. Uh, in fact, uh, I'll start on that point. It, having legislators on this commission has, um, really made it so effective, uh, representing, uh, your constituents and bringing that representation to the commission has had an incredible impact. And I don't say that lightly. Uh, Utah is the only state in the union that does that. And frankly, I think, um, as a result of the Utah way, we've probably got the best system. There is, uh, this does, and, and this is a result of that. It's helping to keep the statute current and, um, clean it up. Uh, I spend most of my time not worrying about the statute 'cause I've got legislators. I spend my time worrying about investigating the cases and trying to resolve the complaints, uh, just, uh, uh, some quick numbers and, and reflecting on the statute. Uh, for example, uh, the way the statute's written right now, if the chief judge suspends a judge, uh, the chief judge of the Supreme Court, then the chief judge would submit a complaint to the commission to be resolved, and then the commission would do its work. And if that complaint goes up, then it goes back to the Supreme Court so that the actual person who submitted the complaint is now resolving the complaint. And, and that's a little bit peculiar, right? Like the complainant themselves should not be, uh, drawing on their own complaint. Uh, so it removes the chief judge from that, uh, having to take that position a as it does for the other justices on the Supreme Court. Uh, similarly with, uh, gro, uh, last year, this, uh, body, the legislature passed the Prosecutorial Conduct Commission. And of course, uh, when they passed that bill, uh, they integrated it with Grom. Well, when the JCC bill was first passed, there was, there wasn't that integration. Uh, and so if you go to the Grom bill, you'll find the Prosecutorial Conduct Commissions reports, which are, uh, kept confidential in there, but you won't find the JCCs even though that the judicial conduct commission's been around much longer. So it's, it's that sort of, uh, clarifying that that confidentiality does allow us to quickly resolve cases. What do I mean by that? We get a complaint. Our goal, which we do report it to the legislature, is to try and resolve complaints within 90 days. Right now, our annual average is 72 days. Uh, we're able to do that work that quickly, respond to your constituents that quickly because of some of the protections afforded. Uh, similarly, it requires us to publish publicly the complete work of the commission, uh, within 40, uh, 90 days. Uh, we did it this year within 45 days. So, uh, those sorts of reporting requirements, I'll similarly be back up here next week, next Thursday before the Government Operations Commission and providing, uh, additional details to them. And it just ensures, uh, that, um, I do participate with visitors that come from other countries, uh, you know, as they explore judicial ethics and how to maintain a quality judiciary. And invariably, I get asked, well, how do you keep corruption outta your system? Uh, you know, like, how do we know that you're not corrupt, Mr. Peterson? Those are actually very good questions. Uh, the way we do that is the independent commissioners that are on the commission, and the fact that I have to report what I have to do, right? I have to report it twice a year to the legislature. Now I have to report it twice a year to the judiciary, to the Judicial Council and the Supreme Court. And of course, I have to report it, uh, once a month to the 11 commissioners. That's the sort of thing that maintains the integrity of the system and increases the confidence of the public in their judiciary. I'm happy to take any questions and happy to get into hard figures, but I know you all have a lot of work. Uh, but I'll turn the time back over

to Representative Teuscher. Yeah, And I think, I think that's a great, uh, uh, summary there. I'll just add one, one thing. I had the chance to go to the, the national, uh, judicial conduct, uh, commissions, uh, conference and hear about the trends in different states and comparing, um, uh, each state who takes a little bit different approach at ensuring that judges are following the ethical standards. Um, and it was really interesting to me to see how Alex and Utah was really leading out in a lot of these discussions. And other states were very interested in our approach and wanting to learn from us. And, uh, I think we're well served here by, uh, the commission process, but also by, uh, a great executive director here in Alex. So, uh, appreciate, uh, uh, you being here and, uh, the committee's time and would love to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one question, um, just to do with the grandma and the privacy of the records. So when you make your reports for the commission, how much detail do you put in them for once a case is resolved? Like, does the commission actually report, Hey, you know, we had a, a complaint of this specific thing, or do you not even know what the complaint is on, on the com on the report? I'm, I'm excited to hear about this. It's been very enlightening. I'm glad that there's something like this, but just outta curiosity. Yeah, please.

Okay. Uh, thank you for the question. It's a great question. Um, so as long as the resolution remains non-public, then what we report are the numbers. Uh, for example, uh, right now I'm at about, I'm at, uh, 101 cases complaints. The commissioners, of course, that are on there, the legislative members that are on the commission, they're hearing everything, right. They're the name of the judge, the jurisdiction. Um, but you know, the, uh, the group that we're working with, the judiciary, if you will, it's 278, and they're spread across the state of Utah. And even when I try and anonymize data, it's sometimes pretty easy to figure out who I'm talking about. Uh, and that can make it difficult for me to try and get a complaint resolved. Um, these aren't criminal complaints. Criminal complaints, of course, are, uh, handled in the criminal context. These are ethical complaints. These are the judge behaved inappropriately, maybe a decorum issue, uh, sort of complaints. So we want to try and be able to resolve those and get the judges back to work. Um, and that's what that confidentiality really helps us do. Um, but the specific details, the, uh, types of complaints, as long as I can anonymize it, it's, it's in our annual report Follow up.

Can I just add something? Yes. Um, just if I understood your question correctly, to add a, um, just a little bit to, to what Alex was saying, for the members of the commission, we, we see everything. So we'll go into an executive session, we'll see exactly the complaint, who made the complaint, who the judge was, all the information for the investigation, everything that they had. If, you know, if they had to get a subpoena for record, all of that comes to the, the 11 members on the commission. Um, and then they can take action and decide, you know, what they wanna do with all of that information. It's been interesting to see, and I don't know the exact numbers, but you know, just in my experience, it seems like 90% of the cases are usually, um, litigants that are really upset with the judgment, not necessarily with the, the judge's conduct, or that the judge actually made some sort of, uh, ethical error. Um, and there certainly is a process if you don't like the judgment, right? That's an appeals process. That's not the purpose of the JCC. And so a lot of times we come in there, we get all the facts, and it's like, well, sorry, appeal it if that's what what you need to do. Um, but there are other cases that are like, yeah, this does seem a little concerning. Let's hear the court art audio on this let's, um, we have the ability to, to have a hearing, actually hear from the judge to get their side of the story and, and really decide to make a decision. And, and then just like the legislature has certain, um, tools and sticks and trying to decide if they want to, to censure or reprimand or to suspend or, uh, ultimately to, to remove someone from the bench, all of those tools are at our discretion, uh, depending on the severity of the case.

Okay. Follow up if you don't mind. Um, what I mean is when you have, um, a case resolved, is there any information that the public would be able to access, um, to know, you know, if you found wrongdoing or not? I just know so many people when it's time for retention, judge elections, um, sometimes people feel like they can't find anything on the judge or they don't know how, um, to vote. And so I was just wondering, you know, once it's resolved, is there information for wrongdoing or, um,

Not, so, uh, the complainant does get a response from us, so whoever complained if, if it's resolved, and let's say the commission decides to move forward, uh, to a full investigation or to a hearing, they're informed, uh, similarly if the commission decides to dismiss it because it should be appealed, the complainant, uh, is told that after, at the end of each complaint, we don't publish that, what happened in that complaint. Instead, what we publish is an annual report that explains what happened to all the complaints that were submitted that year.

I see. Okay. Thank You. And correct me if I'm wrong, Alex, if we move forward with a public reprimand or any sanction above that, that would go to the Supreme Court, but then they would publish that in the, in the Journ, the Bar Journal. Um, and and those information that, that we put in the, the, the sanction, the, the reprimand would be public? That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

Can I say I remember your complaint? Uh, I do. I, I recollect, uh, signing the letter, responding to it. Mm-hmm. Uh, I will find out why you did not receive that letter.

But there is a process. Yes, ma'am. Every complaint that's received, uh, a written, uh, acknowledgement of the receipt of the complaint is sent out, and then when it's resolved, when, when the commission makes a decision on it, uh, that decision is communicated to, uh, whoever sent that complaint. And, uh, I, I know what I'm gonna be spending this afternoon doing, ma'am.

Thank you. Hello, my name is JC Skinner. I represent the Utah State Bar Association. Thank you for allowing me to speak to this today. Um, I just wanted to, to be here today to say that the Utah State Bar Commission has voted to support this particular bill. Um, U Utah has a model selection process for judges in this state. It's something that I think we should all be very proud of. It results in very competent professional objective judges who are free from bias and have integrity professionally and personally. But we acknowledge that while rare, there are, there are instances where judges, um, may compromise or engage in contact that compromises the qualities that I just listed, um, as bar members, as something that's very important to us. It is very important to us that our judiciary reflects those things that ensure that litigants and the citizens of this state receive a fair and objective, um, and respectful process as they go through what are often very emotional and very difficult issues. Um, the Judicial Conduct Commission is a very important part of ensuring that we maintain those high standards of judicial conduct that we value. Um, so I, we just wanted to thank the con the commission thank Representative Teuscher for serving on that commission and for, for this bill. So thank you very much. Thank you, jc. Alright, we'll move to online. And we have John Gad. Can you hear me? We can Please proceed.

My name is John Gad. I am an attorney here in Utah. I've been licensed to practice law here for the last, uh, 20 some odd years. Um, so I'm a member of the Utah State Bar, but, uh, unlike the representative from the Utah State Bar, I have concerns about this bill and specifically the grandma provision. Um, I represent a lot of clients in grandma cases where they're trying to get records, and specifically, a lot of times they're trying to get records when someone in government is, is misbehaving. And in this case, this, this provision that's being added with respect to grandma is just a blanket ban on any transparency whatsoever through the grammar process of getting any records from this commission. And, and I understand that government commissions like this love to keep everything that they're doing secret, and that certainly is a more efficient way to do, do things. But the problem with that is democracy dies behind closed doors. And if a judge is misbehaving to have a lifetime ban on any of the records being released ever is just, is just inexcusable The best remedy, um, for government corruption. If a, if a government, if a judge is being misbehaving or corrupt, is, is sunlight. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And so I'm very, very concerned that this, this bill adds a provision that completely exempts every single record that the commission ever touches, receives, produces, et cetera, from ever being discoverable under grandma. There's lots of situations where it seems like those records should be discoverable under Grandma by Citizens. And, and I, I encourage the legislators to vote against this, make sure that grandma does apply to the work that this commission does. Thank you.

Hi, I am Seth Stewart. I echo a lot of John Gads concerns about transparency. Uh, this bill is dangerous because it, it keeps public awareness of judicial ethical concerns by sealing the complaints and investigations inside a government controlled process. And just so we see the pattern here from a checks and balances standpoint, there is, there's a common notion that the separation of powers implies that there will be a check and that there will be accountability and responsibility. Uh, that's not the case because you can have a coordinated team that are united in purpose, uh, while having a separation of responsibility. So the mere separation of of, of these responsibilities and having a separate commission to hear these complaints in no way guarantees that there will be an actual check from the public in particular on this process. And that's what I'm concerned about. The judicial retention votes that we have in our state are they're sacred. They're, they've been historically honored as a check against corruption in our government and unethical, uh, behaviors. And so by curtailing these, by, by acting as a lightning rod for those kinds of complaints into this, uh, commission that is then going to ingest and do something or nothing with these complaints, uh, to where they could never see the light of day, that that seriously impairs the right of the public to petition the government for redress of grievances. And it could also weaken the criminal prosecution process by having those different parallel processes and, and various forbids of disclosure and so on, on its face. This is a public disinformation tool. The commission can selectively withhold or selectively release information. If there's a judge that they don't want to have retained. They could, they could make a big deal outta that. Um, and, and there's, there's just no transparency about those ethics violations. And if we, if, if that were the objective, if that were the intent behind this bill, uh, we would restore grand jury oversight and their prosecutor abilities, and we would restore the powers of trial juries, which can act as a check against judicial bias and overreach, uh, no matter the case, and any case where, where a trial jury may be had, which is includes all criminal cases. So I urge you to, uh, vote against this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madame Chair. I'm asking for leave to, uh, comment on the bill and, and then make a motion reserve for a motion. Would that Be okay? We make the motion first and then comment,

I'm happy to do that. Uh, making a motion to, uh, well adopt the substitute and then afterwards I'll make a, uh, uh, a motion to favorably recommend. Uh, so as, uh, uh, the, uh, the good sponsor, uh, as, uh, as mentioned, Mr. Peterson has mentioned, I may also sit on the, uh, judicial Conduct Commission. Um, and it is, uh, an extraordinary experience, uh, to be able to, uh, work in such an independent fashion with so many different professionals, uh, to hold judges accountable. This bill fills up a lot of gaps. We don't really have the ability to initiate an investigation against a judge. Um, sometimes judges will, uh, will get arrested. There's no mechanism, uh, for law enforcement or a prosecutor right now, uh, to, um, file a complaint with us. And often it's people who watch a news story that filed a complaint with us that finally allows us to initiate our constitutional mandate. And this allows us to coordinate with law enforcement partners. It allows us to coordinate with the judiciary itself, uh, so that way we can fulfill our duties as designed by the Constitution to hold judges accountable. Uh, I wanna speak briefly as a, a couple of members of the public have, um, concerns and I hear concerns about, uh, the public not being able to access what happens at the JCC. Uh, to that end, uh, I wanna point out that, uh, every, every reprimand, uh, every matter of discipline goes before the Utah Utah Supreme Court, that's all made public. Uh, when we actually make a finding that, uh, a judge has, has crossed the line, has committed judicial misconduct, uh, that becomes public information. Uh, we're not unlike any other law enforcement agency in the sense that there is a lot that we have to shift through, uh, to find, uh, the good news is we do have a good judiciary and misconduct. Real misconduct is few and far between, though it does happen, A lot of what we deal with are reports of, uh, this judge sent me to jail. It's not fair. Go reprimand him. And, well, that's just not judicial misconduct. Um, these are very sensitive materials. Uh, we do our best to thoroughly investigate, and Mr. Peterson's investigators are phenomenal. Uh, we go through the entire commission process and once we determine if, if there is the possibility, just the possibility, some evidence is the standard, if there's some evidence to support any allegation, we go through to a full investigation and that investigation can, can proceed to hearings before the committee. Uh, there are lawyers involved. And, uh, once we establish those facts, those facts become public. Um, and so I, I hope that assuages some fears that this is somehow not a transparent, uh, process. It is, uh, and it's a good process and it's designed, uh, by our constitutional founders. This adds some, uh, statutory guardrails to make the process even better. So I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. Uh, and with that, I, uh, I move to adopt substitute one, and then we will, uh, uh, proceed to move to, uh, favorably recommend to the house floor.

Thank you. I appreciate the motion. Let me just take a moment now to, to talk about the, the grandma issue. I, I think it's important for everyone to understand that whether we pass this bill or don't pass this bill, the records currently held by the JCC are protected from Grandma. This is simply clarifying it in the statute. Um, but, but there's other statute that covers it right now, and that's the way that they've been acting, um, really since the, the beginning of the j ccc. So if there is a, a, an intent to change the policy, um, you know, members of the public can come and work with their legislators to change it. They can work with members of this committee. If the committee wants to change it, that's, that's a whole separate conversation. But this doesn't change the status quo whether or not this bill passes or not. Um, I, you know, if we want to debate the, the merits of being able to protect those records, um, I think, uh, Representative Miller, you know, made some some good arguments there. One of the thing I would just add is that by protecting these records, it actually protects the complainants as well. So a lot of times in submitting those records, they're handing over a lot of information that currently is not available to the public. It could be very personal information, um, as part of their case. Maybe it's a domestic violence dispute or a family dispute or something else that they would not want out in the public. And so you, by making that public, you might create a chilling effect that some people aren't even going to file those complaints, um, because they're afraid that that information might become public. So this is a similar process that we have with other types of investigations. As, as Alex talked about, and you can see in the statute, when we created the Prosecutor Conduct Commission, um, we also protected these records. And again, if it gets to the point where the, we have found that the judge actually has done something that's worth being publicly reprimanded from, that information is given to the public, and the public can use that information or, or anything beyond that. So, um, remember it's, it isn't a criminal, um, case. Um, those pub, those records would be handled differently. I think one of the, um, members of the, the public said that, uh, it could affect the criminal case. Those that run completely independent, um, from one another. We have our own investigative process. They have their own investigative process and they don't, they don't cross over. So I don't see any reason why it would affect the criminal process in, in any way at all. Um, Alex, is there anything you'd you'd add to that?

I, I think that's a, a, a great, uh, response to those concerns. And, you know, uh, like I, we said at the outset, this does provide that confidentiality. So it's, it's part of the overall drama. So when a member of public is, you know, when they go for public records, they look to the grandma, uh, and they come to us and they say, well, we don't see you in grandma. And, you know, we're in that kind of ambiguous if there's another statute. And that's has been the way it's been since the establishment of the JCC.

Thank you Madam Chair. Alright, thank you.

Representative Miller? Thank you Madam Chair, I, uh, move to favorably recommend House Bill 180 6 to the house floor for their consideration. Thank

I'll waive maker of the motion waive.

Thank you for your patience. Sorry about that. We'll, We'll be really quick on this. This is,

This is a really just a cleanup bill for the Judicial Conduct Commission. Um, the, the real substance of the bill is that when a prosecutor files an information against a judge, they must also file it with the JCC. Um, and it clarifies that JCC records are not public records. They're not treated as that today, but it isn't in the grandma statute. So it just makes that clear. Uh, and then it requires an annual reporting of its case to the legislature. So I have the executive director here if you had any questions about the JCC, but that is really all the bill does. There's been no opposition to it.

Yeah, I need your name now. Oh, so, oh, Alex Peterson, executive Director, uh, representative, uh, Tuscher representative Grant Millard, uh, Senator Brady Brammer and, uh, Senator Jennifer Plum.

Thank you. I would move that we recommend favorably HB 180 6 first substitute.

Thank you Mr. Speaker colleagues. This is actually just a simple cleanup. Bill. Many of you are aware of the Judicial Conduct Commission. This commission is established in the Utah Constitution and is made up of members of the legislature, members of the court, and, uh, attorneys that are nominated and non-attorneys, uh, nominated by the governor. Uh, this 11 member independent fact-finding body investigates any allegations of judicial misconduct by state, county and municipal judges. And so this has been in place for, for quite a period of time. Um, our two representatives, uh, from this body, I have the pleasure of serving on the, the JCC along with, um, representative Grant Millard, uh, who serves in that. And then we have two colleagues in the Senate as well who serve in this. And so anytime any member of the public believes that they were mistreated or that there was a judge that violated one of the judicial, uh, cannons, they can bring a complaint. Uh, and, and this body then investigates those complaints. And, um, if the complaint is merited, then they would determine what the appropriate sanction should be to the judge that then goes up to the Supreme Court to be ratified. So this bill, like I said, is just a, a quick cleanup, uh, of some items in the Judicial Conduct Commission. The first thing it is that it does is it says that if a prosecutor files charges against a judge at the same time, they should also file a complaint with the JCC. It's been interesting. The JCC independently cannot open up an investigation against a judge. And so often we'll hear about something in the news and wait for some member of the public to say, oh, I saw something on KSL and they file a complaint with the JCC. It doesn't make a lot of sense. And so this will streamline that process. Additionally, if the administrative office of the courts file a complaint against a judge, typically this would be like an HR complaint or something, maybe a, a violation of sexual harassment. They would also file that same information with the JCC. Um, it, it, uh, clarifies when a justice of the Supreme Court is placed on administrative leave, uh, without a JCC referral, uh, how the administrative office of the court has to continue to file, uh, that complaint with the JCC. It clarifies that the JCC records as they're investigating this, uh, are not public records that is currently in the code, but it's not in the grandma section of the code. So it adds it to the grandma section of the code so that when grammar requests come in, people can see that that's not, uh, um, uh, a record that is a public record. Additionally, uh, it, we have a weird situation where if the administrator, there's a, there's a, uh, a statute that essentially says that if the JCC can receives a complaint, then it has to let the administrative office of the courts know about that complaint. Well, sometimes those complaints come from the administrative office of the court, and so we're required to tell the administrative office of the court that we received a complaint that they just filed with us. So we, we take away that, that, uh, process that essentially says if the administrative office of the court has already filed that with us, we don't have to give them any notice of that. And then lastly, it requires the JCC to submit an annual report of its cases to the legislature. And this is really just an attempt to help members of the legislature understand the role of the JCC, uh, how those cases are moving along, how quickly they're getting resolved, and ensure that the public's getting redress, uh, anytime they have concerns with the judge. So this is a bill that is supported, uh, across the board, um, uh, by the JCC, um, by the bar and others, and I would urge his support. Happy to answer any questions, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. The good sponsor, uh, from uh, South Jordan articulated it well. Uh, we do serve on the JCC together, and this bill is sorely needed. Uh, the JCC is created by mandate by the Utah State Constitution. It's a good organization. It's structured well. And our job is to make sure that, uh, when there's misconduct from judges on the bench, that we hold them accountable. The problem is sometimes the judge will do something, it'll get on the news and there's nothing we can do about it until someone reports 'cause we can't self-initiate. This fixes those loopholes. When a prosecutor files charges on a judge, they have to let us know if, uh, the, uh, uh, state courts, uh, pursue discipline, uh, unilaterally against the judge, they have to let us know. And this allows us to fulfill our constitutional mandate. So I, that's why I support this bill and I support, uh, ask Mr. Speaker all your colleagues support as well. Thank you.

I'll, I'll be brief Mr. Speaker. I was just gonna say something that's interesting about the way that we have, uh, the Judicial Conduct Commission. All 50 states have some process where you can file an investigation, but Utah's unique in that it's the only body where legislators also serve, uh, on the Judicial Conduct Commission. And so it's interesting when we go and talk to other states about that process. Um, it, it's curious and, uh, from the perspective of the executive director of the JCC here and talking with a lot of his colleagues across the, the country, he finds that to be a real advantage that that we have in Utah. And, uh, something that we're modeling that other states are looking at. So I appreciate the great work of, of those that have come before us to set this up. It's working well, and this will just make it work a little bit better. Thank you.

Thank you. This makes a couple of very mild adjustments to the Judicial Conduct Commission. Uh, what the Judicial Conduct Commission does is when there's a complaint against a judge, it comes to a committee and that committee has, uh, it, it's, uh, it's broad based. It, uh, Senator Plumb and I both serve on that committee from the Senate. Uh, it's a fantastic committee in terms of what it does. It investigates those allegations of misconduct involving judges makes recommendations to the Utah Supreme Court for disciplinary action. This, this open, this clarifies a couple of things that where, uh, actions between the committee and the court were following in the cracks. And so it's a fairly procedural bill. And with that, I'm open to any questions on it?

conduct Commission is already doing. Several of them relate to when, if there is a complaint that is initiated by the Utah Supreme Court, which they have the power to do independently, then it, it asks them to refer the complaint also to the Judicial Conduct Commission so that we can independently investigate it. And then it also provides, uh, some guidance as to dealing with grandma requests, uh, which have traditionally been upheld that the Judicial Conduct Commission is not subject to grandma in most circumstances. Uh, and this codifies that. And then, uh, so it turns it from a principle based denial to a codified denial. And then, uh, this also has some reporting back to the legislature as far as the number of complaints and, and how they were dealt with and without. Uh, I'm open. Any questions?