H.B. 194 Utah State Board of Education Ethics Amendments: transcript

All right. Thank you committee. It's fun seeing you guys from over here. Um, house Bill 1 94, uh, creates an independent ethics commission for the State Board of Education. And the reason we're running this is because currently every other elected body in this state has some sort of independent ethical oversight. So this, this bill is just aiming to make sure that every elected official is playing from the same playing field when it comes to ethics and things like that. Um, the goal of it is to create parody, um, and make sure that, uh, everybody, school board members, employees are protected should there need to be, for some reason an ethical investigation. Um, and if you pull up this bill and you're like, wow, that is a lot of red, yes it is. It is a lot of red, but it is not new red. Um, we're by and large copying from our code. So, um, the legislature's ethics commission over to the state board because that's the most, like apples to apples comparison that we can make. And obviously there are changes such as referring to the board instead of the legislature, but everything in there is not new. That being said, we're gonna go through it really fast. Um, and I'm gonna try to just hit the highlights. Like I said, there's a lot of, a lot in here. Um, I don't think we need to go over definitions, but, um, lines 79 through 1 21, that is where it, um, uh, outlines code of conduct for board members. Um, things like you can't lobby, that sort of thing. Um, and then we go down 1 24 through 1 78. Um, that establishes the independent Ethics Commission. So a couple things to note here. Um, it is five members that it's the same as what we have. Uh, and they are approved by the board. Um, and I believe it is, um, people with, uh, judicial background as well as board experience, they all serve a four year term and meet bi-annually. Um, and that will be established with the amendment. Scrolling down, you've got lines 180 1 through 2 39. That's where if you need to qual disqualify a commission member from any investigation that outlines the process to do so. There. Scrolling down again, uh, 2 42 through 3 24. And that's the process for filing ethics complaints. So it includes the requirements for a complaint, whether it's a valid complaint or not. Things like that, as well as how to file a complaint and the process you would go through if you needed to make one. And then the meat of this is going to be, uh, lines 3 28 through six 50. Uh, and that is gonna be reviewing, responding to and investigating complaints. So this is a whole process by which, um, the Independent Ethics Commission would go through any ethics complaints that are made, um, and come up with our recommendations. Um, and when they do, what they'll do is they will hand the recommendations to the board and then we move to 7 37 through 8 71, which is Board Action and Review. This is where the board will review the evidence that is presented and vote. Um, I also wanna point out that 8 27 through 8 43, um, that puts the potential penalties into code. So again, this is basically an exact one for one replica of what we currently live by up here. I don't feel comfortable asking people to abide by guidelines that we ourselves are not comfortable living with. I also wanna point out that this has the word commission in it, which I think for some people is a little bit of a red flag. So I kind of wanna like, bring down that flag a bit. The only time this commission officially needs to meet is every other year when they elect, um, a new chair of the commission. Otherwise, it is only when they are called in to investigate a complaint. And so, I mean, I think you guys can all rack your brains and think of very few examples that this has happened for the 104 of us in our time's up here. So I imagine it will be much less frequent for 15 people as compared to 104. So I also wanna say, I, I heard a comment that they, somebody felt like this was singling out USBE. And I wanna be very clear, this is aiming to do the opposite. This is just to establish guardrails for everybody who's in an elected role so that everybody can have, um, the same standards in place and the same knowledge that they're protected should they need to be. So it's not about singling out, it's about bringing parody. And that, that is a short presentation for a lot of lines of text. I want to be conscious of our time, um, but I would love to hear any questions you have.

You, Mr. Chair? Um, I just had a question. So let's say that there's an investigation and the commission decides someone did something unethical and so it goes to the action part and a vote. What are the penalties that could be being voted on, potentially? Sure.

Uh, and to be clear, the vote would be from the board members, not from the commission. Uh, yeah, let me, let me scroll to my lines. It's, um, 8 27 through 8 43 if you wanna follow along.

Okay. And, and what I'm getting at, as an elected person, they wouldn't be able to remove them from their office, I would imagine they could censure Yes. Or something like that, but I just wanted to make sure Yes. That that wasn't some, so

What is listed is, um, an issue of public censure, an issue of written reprimand. Remove a board member from any board leadership positions, deny or limit non, uh, any non constitutional right power or privilege of the respondent, that, et cetera. Um, and then recommend to the legislature impeachment, they do not have the ability to remove themselves. Okay.

So in 8 33 and 34, what are, are there any, um, I guess maybe on 8 32 to start, what would be some examples of those either rights, powers, privileges? I don't know off the top of my head. I can, I can phone up front and ask if you'd like. And by that I do mean my drafting attorney and text him, but Okay. Yeah, maybe we can go into other, um, questions. But I would be interested to know what some of those are.

Of course. Thank You. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I've got a couple of questions that that is appropriate. Yep, go Right ahead. Um, so, um, I understand where this is coming from and I really, um, actually appreciate what you're doing here. 'cause when we look at, uh, our branches, we got three branches of government in our state constitution, but we also have the Utah State Board of Education that kind of fits. Some people think that they're kind of maybe a secret fourth branch maybe. Um, but, and I understand that you're trying to put these guardrails, same standards that apply seemingly to everyone. Um, but you had mentioned EE elected officials and I'm, I'm pretty confident I'll have to double check that the, um, that the, uh, ethics requirements for the executive branch apply to not just elected officials, but to appointed and other types of officials as well. Are you aware of that?

That is outside of the scope of this. So I'm not up to date on that, unfortunately. That's

Fair. I I just wanna make sure, since we're trying to make sure the standards apply, that it may not necessarily have to look directly at just elected officials potentially in, in those cases. And so that's why I was asking maybe, and again, maybe be outside of the scope of this, but I'm just curious, um, the only other branch that really has none of these same ethics requirements or guardrails would be the judicial branch. Does that mean that you'd be supportive of perhaps, uh, updating or amending this to include, uh, the judiciary in maintaining those same level of ethics and responsibilities that the other branches have?

I think this bill has enough red in it at the moment. I, I would be interested in a conversation about that in the future, but I wanna make sure that, um, I'm tackling one issue at a time. And my understanding is that through JPEG and things like that, there are methods, um, by which the judiciary is centered, or I wish I could remember what it's called. Representative Miller JC it, the, yeah, the bad judge club is what he calls it. Um, I, I like, yeah, the JCC, that's a much better name.

So, and, and, and just to, to clarify here though, because these, the way the ethics are written for the executive branch legislative branch and what it looks like for the USBE is more focused specifically on the idea that you police the actors themselves, their actions are under scrutiny, under an ethics, uh, requirement. And that there is this public facing interest of keeping them ethical. Whereas the judicial ethics right now actually are the other way around to ensure that judges are insulated from the actors of outside forces, uh, that, but could possibly affect their decision making and doesn't look at their actions ethically outside of the courtroom at all. So that's why I'm just, I'm just curious why you're setting the standard specifically for USBE to fall under the legislative sort of, uh, guidelines rather than looking at insulating them. Like on the judiciary side. What's your, what's your motivation to, uh, I, I guess what, what do you see as the best balance there when it comes to ethics?

Sure. And we went with this, um, this as the model because it was the most direct correlation. I didn't want them to be, we, we looked at, do we want to compare this to, um, local governments, how, how local school boards, they're, they're also subject to independent ethics, but that's at the local level. Um, the state board acts more in a legislative role, right? They're a rulemaking body. Um, and so that's why we took this direction. It's, it, it felt like the most fitting, um, particularly concerning the fact that we're dealing with public interest in public good. And this should be transparent, this should be transparent. Um, and right now, because there isn't this independent structure, it's, it's really on TD board rule. And essentially board has to investigate itself, which isn't fair. Like if we had to investigate ourselves, it would be difficult because we all have pre-existing relationships and opinions and things like that. And so this, the idea of this is to take something that might be a little bit more neutral to this party. Does that answer your question?

I think so. I just wanna understood, understand the, the policy. And so I appreciate that. Thank you very

Much. Sure, of course. Thank you.

Sure. And they do have, they do have some, a process in place currently. The process for, um, investigation, first of all, if someone would to be, make a complaint, so if employee were to say, Hey, I was treated badly in x, y, Z way, it would not be anonymous and the investigating would have to be done by direct reports to the board. So there's a kind of a conflict of interest there. Um, my understanding is that Representative Welton ran something last year, uh, encouraging them to, uh, draft a, draft a process. Um, there was an agreement that that would happen and it has yet to happen. So I can't speak to why they do or do not make the actions that they do. I, I can speak to this Phil. I can't speak to their, their thoughts and feelings, but that is my understanding.

And then I have to go to my phone one Sec and then we do have one other light, so, Okay. Perfect. Um, so the lines 8 32, 3 8, 3 4, that would include things like, um, removal from subcommittee assignments, um, task force and commission assignments, and, uh, do things that would take away their ability to do anything besides voting potentially educators. So it'd be to say like, if, if somebody were to investigate me and say you did something wrong and therefore I unfortunately didn't get to serve on this lovely committee anymore.

Okay, thank you. I don't know how I feel about that being an elected official who my constituency wants me advocating for. You know, there's all reasons why people would be involved in complaints and sometimes they're very political. And so to take away any ability for them to act besides in their one voting rule, but not having any say on committees, you know, as we vote and move things forward, um, I think that changes my mind on support on this. So thank you. Speaker Can do that to you already.

Thank you. I have a couple Mr. Chair, go right ahead. Thank you. And, and I apologize that I was in and out, so I hope I am not repeating questions that I've already been asked. And you can tell me if I am. Will do. Okay.

So, um, have you consulted with the state board on this and what, what is their position on this?

I've spoken to individual board members as far as I am aware, the board does not have an official position.

Okay. And then what is the, how do you see this playing out? What is the reason why we're doing this? Like it, was there something that occurred? Is there, like, are they feeling like they need this? Like how did this come about? Why, why is this a thing? Sure.

Um, one of my constituents is a former state board employee. Um, and she, while, while she was an employee, dealt with harassment, um, from a board member. And when she tried to move forward with that, she was essentially told, well, there's nothing we can do. So that was where, what sort of drew my eye to this as an issue and to wonder why, why can't we do something? Um, and it turns out that there is no external ethical oversight. There is for every other branch of government and for every other elected position, but this doesn't exist for this particular subset of elected peoples. So we're just trying to try to, um, make sure that this is in place to protect, um, board members if there are things like false complaints, things like that. And to protect employees for when they need it. Okay. Thank you. And then my final question on the, on the heels of that answer is, um, I'm guessing it wasn't like a sexual harassment because I would guess there would be some sort of sexual harassment training or something that was happening. And so what was the, the situation, the nature of the harassment, if, if you can speak in vague terms? Um, disclosing personal information about her online in a negative context without her consent for her role, um, as a private citizen. Thank You. So posting address and things like that with negative messaging attached to it. And yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just to, to further the discussion, I I just wanna point out to this committee, this is essentially the same bill that you passed unanimously in this committee and on the floor last session. There's, there's nothing really substantially different from what has already been done here other than who's running the bill. Um, I'd also like to point out that this is the only outlying branch of elected officials. And I get the, the argument with judicial and I think that's a great thing for Representative MacPherson to tackle in the future. I think there's, he's gone to something there, but this is the only outstanding group of elected officials that does not have a codified in state law practice of ethics. And so all we're seeking to do, and they've already done this by the way, and, and I'll give kudos again to them at the end. I, I was a little harsh on them and, and I will own that. Um, uh, but they have done a lot of work and, and if you go through and they've, they've put out a document where they've actually already adopted these. And so most of this stuff is being codified with what they've already done. So, um, this is just rectifying the only outstanding branch of elected officials at this level.

Jenny Earl. Um, I'm representing myself, but I am speaking, um, to things that we've done this year and we've previously done. So we do have a number of policies in place prior to even the changes that we made this year. We did have policies in place. So, um, you are and I can't representing the board. I am representing the board. Sorry, I'm getting that confirmation there. So I'm just checking here. So, uh, chair Hymes is saying I am representing the board 'cause I'm telling you about the actions that we've done. So I'm not sure on this particular situation, I can't, I can't speak to it and I can't speak to what did or didn't happen there, so I don't know the specifics. But, um, we do have a process in place. Of course it is this body can decide, um, what, what you wanna do. We haven't taken a position on that. We haven't actually discussed that as a board, so I can't speak to that. But I'm just sharing that we have, um, implemented a lot of the things that we're asked last year, um, and I just wanted you to be aware of that, so, and I appreciate it. I had a good discussion with Representative Welton today and we've made amends, so, okay. Thank you.

Well, I wanted to, I didn't wanna speak to the Amendment you want. Alright.

Well, no, I can. Or you wanna adopt the amendment? I'll, I'll move to pass Amendment one. Is that correct?

To that? No, I'll waive.

Yes. So the amendment, um, came after talking to Representative Corinne Peterson, um, again regarding that commission piece. So this takes it from being, they have to meet every year to elect a chair of the commission to every other year. So that we're, again, cutting back on that board and commission factor.

Where are we? I'm, I'm It, we're we're That's okay.

Right. I'll waive, I'm waiting to speak to the, the next, To the actual bill. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm we'll, we'll get there. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to make the motion that we favorably recommend HB 1 94 Utah State Board of Education Ethics Amendments as substituted As amended. As amended. All

Uh, I, I think I already spoke to it a little bit. This is a bill that we passed last time and we're just kind of putting everything in, in code, um, that, that currently exists and matching them up with everyone else in the state. Um, I would also like to, to once more, again, this might be more the, more, more the appropriate time to apologize to the state board, uh, for being a little, uh, harsh. Last time. We had, uh, many discussions with probably like 10 of them when this bill passed unanimously last session. And, and there was some agreement to go to work and, and probably some miscommunication on my part. Uh, I was on the understanding that we'd bring it back what they did and, and codify it, uh, in law this session. And so I think, uh, I will take ownership for the, for the breakdown in communication there. But, um, they've gone through, they've actually codified all of, most of this, um, in June and May and, and other months like this. But, and this is good policy. I think it's, it's, uh, good for the public to have that public trust that there is some statewide standard, uh, that matches what we have in every other, uh, elected official branch.

Um, uh, I have a great deal of respect for members of the board, but I think this is really important that we do this. Now, as I was ruminating over this, as I've listened to the discussion, um, there was some egregious behavior by members of previous members of the board that, um, I think we all recall and an election changed that it was an election that changed that. But still, they, the State Board of Education has a great deal of, uh, control and power in the state over our public education system. And I think that in, um, fairness, they should a, as we do too, but even more than it has had in previous years. And so I think it's really important that we have this kind of equity when it comes to their ethics and, uh, being held the same, uh, standards as the rest of the elected officials. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, it seems like we've already covered it at the board level, and so I'm wondering, uh, if we really need the bill any longer. And I'm, I'm inclined to. I'm glad it's already covered. I'm glad that they've already done things to, to address, uh, what they feel like needs to happen with the ethics on the board and, and that they're overseeing that. So, well, I know that we're supposed to kind of cut down on number of bills and stuff, and so I, I'm inclined to maybe go against it just because it seems like it might not be needed at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, I do, uh, appreciate this Bill. I'm gonna be voting in support of it, and just wanna make sure I clarify for all the members here, that we are talking about ethics that apply to not just elected officials, but to all members of our different branches of government. In fact, many of our state employees have ethics requirements as well. And, uh, as do our school teachers and many other people, a across, uh, the entirety of state government, I think that's a good thing, and I think it's important. And I think, uh, that it is a, uh, uh, this was an oversight that they weren't included in that. I'm glad we're buttoning this up. And I think that we should continue on with the judiciary, um, perhaps, uh, later at some other time if you're not willing to introduce it here. But thanks.

Yeah, thank you. I, overall, I agree with the premise of this bill. There's that one part that makes me a little nervous and I'm, we, we can work more on it, but for right now, it'll be a no, just to flag it to show that there were some concerns and, um, to be able to work. I think we wanna make sure that, um, we're not keeping the public from having the representatives being able to work for them, whoever they are, um, elected. And, you know, there are some other ways to go about it. But I think, you know, Cing, someone can be a wide variety of reasons you would do that. Um, and so I just wanna make sure that it's not an overcorrection by taking away some of their other abilities and their freedom of speech.

Thank you. And thank you committee members for engaging with me on this and to the board. Um, I appreciate the feedback and the comments. Um, just while we're here, and since I've got the microphone, I just wanna address a couple things that came up from every people's comments. Um, first of all, it is specifically stated in this bill that this does not impact a board member's freedom of speech or to do, um, or to speak in their role. The same way that we can speak on the floor in ways that, um, might not always meet HR policy. We, that does not impact this here. Um, second, there's discussion about taking away their ability to act. And I wanna be clear, this is not just a, a slap on the wrist thing. I couldn't say Representative Moss, how dare you. Now, you can't be on a committee. It has to go through a whole lengthy process. And that's why we have it really spelled out in here in detail. That is why there is almost a thousand lines of red, is because we wanna make sure that this isn't being exercised without thoroughly vetting it first. And historically, um, the legislature has removed, uh, people from committees that includes Senator Vickers, Rebe and Kitchen. Um, fairly recently and after former senator, um, Davis was investigated by our independent ethics commission, he was removed from his, um, committee assignments as well. But I think we could probably agree that was a reasonable and, uh, justified action based on his behavior when he was in the legislature. So I just wanna be really clear that this is not something that is being done in cautiously. This is being done with intense oversight, which is why we want to have this, because right now it's an internal investigation that people that are, um, that are, um, investigating it are employees of the board. And that adds a level of, of awkwardness to an investigation and of potentially of bias. And we really wanna make sure that we remove that so that this can be done as fairly as possible, specifically for reasons like you brought up representatives so that we're not unjustly punishing something. These are, these are rarely used, is how I envision it. Um, finally, um, this isn't about singling anybody out. I know that there has been discussion about what former board members have done. That is not the point of this. The point is just to make sure that there are guardrails moving forward. And so that, um, we're Juab we're adding code, and yeah, we, we are adding code and we have, there's been discussion on running fewer bills and things like that. However, I think a few lines of code is worth it for increased government oversight and transparency. And that is the goal of this and what this does. So again, I truly thank you for the discussion. I am more than happy. I don't know if you've noticed, we've got a lot of bills on the board, so should this pass, I am enthusiastic to work with you guys. Um, so to make it an even better bill, because I don't wanna pass bad legislation. Um, so I'm happy and open to work with you. Um, but for now, I would ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you for having me. I believe Representative Wilcox is still presenting in the committee that I'm also in, so, okay. That might be what's going on there. Um, thank you for having me today everyone. I really appreciate being here. Um, and just as a point of clarification, I will have an amendment that I'll need to move when that is appropriate, if that's

The amendment is, um, just clarifying that members of this commission would be paid at a per diem rate. Okay. That's it. Okay. Okay.

So moved. Okay.

Thank you. Committee, um, house Bill 1 94 is addressing a, a gap that we currently have in code regarding ethical oversight. So, currently all elected individuals and bodies in this state have some sort of external ethical overview, um, except for, uh, the State Board of Education. And so this is about creating, um, an ethics commission for them as well, so that everybody, all elected individuals in this state have that level of, um, accountability to their, um, to their citizens. So what this bill does is it establishes, um, the independent ethics commission. And if you're looking at the bill and you're like, wow, that is a lot of red, I wanna reassure you that none of it is new text. Everything that we have that we are putting in here is completely replicated off of what we currently have in statute for us, for state legislators with just some, um, amendments to make it make sense for, uh, state board and in an educational context rather than a legislative one. But this is the exact same process that we currently have in place for legislators that we're, um, putting on this body. And we did it that way because I don't feel comfortable asking people to adhere to requirements that we ourselves are not comfortable adhering to. I don't think that would be responsible on our part. So in all of that red text, um, you're going to have outlines for codes of conduct for board members. Again, they're the same as what we have, so you can't lobby abuse the position, things like that. It also goes through establishing the independent ethics commission. Um, that commission is, uh, approved by the board. So the people that are doing that oversight would be voted on by the board. They serve, um, four year terms, and they would meet bi-annually, um, to elect a chair. And I want to note, because I know that the word commission can be a little bit, uh, of a, of a red flag for some people, um, unless there is a reason, like unless they have a complaint that needs to be investigated, the only time that they'll be meeting is in this biannual meeting. So besides that, they're, they're not, they're not going to be engaging. Um, it outlines the process for, uh, disqualifying, disqualifying a commission member from an investigation. So if there's a conflict of interest, something like that, it outlines the process for filing ethics complaints and including, um, the requirements for a complaint to be valid and how to file a complaint. And the process one would go through to make what it includes, the process for reviewing, responding to, and investigating complaints, and then the process for board action to review the commission's recommendations. Um, and then at the very end, it puts into code potential penalties. So that, that is the bill in a nutshell. Like I said, it is a lot of red, but it is all things that already exist in code because we're taking what currently exists for the legislature and applying it to another elected body so we can make sure that there's accountability and parity for all elected officials. With that, I'm open to questions. Thank you.

Yes, that is correct. So currently, um, one of the issues, and one of the reasons that this bill was important to me to run is because if, if currently if a board member were to make a complaint against another board member, or if an employee were to make a complaint, it is not anonymous. It is not anonymous, and it is investigated by direct reports of the board. And it's essentially the board voting on the board. And like I, I, I think about if that were me, um, and I was having to investigate another representative, and for better or worse, I have my own biases. There's people that I love in the chamber that I serve, there's people that I, I think I could, could use some, um, growth personally, and that that's a bias that I would bring to that discussion, right? And I think that applies across the board. So this would allow that privacy aspect that we currently have for legislators and make sure that it's not direct reports that are conducting this investigation.

Just myself today, Senator, but, uh, chair members of the committee, uh, Joe Carey, uh, member of the Utah State Board of Education, and I chair the Law and Licensing Committee on that body. But today, I just speak for myself and, uh, I, uh, appreciate the, the work that's been done. I've, I've read the bill, and I'm not in opposition to the terms of the bill, but, um, we spent over a year revising our code of ethics for the board. And we did that at the, uh, direction and request of some members of the legislature. And we just completed and voted on that last year. And so when I see this bill, I look and say, wait, what did we, what did we miss? What did we do wrong? But instead of saying, Hey, you can improve here, you can do this, or maybe you tweak over here, we're taking all that work that was done and saying, we want you to do this instead. And, and I think that we did come to a good place in the rewrite of our, of our ethic rules. Um, also, I would like to see this actually, um, cover more individuals at the Utah State Board of Education in the last bill or the bill before last, we talked about, um, PAC and this audit that was being done. And I like what Senator Riebe said, well, look, if there's an audit, it's almost like if there's smoke, there's fire. And we are trying to resolve that as well. But I could see that these provisions, maybe they should apply to the hearing officers at audit. Maybe they should apply to the PAC Commissioners who sit in judgment of our educators and, and put some of those due process provisions in. So it's not that I'm opposed to the, the tenants of the, the proposed bill, but I think it could actually be more inclusive and do more good at the Utah State Board of Education. And because of that, to the extent I'm permitted, I would ask that the committee hold it. I don't know if I can do that or not, but I I oppose the bill because it doesn't expand it enough, if that makes sense. Thank you Chair, You members. Thank you.

So I have a question. So I like what, um, board member, um, Kerry had to say, would you be open to amending the bill at all?

Absolutely. Thank you for that. I, I firmly believe one of the great things about serving in a body with 103 other people is that we have 103 opportunities to make a bill better. And so I would, I mean, it's day 36, so I would, I would prefer not to take a suggestion of holding and continuing to work on it and through a very long list on the floor. But I'm always open. I'm always open to that. And I think if we can, if if the board or other members have suggestions, um, we can incorporate those or make it broader. I am very open to that.

I guess I can speak for myself too. Uh, given that I'm the floor sponsor for this bill, I would be glad to, to, uh, circle it and come with a substitute, maybe to maybe expand the scope of it, uh, a little bit, if that's okay with you?

That is absolutely okay.

Thank you. Uh, and I agree with that, uh, as far as, uh, expanding that, but, you know, I've never actually ate an elephant myself, but I've heard to eat at one bite at a time, and I'd like to see this bill get through this process this year. And that sounds like a bill for somebody else some other day or something that you could do next year. But I would like to see this bill go through as it is, as quickly as possible.

So I would make a motion that we pass out house bill one 94th favorable recommendation.

Thank you. And thank you again for having me today. And thank you for the, to the board for the work that they have done. I know this has been an ongoing discussion and issue, and I hope that, um, with this, hopefully we can give them a little bit of, um, clarity and put a button on it. Um, I also wanna add, this isn't about singling out any person or any one group or diminishing the efforts that have been done. This is just about creating a level playing field for elected officials across the board. Um, and if this committee would like to see more work done in that, I, I am always open to that. Um, however, I would love to have that discussion with you. So again, thank you for your time today.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Uh, this bill is about correcting a gap in code. So currently every elected official and every elected body has some form of external ethical oversight except for the State Board of Education. So what this does is it creates independent ethical oversight for the state board. Um, it it's about creating parody. And what we did with this is we made it, uh, virtually identical to the legislatures because I don't think that I would be comfortable if we as a body asked people to hold themselves to a standard that we are not comfortable with. So, just to go over the details of this, um, it includes setting a code of conduct. It includes how the Independent Ethics Commission is selected, um, which is that they're appointed by the board. They serve, um, four year terms and there are five members. Um, it talks about how to file an ethics complaint. It talks about reviewing and investigating ethics complaints and then how they're handled, as well as how the board responds. It's a lot of read, but it's not new in code. It is just simply taking what currently exists for us and applying it to another body so that we can make sure we have, um, parody and ethical oversight and governmental oversight, frankly, for all elected individuals. And with that, I yield to questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro tem.

Thank you. Um, I will waive

Thank you Mr. President. Uh, colleagues HP 1 94 establishes a clear and transparent ethics framework for members of the Utah State Board of Education. The state board holds constitutional authority over the general supervision of public education in Utah. With that authority comes a responsibility to maintain public trust, yet unlike many other public bodies in our state, there is currently no comprehensive statutory process for handling ethics complaints against board members. This bill fills that gap. HP 1 94 creates a code of official conduct, requires conflict of interest disclosures, and establishes a structured complaint process that includes investigation, evidentiary hearings, and due process protections. It also creates an independent ethics commission composed of former judges, former board members, and experienced education administrators. This, uh, this ethics com commission is identical to what we have in the legislature. Uh, with that, I I hope that, uh, I get your support.

I move that HB 1 94 pass.

House Bill 1 94. Utah State Board of Education Ethics Amendments by Representative Hayes.

Mr. Oh, thank you Mr. Speaker. Not to disappoint, but I motion that we concur with the Senate amendments.

Yes. We just specified that personnel would be, receive a per diem rate.