H.B. 319 Electronic Records Amendments: transcript

And if you wanna speak to those, I Would, uh, yes. I would like you to adopt the second sub and the amendment, which puts back in something that was added earlier for the tax commission, uh, just to clarify. Uh, and we forgot to include it in the, the second sub.

I'm speaking to the second sub, or I'll talk to the concept overall. So the purpose of this bill committee is not to set the detailed rules for how county recorders can digitally authenticate, uh, records or digital authenticate someone who submits record. What, what the purpose is, is to set up the process that we're going to use to make the rules about digital authentication. So the process is that if a county says we want to do digital authentication, this could be, for example, say maybe it's publishing in the, uh, a record on a blockchain or digitally authenticating with a state endorsed digital identity, which is not in code yet. So they can't do that, uh, a, a record. Uh, they're, they're gonna come to the state records, uh, or to the state archives with a proposal to say, this is what we want to do and here's how we're going to do it. And they've gotta present to the state, uh, archivist and, uh, and eventually to the state records committee, a proposal that says, here's the technology, here's how the authentication is gonna work. We've talked to the industry about this. We've talked, uh, department of Technology Services will evaluate it. We're going to bring everybody together to make sure that the digital authentication is stronger than what we have today with, for example, a notary stamp or other ways of, uh, digitally authenticating a document. And we've, uh, when this was first brought forth, uh, title companies, of course had some concerns given they're in the business of, of, uh, making sure that records are authe are authentic and accurate. So we worked with them. We met with them, uh, multiple times. They had a number of things that they'd like, uh, uh, changed in the bill. We, we modified to make sure that they're comfortable, as comfortable as they can be with the idea that this is, there's gonna be a process. They're gonna have input in the process. Uh, the state archivist is going to, uh, take a very, uh, careful approach to this. The ultimate goal will be that after that, as counties submit these ideas, eventually as a state we will agree here are the standards for how we're going to digitally authenticate, uh, records. So that is the big, uh, the big picture. And happy to take questions or go in more detail if you would like.

So the, and the second substitute just takes out, there was some parts that we had in there, uh, that, uh, the title companies were uncomfortable with. We, we took those out, uh, basically to go a little bit slower in our process of, of evaluating and to make sure they were, uh, they're included in the discussions going forward.

So, yeah. I got a quick question. Yeah. So, so is this pertaining to, I, I, I recognize you're kind of trying to deal with coordinations as they, as they come from the title company. But what if somebody's wanting to record a plat map? So that's one of the things we talked about that maybe that is an, uh, one of the first things that they could, uh, address. 'cause sometimes the the notary st what you Mean one of the first things they could address? You mean that this is gonna slow up the process? Because, so the, the, we had went through a great deal of effort to get county recorders to accept digital, uh, plat maps so that you didn't have to go through this whole li r or what do they call 'em? Mylar. Mylar. Correct. It's late process. So help me out. So

You can still do everything you can today, but today you have to have those, the digital version remotely notarized. Correct? Right. Okay.

And this would eventually replace that remote notarization process with, uh, a digital authentication. Uh, okay. Eventually. So help me out with eventually, so

What has to happen is let, let's say we want to say how can we accept digital subdivision plats and make sure that the person submitting them is who they say they are and that they are authentic. There will be a proposal that goes to the state archivist brought, brought by a county to say, this is how we think this is the best way we think to authenticate, uh, the submission of a digital plat. Okay. That is better than the remote notary process we use today. Okay. But we don't know what that process is. We're just gonna let that play out. Well, We, we, there there are a, a couple of different options. We didn't want to specify them. We believe That. So is this almost like a pilot program? What you're doing? Yeah. Yeah. This is like a, a process to, we we're going to, uh, uh, I'm not sure if you heard it, I don't think you heard it. Uh, but there's a state endorsed digital identity bill where we're gonna have state endorsed digital credentials that will securely authenticate an individual. Mm-hmm. Uh, there are also very secure ways of authenticating a document via blockchain. So it's, uh, immutable. Uh, and either of those could be, uh, appropriate. We haven't decided the right way to do this. The idea is that this is a county function. This is not a state function. So the county is gonna bring this, uh, proposal to the state archivists and to DTS and with industry input. And, uh, if, if it's approved, then, then it would go through process and they could digitally authenticate documents such as plat maps.

Okay. So I I I know it's the last bill and, but I gotta be clear on a couple things. So absolutely. One of the problems with the original, just getting counties to move from Mylar to digital documents was every, every local county recorder about just about had lost their minds. 'cause they weren't, they weren't set up to do it. So if we have this system that is let, let's say what rises to the top as one particular system, are we going to then say, that is the system. We are going to do that one statewide. And how, if so, tell me how that lands in San Juan County.

Yes. So To be very clear, there is no requirement to take digital records for county recorders. County recorders do not, are not forced to. This is just optional. And the ones who have expressed interest are those along the Wasatch front that do higher volumes of recording of documents. Okay. Uh, but there is, we make it very clear it's here. It's also in a couple of other places that we are not eliminating paper, uh, recording. You can keep that. But there may be some of the counties that county court say we're doing 80% of our documents are now digital anyway, but they're using a DA remote notary, uh, format mm-hmm. For authenticating the document. And there may be more efficient, more secure ways to do that. Uh, we believe there are.

Okay. Last two questions. Sounds like you have the, the Utah Land Tunnel Association on board with your last set As much as you. What does that mean? Well,

I, I I don't know if they're here to speak against It. They're not here. Clearly. They, they came and spoke against it the first time. They wrote me two letters. We incorporated a number of things. If they're not here, I think that's a good sign that they're more comfortable. Okay.

I'll, and then county recorders. Have you talked to the County Recorders Association?

We're here, talked to many county recorders. Sure.

And I believe you have one online who, uh, as Jerry, uh, Alton Hilton Online?

Yes, I'm Jerry Howton. I'm the TWI County Recorder surveyor. I'm also the second Vice President for Utah, uh, Utah Association of Counties. I could tell you the recorders are, uh, in support of this bill and so are the counties we wanna move forward. We just think this is the right way to get the state involved in and set rules that we're all comfortable with. And we've, uh, representative Cutler's worked hard on this and I really appreciate his work and his, uh, drafting attorney, Scott Elder's work on this. They've been phenomenal. Um, just so you know, Senator Cullimore, Atula County, and I think up in Weber. We are taking plats digitally right now, and we're trying to get, uh, with the rest of the recorders that they will do it. But we have to start someplace. And this is the next step is, um, um, HP three 19. And I know we can do it. Yeah, we know we can work with everybody. It's been tough, but, um, Thank you Jerry. Everybody's Coming along. Appreciate

Thank you. I will. Um, I don't think there's finer people working on this than Representative Cutler and Chris Bramwell Seti, uh, and digital identification. Authentication is probably one of the most important things for the next a hundred years. Imagine going to a court to try and obtain a certified authenticated record and somebody has docket tampered and you don't know. So I can go to the health building and I can get a, a birth certificate that's on printed paper with a stamp. But when I've gone to the courts asking for verified certified videos, they can't do it. With the advent of ai, If you could wrap up and make it Sure. This isn't quite as succinct as I was hoping. Keep, keep Going. Well, very quickly. So I built the taxonomy for Utah Citizen Portal do AI and the ability to authenticate public meetings, digital documents is paramount. So please pass this forward. Uh, no. Fine. Or crew is working on it. Thank you.

Yeah. I'm Seth Stewart, representing myself from American Fork. Um, I do have some concerns that this could displace the existing authentication systems. I understand that it would exist in parallel with paper authentication. Um, but for example, uh, outsourcing to blockchains, those are vulnerable to things like 51% attacks. They are actually compute centric. And so there, there are ways that you can try to create a domestic only blockchain, but those aren't foolproof. So, um, my concern here is that by centralizing authority, even using a nominally decentralized framework, we could be inviting for an influence and also, Okay. You're gonna have to wrap it up. So those are some of my concerns. Thanks.

Yeah. Do we need to adopt the substitute second. Substitute first and then, uh, the Amendment to adopt. Second substitute

Yeah, I, I'll move to adopt the amendment.

And I'll move to pass.

Mr. Real quick? This, at first I was worried this was another, just another power grab by the state archivist. Um, but, but I was sold on it and so I support the bill.

Thanks for preventing our, our power hungry state archivist. He is, he Is very, uh, happy to help. I think this will help us move into the 21st century with di uh, digital recording. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you very much. It's great to be back in the political subdivisions committee. I I missed the great, Great to have you here representative. Great discussions that we had in the past. And so a couple of months ago, or maybe it was this summer, I had, I had occasionally attend some of the Utah Blockchain Coalition meetings. And after meeting, uh, uh, some folks there, uh, uh, one of our, one of our good county recorders, um, from Illa, uh, had a list, uh, brought to me a list of records related ideas that he thought could help us move records forward into a digital, uh, area. We, we already do accept digital records, but had a list of 15 or so different ideas, and we went over this list of ideas and some of 'em were pretty aggressive and might take a few years and cost a lot of money. But there was one idea on the list that I thought, okay, we could probably do that right now. We could start with this as a baby step. And that was, today, when you take a record to, uh, a county to be recorded, that record must be notarized. Uh, and that can be notarized. My understanding is it can be notarized physically. Uh, you can go into the bank or to somebody and get them to, to notarize it, or you can do it digitally. But it has to be, uh, authenticated that way. The concept is there are secure ways of authenticating an individual that, in my opinion, and many others' opinion, are at least as secure as getting a notary stamp from somebody. And so this bill, the intent is to say, is to open the, uh, George experimentation or a pilot program to digitally authenticate who is submitting that record to a, a county recorder and do it in a way that's secure, uh, and, uh, and, and that we know who is, who is submitting that, uh, and, and, and submit that digitally. So that was the intent behind this. And as we went through, we found a number of other things that needed to be done. My belief is that that is, it is often as we look at the fraud that we're seeing, it's very easy to, in theory, forged somebody's signature record something that you shouldn't. And as we move forward into a a digital area era, we need stronger authentication methods to ensure who is submitting, uh, a record. Uh, and, and often these records are asked to be submitted from some distance. Uh, they may not be physically at the county location when they're, uh, recording it. So this bill, the intent is to, uh, allow counties to work with the state on how to authenticate and, and, uh, uh, a record as an alternative to traditionally notarized documents. So the, as we did this, uh, like we do try to do with other, uh, of our technology bills, we try not to specify a specific, uh, technology or a specific vendor. We try to set standards and policies so that we have some flexibility as technology changes. And we set the, the priorities rather than the specific technology, rather than mentioning a specific blockchain or another way of a specific digital ledger. Uh, the intent is to keep that at a high level, allow our state archive archives who are in charge of records and records preservations to work together with the Department of Technology Services to, uh, agree on the method for authenticating this. Now, we, instead of doing a top down approach, this says, A county can bring to state archives a proposal to digitally authenticate records. The state archivist will review that proposal, will consult with Department of Technology Services on, on how this would work technically, and then respond and say, yes, we think this will work. We think this is, uh, okay. And, and if they don't, then they have to respond why they think it's, it's not a good idea. So rather than a top down state mandating, this is counties, let's hear what you have to say Now, long term, the intent is to agree on a standard way of doing this not to have 29 different ways of authenticating, uh, documents didn't pass out the handout. Yeah, go ahead. And as usual, I forgot to ask your permission and forgot that I had a handout. So long term, the intent is let's, let's have a standard, but we don't have an agreement on that standard first. So we want to hear the proposals, hear the ideas, and see if we can come to an agreeable, uh, on this. The other reason not to specify this very specific ways is later this session you'll hear, uh, a bill that suggests the implementation of a state endorsed digital identity, which we believe will be the most secure way to authenticate an individual. And since that has not been put in place, we can't reference that as one of the authentication methods. So we need to pass that first, and then we can, we can reference that as, as the appropriate, uh, uh, process. So we wanted to make it clear that the state archivists is the one who's approving it, uh, and not Department of Technology Services, so that there was not a conflict of what if they had a disagreement. So state archivists in charge, they consult with Department of Technology Services who provides input, but ultimately the state archivist, uh, has responsibility for how records are maintained in those standards, like they, like they have with, um, traditional paper records. So that is the, uh, the primary, uh, message that I wanted to provide. And I have, uh, friends here from DTS and state archives, uh, and county recorders who, uh, can answer questions that, that I may not be able to.

You bet. Uh, name is James Swan and I'm here representing the Utah Land Title Association. The ULTA. First wanna say grateful for Representative Cutler, um, is, uh, willingness to include us in the discussion, uh, and his professionalism. Also appreciate the county recorders, uh, and their professionalism for engaging with us on this topic. Um, house Bill three 19 seeks to provide an alternative to notarization for purposes of signing documents to be recorded in real estate transactions. Um, making sure that the right parties are signing in a real estate transaction is in part what title insurance companies insure, Uh, in fact, a little snippet from, uh, one of the portions of our policies. The covered risk portion we insure against any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title. Covered risk to includes, but is not limited to insurance or loss against, uh, defect in the title caused by forgery, fraud, undue influence, duress, incompetency and capacity or impersonation, uh, goes on to say we insure against, uh, loss or damage associated with a damage. Uh, a document affecting title not properly authorized, created, executed, witnessed, sealed, acknowledged, notarized, or delivered. Uh, it's worth noting that, uh, if a title insurance company is unwilling to issue title insurance policy at the closing, but the closing doesn't take place. And so, uh, it is our insurance that stands behind, uh, making sure we have the authorized signer, uh, in a transaction. Uh, our industry does not feel comfortable at this time that this bill provides an insurable method for authenticating signers of documents without more information on the details of the process, and that it is as secure, would be as secure as a notary, uh, and existing notary provisions and that are part of Utah law already. Uh, just diving into a couple of quick details, Utah Law already permits native digital documents, uh, to be recorded under your Paradise. Uh, this bill is, uh, potentially inconsistent with that existing law and, uh, creates some conflicts. Uh, there are some new definitions included in the noter statutes, but this, uh, would seem, that would seem to be incongruent with this, uh, purpose of the bill, which is to create an alternative to notary standards. Um, there's also some definitions that are tricky, uh, that are found to be tricky in jurisdictions across the United States, such as tamper evident technology. Um, not all tamper evident technology, or excuse me, block even blockchain is, is it's not always immutable as the statute, uh, calls for. And so, uh, other statutes, including uniform law commissions, revise uniform law on Ontario acts do not define tamper evident, uh, in this way as proposing this bill. Uh, so for those reasons, we can't support this at this time.

Right now, there's not enough information about whether this would be insurable. We'd have to look at a, if a document was recorded in the county recorder's office that reported a transfer title using a method that didn't involve a notary, we, we would be, um, unlikely to be insured without something that would prove to us that it met the same standard of proving the signer that the traditional notary statutes have met.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. I'm Jerry Alton. I'm the Tula County Recorder surveyor and also the second Vice President of the Utah Association of Counties. I'm here in strong support of Representative Cutler's HB three 19 electronic records amendments 'cause it gives the recorders the clear modern legal framework, which we need to receive, manage, preserve, rely on electronic records with confidence, which means faster service to the public, less paper handling risk, better continuity during outages and disasters, and a more consistent statewide approach for rerecording and long-term retention. Just as important, a secure electronic, uh, record system helps us prevent fraud instead of only reacting after the damage has occurred. And this is done by enabling stronger identity and document authentication, controls, better audit trails, and early detection of suspicious activity. I also want to sincerely thank the parties that worked on this Representative Cutler, uh, for being, uh, willing to sponsor this Senator Harper for co-sponsoring. Uh, we've worked with Chief Privacy Officer Chris Bramwell and state archivist, uh, Kanosh Williams. And then, um, actually it was interesting the drafting attorney Scott ler as to how much he was able to provide, uh, in this subject and policy analyst, Samantha Merrill, for their expertise work and help in putting this together. I urge the committee to pass HP three 19. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, Kanosh Williams, I'm the state archivist, and I just wanted to come up and provide some comments, um, from my perspective as your state archivist. And just let, I'm gonna Have you pull that mic just a little bit closer to you. Please let you know that we appreciate the, the approach that the representative has taken with drafting this bill. The, um, he's taken the approach of listening to all stakeholders and, and allowing to have us to have a voice at the, at the table. Um, this bill aligns with the current duties of the state archives. So in the bill, he's taking the approach of getting out in front of records creation, and I appreciate that, that, that we are, we are addressing a need that the county recorders have, because oftentimes, most times, the county recorders are creating those records that are permanent and will eventually end up at the state archives. And these records, uh, document the right of Utah citizens. So this authentication process is critical in the, in the records creation process. And then when we finally dispose of these records at the state archives, we can authenticate or we can be assured that these are permanent records, that they have been in the care of the records creators and then transferred to your state archives. So the process is in place currently in our division to review this type of records management and records creation policy. And then at the end of the, the lifecycle of those records, they can be disposed with confidence at the state archives and we can provide the reference services to these records.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me all right? Yes. Well, I think you've heard a lot of the great reasons why there's a for, for this bill. My name's Dakota Wirth and the Chief Deputy for the Davis County Recorder's Office. Um, and what this bill does and big things to represent public for ring the reporters and private industry into this discussion is that it starts the process to define what a digital authentication system is and what a digitally authenticated record is. And the reason why the Davis County Association of Reporters is that this begins the creation of a standard that allows us to start taking, um, electronically report documents of the future to help prevent against lead fraud and to ensure the accuracy of our, of the ownership records. So, I'll, I'll keep it brief, but I wanted to speak in support.

Is it appropriate to ask a question, either of the sponsor or any of the experts, but, um, because documents don't necessarily remain in permanent repository, right? They're, um, commonly replicated or transferred transmitted between agencies. Um, my question is when some counties are early adopters or do, um, choose to innovate and accept digitally authenticated documents, um, but others don't, um, are there any foreseeable issues that may arise due to the inconsistency in practice?

That makes sense. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to give, um, the sponsor a chance to respond to some of the concerns that were raised by the land and title. I'd be interested in his thoughts On that. Thank you very much for that opportunity.

I think the, uh, as we met with the title companies, uh, last week and have had ongoing, they've raised a number of issues. Well, what if this happened? What if that happened? What, what are the possibilities that could happen as we move towards more digital records and especially digital authentication? I think some of those are real concerns. The, uh, I think especially obviously we need it for, this is intended to cover more than just real estate records, but the, if, if we're doing a real estate transaction, it needs to be insurable. And I'd be happy to, um, see if we could put some language in here that would say, before approving, you know, the digital authentication methods, they could verify that this is a, uh, I'm not sure what the language would be, but that it's insurable. Or we could meet with the title companies and discuss that if, if they have some ideas on how the, the intent is not to try to do something without their involvement or not insurable records. But we just didn't have any suggestions on how to do that. Um, and I think we want to, I'm very hesitant to try to specify the exact method of authentication in state code as opposed to, uh, have that reviewed and, and, and agree to it in a rule, because over time that authentication methods may, may change. Uh, I think we're all aware of that, but I'm happy to work with them to try to find some language that, uh, would, would make them feel like we're not going to do this without you reviewing it. However, I, I think the idea that we're just never gonna change and we're not going forward with digital records is not realistic. We have digital records. It's moving forward. Many other counties and, uh, recorders around the nation are coming up with various ways to combat fraud by, uh, biometrics, uh, other digital authentication methods to try to combat fraud and to, to just say we're not gonna do anything is not, uh, the right strategy going forward.

Thank you. I, I'd like to make a motion that's an order. Go Ahead. I'd like to make a motion that we favorably recommend House Bill three 19, and I'd like to speak to that.

Um, so in my mind, this bill is, is a, almost like a pilot. It's a process bill. It's, it's a, let's, let's have a conversation about, um, with our counties who are the experts and our state archivists and, and say, let's figure out where we can start to do this, right? And, and, um, it is going to be a learning process, and the bill contemplates that, that this is going to be a learning process. I think that, um, uh, as to the concerns that were raised specifically from the title folks, um, I feel like a, a, an amendment before the floor that did something, um, probably around the part where you talk about line 89 through 98, where you talk about before a county submits a proposal to the state archivist, I mean, some sort of contemplation there, that in that part of that proposal, they have to make sure that they're not, um, creating some sort of, um, issues, you know, for their constituents or for, for property owners in their area. I think that could easily be incorporated and, and hopefully, um, resolve some of those concerns. So with that, I feel comfortable moving the bill forward. And I think, um, I think it's, you're right, we're, we have to get there. Like, and so maybe this is a way to start saying, okay, the counties that are willing can start to try a few things and, and we'll work and we'll learn and, and then we'll figure out how we can do this more broadly. But it, it lets those counties that are in this space where they're ready to, to start moving this direction, a little flexibility to start thinking about that. So that's my motion.

Thank you, chair. I would like to speak in favor of this motion. Um, I had the same thought as the good Representative Abbott, this being a, a process bill, I also, the, the word that keeps coming to my mind is additive. Um, I understand the, the concerns that were raised, and I think they're very valid, but they're also, um, able to be addressed by the, the current process. Someone can still have a, a document notarized. This is just adding in an alternative, um, that I think is moving us forward. And for that reason, I would, I would support this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I also support the motion to favorably recommend, uh, I said as the co-chair of the blockchain digital innovation task force for three years. And we, uh, talked about this very idea and wanting to move it forward. So I applaud the good sponsor in, in, you know, taking the, the bull by the horns and finding out an elegant solution that, that doesn't force us down in an alley, but allows us to be able to innovate and to try things out and, um, and, and take advantage of the, the great opportunities that this technology brings. Um, I, I found, uh, as, as I think we heard from, from both the good representatives before me, that sometimes, especially in this space, with new technology, that you have to dip your toe in the water in order to get all of the stakeholders to the table and figure out what the problems are. And so I think by allowing this alternative path and giving some space for our counties and recorders to be able to operate in the space is a really good idea. And I just really appreciate the great work that's been done here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the bill that is coming through I, or, or, or this discussion, um, and agree that it does seem like a process bill at the moment. I, I still have concerns about things like oversight for the, for, for all of this as well. I mean, as much as we have, um, uh, these great ideas, I, I don't want to just blindly go in and think, yeah, we're gonna, everything's gonna be just fine, and that there couldn't be any issues. Um, if you can't tell, I already have trust issues. And so, um, I will, I will just hold off on that for now.

Well, I think that's why it's important that during this process we, we discuss the various options and fi find something that will work with the title companies, which I think is the intent of the process. Uh, if you have suggestions on how to do that, I'm open to them. We've asked for those suggestions.

Have you met with the title companies? Yes. And, And, and that this, I don't think that specific issue was raised in our first meeting. It was raised today for, for the first time, but I think it's a very valid issue and, and we should discuss it.

Uh, I, I appreciate, uh, the, the, the support. I think this allows us to take baby steps forward with a lot of guardrails and training wheels. And, uh, we have a lot, I have a lot of trust in our state archivists and our, uh, that they will not approve a mechanism that that is not feasible. Uh, but we must move forward. We must start this process and, and go down the road and find, because we, we can't find what doesn't work unless we start this. And I'm, I'm optimistic that we can find a good solution that will work for everyone. And if, if we have to, and I'm happy, I'll, I'll, I'll meet with the title companies again if they're willing. I would, I hope they are. And we can, and the recorders and the archivists, and see if we can come up with some language that we would put in that approval process to ensure that they're included in reviewing the approval process.

Madam Reading Clerk House Bill three 19 Electronic records, amendment amendments by Senate Representative Color. This bill was heard in political subdivisions with the vote of 9 1 2

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would move to adopt, uh, sub, I thought it was three, but I guess it's sub one. First substitute.

I would like to speak to that motion. Yes, I would. Thank you.

We had a great discussion in, in committee and some of the title companies expressed, uh, the, some concern and they'd like a little bit more input in the process regarding digital records and authentication of, uh, individuals who submit digital records. So we modified the bill to, uh, make sure that there we, that there was consultation with industry, with title company, uh, a board specifically, and we added an extra step with additional public input that title companies could provide input, uh, during that process. And I'm also pleased to tell you that the fiscal note for sub three was just approved.

I'll waive Motion has been

like to move amendment one to, to, uh, sub one in my name and speak to that.

So the, the tax commission digitally authenticates people when they submit their tax returns and they wanted just to add one small phrase in there to make sure that people weren't confused about, uh, this bill, which deals with county land records and has nothing to do with tax records. So this amendment says, unless otherwise prohibited by law, the, obviously the tax commission does not share their records with the state archivists like county recorders do with their records. So this just makes it a little bit cleaner that this has nothing to do with tax records.

No thank you. Run place the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased. So the purpose of, uh, HB three 19 is to set up a framework or guidelines for counties to, uh, accept digitally authenticated records as an alternative to the traditional method of putting a notary, uh, stamp on a, uh, paper record or, or other, uh, records that are submitted within, uh, notary. The history of this is, uh, in, we worked with the Blockchain coalition and other folks who want to move forward as, as, as we need to move more and more to the digital age. And we thought, what's the absolute, very minimal step we could take towards digital authentication of individuals who submit records or entities. And, uh, we realized, okay, we need a very clear process on how somebody, uh, will do this. So the process is this. A county who controls land records and does most of the records, they, they submit a proposal to the state archivist, then the state archivist will, uh, and as part of submitting that proposal, there's a whole list of things they have to consider the security, uh, uh, of the approach, how things are authenticated to make sure it meets or exceeds current requirements to make sure we're doing, we're moving forward to eliminate any type of frauds in, in, in record. The state archivist consults with, uh, department of Technology Services, DC uh, DTS on security standards, on feasibility of this digital authentication. They confirm there's an audit trail and that other security safeguards are in place. And if that happens, then they take that proposal to the state records committee to verify, Hey, we've crossed all the T's and dotted all the i's, we think this is more secure than the process we have today. And then that could be, uh, approved. But so this bill doesn't approve any digital records, it just sets the process of how we would approve, uh, authentication in the future for digital records and gives everybody a seat at the table to make sure we're doing it right.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor yield

I would love to, yes. Representative Albrecht,

Just to verify this is opt-in only, correct?

Absolutely, yes. There are absolutely no requirements and in fact, the bill prohibits, uh, county recorders from going digital only. So paper records, traditional records, are still, uh, allowed and mandated. The county records or the county optionally can consider a different way that might be more secure to accept records.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, will the sponsor yield to a question?

Representative Keller will yield,

You, Mr. Speaker. I received an email from a constituent with a title company a few days back, and they were very concerned on some issues with this bill. I just wanna verify that you did in fact, the speaker work with these title companies to get all of their concerns addressed.

Thank you for the question and the opportunity to clarify. We invited title companies to meet twice. We, we met with them. We listened to concerns. We, the, the first sub is in response to the title companies to make sure they have input in the process. We remove some lines that they were concerned about. So we feel like, uh, this gives them a voice and that we've listened to their concerns and the county recorders also agreed that some of their concerns were valid.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill sets up a process to make sure as we move to digital authentication, that it's done in a safe, secure way. Uh, that as we move forward with, uh, um, uh, verification to try to combat the frauds, we see that we potentially see in this age of AI that we have the right process to ensure that our records are protected and that we do this in a, uh, open public, uh, process. And I believe this will improve efficiencies and, uh, improve security for digital records in the future and urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would move to adopt, uh, sub, I thought it was three, but I guess it's sub one. First substitute.

I would like to speak to that motion. Yes, I would. Thank you. We had a great discussion in, in committee and some of the title companies expressed, uh, the, some concern and they'd like a little bit more input in the process regarding digital records and authentication of, uh, individuals who submit digital records. So we modified the bill to, uh, make sure that there we, that there was consultation with industry, with title company, uh, a board specifically, and we added an extra step with additional public input that title companies could provide input, uh, during that process. And I'm also pleased to tell you that the fiscal note for sub three was just approved.

like to move amendment one to, to, uh, sub one in my name and speak to that. Yeah, that motion's always, always I speak To it. Yes. So the, the tax commission digitally authenticates people when they submit their tax returns and they wanted just to add one small phrase in there to make sure that people weren't confused about, uh, this bill, which deals with county land records and has nothing to do with tax records. So this amendment says, unless otherwise prohibited by law, the, obviously the tax commission does not share their records with the state archivists like county recorders do with their records. So this just makes it a little bit cleaner that this has nothing to do with tax records.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased. So the purpose of, uh, HB three 19 is to set up a framework or guidelines for counties to, uh, accept digitally authenticated records as an alternative to the traditional method of putting a notary, uh, stamp on a, uh, paper record or, or other, uh, records that are submitted within, uh, notary. The history of this is, uh, in, we worked with the Blockchain coalition and other folks who want to move forward as, as, as we need to move more and more to the digital age. And we thought, what's the absolute, very minimal step we could take towards digital authentication of individuals who submit records or entities. And, uh, we realized, okay, we need a very clear process on how somebody, uh, will do this. So the process is this. A county who controls land records and does most of the records, they, they submit a proposal to the state archivist, then the state archivist will, uh, and as part of submitting that proposal, there's a whole list of things they have to consider the security, uh, uh, of the approach, how things are authenticated to make sure it meets or exceeds current requirements to make sure we're doing, we're moving forward to eliminate any type of frauds in, in, in record. The state archivist consults with, uh, department of Technology Services, DC uh, DTS on security standards, on feasibility of this digital authentication. They confirm there's an audit trail and that other security safeguards are in place. And if that happens, then they take that proposal to the state records committee to verify, Hey, we've crossed all the T's and dotted all the i's, we think this is more secure than the process we have today. And then that could be, uh, approved. But so this bill doesn't approve any digital records, it just sets the process of how we would approve, uh, authentication in the future for digital records and gives everybody a seat at the table to make sure we're doing it right.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor yield Representative Cutler, will you yield?

I would love to, yes. Representative Albrecht,

Just to verify this is opt-in only, correct?

Absolutely, yes. There are absolutely no requirements and in fact, the bill prohibits, uh, county recorders from going digital only. So paper records, traditional records, are still, uh, allowed and mandated. The county records or the county optionally can consider a different way that might be more secure to accept records.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, will the sponsor yield to a question?

Representative Keller will yield, yes. Representative Shepherd. Thank

You, Mr. Speaker. I received an email from a constituent with a title company a few days back, and they were very concerned on some issues with this bill. I just wanna verify that you did in fact, the speaker work with these title companies to get all of their concerns addressed.

Thank you for the question and the opportunity to clarify. We invited title companies to meet twice. We, we met with them. We listened to concerns. We, the, the first sub is in response to the title companies to make sure they have input in the process. We remove some lines that they were concerned about. So we feel like, uh, this gives them a voice and that we've listened to their concerns and the county recorders also agreed that some of their concerns were valid.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill sets up a process to make sure as we move to digital authentication, that it's done in a safe, secure way. Uh, that as we move forward with, uh, um, uh, verification to try to combat the frauds, we see that we potentially see in this age of AI that we have the right process to ensure that our records are protected and that we do this in a, uh, open public, uh, process. And I believe this will improve efficiencies and, uh, improve security for digital records in the future and urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, there's more and more, uh, items that are being, uh, notarized and processed electronically. The counties are receiving re uh, requests to go and record things, uh, um, electronically in the county recorder's office and other places. This, uh, bill goes through and authorizes, uh, digital identification of records. Establish a process for going through and verifying that those are correct. Um, requires the state archives to go through and, uh, review the different processes before they're implemented in the counties to make sure that they're uniform, they can be recorded and the records, uh, permanently maintained. And then it is technology neutral and make sure that the counties understand the processes, get approvals before they implement it. So everything is done in order.

Thank you. I'd move under suspension of the rules that second substitute house bill three 19 pass.

Senator Spery Lewin Bremmer Bus Comore es Camia Fillmore Grover Harper Aye. Kins Ipson Aye. Johnson Quan McKay. Mikel Milner Aye. Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebi Plum Aye. Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vicars Weiler Wilson Winterton. President Adams

Aye. Second

Thank you Mr. President. Um, house Bill 1 76 adds uh, exemptions to the definition and code seven dash five dash 1 0 1. Uh, these, these terms are defined. Trust director, trust protector, trust advisor, surrogate and Guardian. And to clarify that this section does not apply

Thank you representative. That motion is ordered as I speak to it. Uh, we, we We adopted a uh, uh, sub committee that made some improvements to the bill, made the title companies happy and that carried over through the Senate.