H.B. 540 Judicial Transparency and Information Access Amendments: transcript

Waste your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee for allowing me to present to you today. Um, I, I would start with, with saying we, we've put a lot of work into this bill with, with lots of different people. Um, the people of Utah deserve transparency and accountability from all branches of, of government. Within this bill, there's four key, um, items or changes that we're looking to make. The first would require, um, there to the, the judiciary to create and maintain a single online access point for all public records that's ably, searchable and free for up to 50 searches. The second piece is to make court audio recordings free and accessible to the public as well. Those kind of go together a little bit. The the next one is that it would direct the, the Judicial Council to create a rule on judicial financial disclosure, similar to, um, those made by elected officials currently. And then the last piece is, is one that would prohibit a law firm who is engaged in litigation against the state. From hiring a former judge until two years after that judge leaves, leaves the bench. Um, a a little more introduction into this. I, I firmly believe, and I've told people that in the state we, um, deserve and, and should be able to have the best judiciary in the nation. I, I think we're very capable of that, especially with the people that we have in our state and independent judiciary. And the, the rule of law are essential. And this matters deeply to the people of, of Utah. I I also think it's our shared responsibility to improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence to the people that we serve. Uh, I think the strengthens our, our branch, it strengthen strengthens the judiciary branch and the people rely on on this. We have been working very closely with the courts on this bill. They have been great partners to work with. Um, and we have made several changes along the process. Um, I want to talk maybe a little more in depth about the different areas. And the first two were the, the access to records and the audio piece. Um, judges are supposed to be accountable to voters through retention elections, but online access to those records, um, require a payment and are not very easily accessible. For example, the court database exchange doesn't allow you to search cases by a judge. It makes it very difficult for members of the public to learn anything about how judges on their ballot are ruling. Contrast that with the legislature's website, where every committee hearing every motion, every video is live streamed, recorded, and made freely available to the public. This bill addresses this by requiring that, uh, a website be created and, and maintained for access to those records where the audio stream would be available as well. We do understand that there are, and, and reasonably so should be some content or some, some filters along that audio stream. Mm-hmm. Access to everything we understand creates a little bit of a problem. Um, and then on, on the third piece, the disclosure piece. A few years ago, the Center for Public Integrity ranked Utah last in the country for, for judicial financial disclosures. Currently, judges aren't required to disclose, um, gifts, business interests, liabilities, investments, all those different things. Utah is one of two states in the nation that currently don't require it. State Supreme Court justices to file disclosures. So this bill directly, um, or it directs the judicial council to establish a rule for annual financial disclosures by, by these judicial officers. And then the last piece is the, the cooling off period. We have a little bit of a problem with justices who retire from the bench and then immediately go and to, to law firms that are currently involved in, in some of the state's biggest lawsuits. Um, some of these lawsuits include, um, women's sports, the Vaping Association, the App Store Accountability. Uh, Utah fits all redistricting and abortion cases. The governor, um, legislators and other state officials are subject to a cooling off period after they leave office and before they can engage in lobbying. I think it's more than appropriate for former judges and justices to have a similar cooling off period. Um, I, I know that this is a big topic and it's a lot of, of, it gets a lot of people together, and I am actively and, and more than willing to keep having these conversations. I think we've come to a good point. We've, we've had a lot of really good conversations and have some things that we, we plan on working on, on this. I, um, would probably just leave it my presentation at, at that and, uh, and answer any questions that the committee has. If, if there are any.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my, uh, questions regarding the cooling off period. Um, are there any specific instances, uh, where, um, a judge or justice, um, re well, you retired and then went into private practice and then immediately litigated on a case that they presided over? Do you have any instances of that? So, so right now the, the, the piece that I have is, is right now four, we have four, um, that were involved in those cases. I, I, I'm not exactly sure. Um, and, and so I just wanna drill down on, on the purpose of the policy. Um, is, is the concern here on the cooling off period that there's a conflict of interest of personal knowledge that, uh, the justices or judge would have in a particular case? Or is it that we just don't want that kind of talent working against the government? I, I, I think a lot of it is that, um, immediately after joining these firms and, and bringing raking in money, um, on cases that are directly suing the state that maybe they were involved with before. Okay. So, so it is a conflict of interest concern, correct. Would there be a way to, to, to remedy this as, as opposed to trying to control where someone can, can work? We can, we can craft this statute just to prevent, um, uh, the conflict of interest and, and provide for Recusals. I think there's an avenue for that. Yeah. I, I, I've been with, within our conversations with the court and, and, and others, there, um, may be an appetite to have some kind of a rule and this has been talked about previously before this and, and so I, I think that that would be an avenue to address that as well, potentially. Alright, thank you. Yeah,

Thank you. I really like this, um, very creative approach I hadn't considered. Um, do you know if any other states currently have that audio and access to records that you're describing? Um, I, I mean, we, I don't know exactly states. I, I know it's been done and I, I don't know like the number of states that have, have been using this. Um, really the idea we at, within the legislature, we get praise often on, on our website as far as like the accessibility and things. And we think we do really good at that and, and can transfer this over and, and there's been some conversations within the court that we could work with them directly to, to do that. As far as other states, I don't know exactly which other states are doing pieces of this, but I think we would lead out on, on a lot of this, combining it together. Okay. And then, um, on the financial disclosure, would it be very similar to our financial disclosure? Is it pretty much the same? So that would be the idea. When, when we started having these conversations, we were pretty specific as far as what we wanted on that. And within that conversation realized that it, this might be a good avenue for, um, a rule creating to be made within the court. And, and they have signaled that they were open to finding a solution that made as much accessible as possible while keeping in mind that there are some things that, that might differ a bit. Okay. And then, um, I just think it would really help these ideas with the retention election issue, for example. And I, I do, I do love how people can access everything that we do up here other than, uh, maybe caucus meetings, but I mean, they have access to everything that's said in committee, everything that, you know, and so people can really see how we arrived at a decision, for example. And sometimes when you hear that audio, um, it would really help to understand. So I can see a real purpose for this and thank you.

Yeah, we've, we've been, I mean, made aware of that and obviously aren't, aren't, um, opposed to that. I think it's important because it protects, um, a, a very vulnerable population. We, I mean, just this morning we, we found, we had an initial draft that included those pieces in there and, and we're gonna get that and put it back in a sub that we're currently working on. So, so we, and that was directly with the courts and the bar and different things that we've talked about that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And don't worry about it. I was just, uh, thinking through my questions as you were talking deep thought, keep Thought. Um, my, my question for you, uh, I've got a will it, it will be okay, Mr. Chair if I ask a couple questions. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, that was a really good ventriloquist type thing. I was also in deep thought. So, um, I I, I'm familiar with Utah Constitution that allows the legislature to be able to have some shared overlap with the judiciary on rules of civil procedure and evidence. But when it comes to the practice of law and regulating that, uh, the Constitution is pretty clear that that's like the purview of the Supreme Court, um, with this section, um, uh, well before even that. And so the Supreme Court we have as attorneys, we have the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct that we have to abide by, which has a lot of rules about conflicts of interest. Um, and specifically in situations like this, if I was in, uh, joining a law firm and I had a conflict with somebody that they were suing, that law firm would have requirements to put like certain firewalls in place. So that way I'm not talking to anybody, uh, that's part of the case sharing information and vice versa. So that way, um, if that happens, that could be grounds, um, uh, for penalties against the firm and also like removal from the case. So, uh, there's, there's already these rules that are kind of in place. I'm kind of curious to know, uh, what your thoughts are about the one enforceability of a provision like this. And two, um, you had mentioned that the combination, uh, or the correlation to like lobbyists where a legislator is at on a cooling off period for one year, but this one has like a two year cooling off period. So I'm kind of curious what the difference, why not just a one year, why going for a full two?

Yeah, I, I think it was just a matter of, of finding a, a number and I'm not set on that number specifically. I, I, I do think that is, you mentioned the judicial council making rules, and I, I do think that there's a, a, a very important piece to that as far as that's when we backed off the, um, the disclosures and asked that, that, that be made through the judicial council. I also think, like mentioned before, that there is an avenue for that on the cooling off period as well, that we might look into that and, and find an avenue for a rule of some kind on, on a cooling off period that fits within that, I guess council's rulemaking authority.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members. My name's Michael Drexel. I'm the assistant state court administrator. I wanna start by saying what a pleasure it has been to get to know Representative Monson. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to work on a project with him, and the conversations have been good and they have been productive. And, um, he's been very responsive and open to our ideas and suggestions and feedback and that some of the issues in the bill that we had some concerns with you, you have talked about here today. And, and Representative Monson acknowledged those and he's pivoted, um, to accommodate some of those things and has expressed a willingness to continue to do so. I don't normally come here to testify and tell you what you should feel, but I really think you should feel proud of the work that the judiciary does, the, the, the work that judges are doing in courtrooms every day around the state and the way in which they do. So, um, I know that you hear concerns from your constituents, um, and often it's driven by the, the cases where people are the least satisfied and the most frustrated with how court proceedings are unfolding. But judges are dedicated, diligent servants, public servants, who are trying their best to apply the law as you create it in the vast majority of cases all around the state. And they are subject to stringent, um, dis uh, conflict of interest and, um, other rules that would prevent them professionally in their obligation from, you know, uh, operating in a space where there's financial incentive for them to rule in a case in a way that's different or contrary to the law or in their own self-interest. That's in the code of judicial conduct. Uh, you can look at it, it's Rule two 11, but at the end of the day, working with Representative Monson to find a balance to bring forth to the public more readily, the information about how the work unfolds in courts is something that I think we would be super willing to lean into. Um, there are some issues that were talked about today in terms of, uh, chair clancy's observation about the private and sensitive nature of a lot of things that unfold. And, uh, Representative Monson has acknowledged that and agreed to put some language in a future version of the bill to try and try and try and deal with that. So, uh, I'm not in a position to speak, uh, on a position for the legislation today, 'cause it just was, uh, numbered on Wednesday, and we haven't had a chance to establish that. But I like the direction in the conversation in his willingness to work with us and we're willing to work with him. So thank you very much.

Good, Mor. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Kim Cordova and I am president of the Utah State Bar. My position is elected, um, statewide. Um, and so we are in opposition to the bill as it is written right now, um, and the issues that we see about, um, we understand that transparency is essential to democracy, but it must not come at the expense of fairness. When people come to court, it's usually one of the biggest events in their life. Um, it divorce, child custody, employment issues, evictions, guardianships, um, contracts, accusing being accused of a crime or being a witness or a victim in a crime. And these are vulnerable people. This is, this is a v vulnerable time in their lives. And for it to be live streamed, especially when we're dealing with very serious and private issues, then that is a concern for, um, lawyers in the state. It could, um, prevent people from coming forward. It could prevent people from wanting to come to court. There's intimidation, there's safety concerns. And also, as the bill is written, includes juvenile court and so juveniles and their families and, and child welfare and dependency and delinquency matters would come to court and have people in their public, um, in their communities, in their schools, um, have complete access to the very private, um, issues that are coming before the courts. And so, um, and so while we are hopeful that there's more discussion and safeguards put in, it's the privacy issues of our citizens that we are most concerned about in very vulnerable and private areas, and getting to how judges' role can be in their written opinions, the pleadings, a lot of what we do is written down and are made part of the record of the court. And so there are ways to get that. And just really quickly on the cooling off period, um, we do fear that it, it goes into the regulation of the practice of law. There is, or there are already rules in the professional conduct about this type of issue about not letting people, um, judges and justices work on cases if they go to a law firm and also in the judicial canons. Thank you.

Um, representative Motson has also been great to work with on the issues that we've worked with him on, and, uh, but as was mentioned, this bill came out recently, so we haven't had a chance to go into detail or make contact with him, so I apologize. Uh, Steve Burton with the Utah Defense Attorney Association, and I'm not necessarily taking position, uh, for or against, I would like to bring up some additional issues, uh, in the defense case. Uh, when somebody's accused of a crime, my clients often say, when am I going to be able to speak with a judge? I want to have my day in court. I need to tell my side of the story. And I will tell you, 99.9% of the time, my advice is, you can't do it yet. Your day is when you go to trial. And they say, when's that? Well, it's probably nine months from now. And so they go to court proceeding after court proceeding. Um, and oftentimes, uh, bad stuff is said about them, and they don't have an opportunity to reply because it's not their day in trial yet. And so I am concerned that all of these proceedings that will be happening kind of along the way, um, people may think that that is the definitive, uh, information in the case, and they don't hear the defendant responding. So they think that some kind of, it's some kind of, uh, acquiescence to that. And, and so I'm concerned that, that making these, um, as easily acceptable as, or, uh, accessible as possible, um, may well, it will allow people who don't understand the process to misunderstand it and then publish that information far and wide. Um, when a bill came up maybe six or seven years ago to allow access to exchange for a small fee, um, I was, I was able to show lots of legislators the types of things that people could find on exchange for their names, uh, things like debt collection cases, traffic offenses. Um, and so now when those things become accessible, there may be lots of cases for, for everyone that people can look up just on a whim and then misunderstand it and publish it as truth or as meaning something that it doesn't mean. So I'm very concerned that there may be a, uh, a use of that information in inappropriate and, um, incorrect ways.

No, I just, just checked and it's not there yet, but it will be there. You're Working on. Okay, got

Thank you. Um, I would move that we favorably recommend HB five 40 judicial transparency, information access, and transition amendments.

I'll, I I think a lot has been said. I think that the sponsor has indicated he will continue to listen to all parties as we move forward. There's cl clearly going to be a lot of time between the vote today and when this is heard on the floor, and so there will be time for further discussions, but I think the bill is in a good place. I think it's needed. I think we've all seen that the lack of transparency can cause a lot of issues. And, and so, um, I would just motion that we favorably recommend

I, I appreciate the motion and, and like mentioned, I am, I am committed to making sure that we, um, find some balance on this. This is an important topic that, that I think, um, impacts every Utah, Utah in one way or the other. I, I really do believe we have the potential to do something that will be very impactful to everyone involved. Whether it's those that are, are, are simply looking to vote on a retention election, or whether it's those that are, are impacted in the courts one way or the other. I am committed to working with those involved. And, and we'll make sure that we find a, a balanced way to make sure that this is, um, transparent, but also protecting the, the information that we need to.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. So I will be voting against this bill, but I do think it raises some very good issues. What I would like to see is for the courts over the next year to look at these issues and to suggest rules or even make rules on their own that address a lot of the issues in this bill. I think the courts are behind the ball on a lot of these transparency issues. It's excessively hard to get transcripts of proceedings. Um, they still prohibit, uh, spectators or participants from do making their own recordings of court proceedings, which is silly because it's so easy now, and I've never really understood why that's seen as wrong. Um, but there's a lot of issues that I think the courts could improve on substantially here. And I think this bill shows the frustration of not only the legislature, but many members of the public, that the courts are so slow to adopt some of these issues that would make them more transparent. But at the end of the day, I think the courts should do this rather than the legislature. So that's why I'm voting No.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm gonna make a substitute motion if that's an order.

Um, I want to, I move that we hold the bill. Um, I'm not there yet. I think that, I think that the purpose behind the bill is, is solid. Um, I think that we can get there, um, with the, with some more, um, discussion. But I, the way that the bill sits right now, I'm gonna vote no, and I don't want to vote no to kill it, but I'd rather like hold it so that we can continue to work on it and, and not have to sub on the floor, but rather do the work here in the committee and then, and then move it out favorably at that point. So, Thank you, Representative Hawkins.

Yeah, I, I appreciate the thought behind that and, and understand it. I, um, I, I worry a little bit where we're at in the session as far as getting, getting these kinds of things to where we need to be able to actually vote on them. Um, so, so I suppose I would oppose the bill, but understand the thought or, or the motion, but understand the thought behind it. And, and I'm willing to work however this goes to, to make sure that we find balance.

I would resist that motion, but I appreciate the, the, um, tenor and the meaning behind it.

Thank you.

Move that or you wanna tell us what it is? Yeah, I can tell you first for sure. So, um, the difference in the second sub and the first sub is, is really one big thing. So we had in there a cooling off period for judges. We've taken that out of the, of the sub, um, with working with the courts directly. That was something that we worked with them on and, and found some, some space to work. So that's removed from the sub. I just have to get just like, Okay, that's the difference. That's the big difference. So tell Us about the bulk Of the bill. Okay, so then the rest of the bill, um, does a, a couple different things. So there's an audio piece to the bill as far as streaming audio. And this is not a live stream. That's what we started with when we first started the bill. In the second sub, what we're doing is we're making freely available at an expedited pace, the audio to the court for the parties in the case. Um, it's only the parties in the case, everyone else will follow the same process where they can ask for the audio, they can pay for that. Um, but that's where we fo where we fail. When we were talking with the courts and, and others involved with the stakeholders, uh, we felt that that was a, a, a good move in the right direction, but didn't jeopardize the, um, issues of, um, witnesses or the, the issues that were being involved in the cases. We, we came to the conclusion that that was a, a good step in the right direction. And then the other thing that the bill does is it asks the judicial council to create a rule for financial disclosures for the courts, for the judges. Um, that was something that we were, we, we wanted in the original and that has kind of staged throughout the thing. The courts have been very good to work with. As far as where we're at on this bill, it has come a long ways and we've done lots of different things, but the three main things that it does again, is it gives the audio to the parties in the case it asks them to create a rule on financial disclosures. And then it, um, what was the other piece? Takes out the cooling off period and, um, I think that's all, oh, the big thing I'm missing, the big thing in here, we are creating a website for, um, when we ask the general public in elections to vote on retention elections for judges, we kind of give them nothing to go off of as far as where they can go to like look up some things on the judges, find rulings on cases, nothing that goes in depth to the court cases, but gives them information on how they could potentially, not how they can vote, but helps them have in information to, to vote on, on those retention elections. So the court's gonna create a website, um, where they can go in and search those things up to 50 k up, up to 50 searches for free. And then after that it will charge on their current fee schedule that they have. So those are the, those are the things that it does.

Yeah, a couple of questions if I could. Um, I noticed first off, lemme just note kinda address because kind of this heightened sense of awareness about fiscal notes. I noticed the original bill had a big fiscal note if there wasn't a fiscal note on the first sub. Uh, are you fam familiar with a couple of questions? I guess what you have any kind of estimation what the fiscal note will be on the second sub and if it's funded in the budget?

So the, the, the big fiscal note on the original was because we were gonna livestream audio and that, that's where a bulk of the, the cost for that came from. 'cause we'd have to do a lot of different things. The the, the cost will come down. And the other thing is we were gonna waive all the fees. So waiving all the fees meant that we would have to take on those, that that part of the budget. Um, it, it will, it is funded. Um, it'll come down. I, I would say significantly, but it's gonna still be a, a decent fiscal note because we're, we're looking at kind of increasing what they're currently doing.

I think, I guess the next question, 'cause I'm a little naive when it comes to the courts and things. So is there are currently those proceedings recorded, are they being recorded currently

To, to a degree, yes. There, there's, there's recordings and, and transcripts available. Um, people can go in and request those. Currently they have to pay a fee and it sometimes takes a very long time for them to get those. So, and this would open that up then To the parties in the case.

The parties in the case. Right. Okay. Alright, thanks. Yep.

Yeah, thank you. The question I, the question I had is you took out the language on the cooling off period and, and as lawmakers, we have a year cooling off if we want to get back into state government in certain regard. Um, I actually liked that language. Um, I've been frustrated. I'll just, I'll just state it here. I've been frustrated to see, um, at least two members of our Supreme Court leave the court then sue the state of Utah. I think it's a really, I just wanna make sure I put this on the record. I think it's a really bad look. I think it's inappropriate. Um, and there are at least two, two members of a certain firm and, and they're, they'll probably see this hearing 'cause they're gonna watch, watch this. But I think it's really inappropriate for two justices of our Supreme Court to leave the Supreme Court then immediately engage in litigation against the state of Utah. Is there a reason we took that language out? We, we, we, we live by a, a higher standard as lawmakers. We do that and I I fully expect judges to live by a higher standard is so what what's the reason we took that coin off period out?

Yeah. So within our, that, that was, I mean there was a couple different big issues. The first one was the audio piece. People were really concerned about that. So we, we worked on that and adjusted that. And the second one was this cooling off period. And I wouldn't say that it was that there was a lot of, um, a, a lot of folks against it necessarily. It was more process. So between, in between our conversations, the, um, the courts have actually published draft language on their site that they've created a rule for this on their, on their own. So they've, they've done this and there's a, a draft rule published for public comment now within the courts that gives that two year. Okay. And that, that's, that's what I wondered that that is good to know. When I read the judicial cannons, I, I am always, I'm always concerned and I think it's pretty, I think it's, I mean it's troubling to me that we, we've had members of the Supreme Court do that and they, they know who they are. Courts are obviously listening in on, in, on this bill. But it's, it's really troubling and I wanna make sure that that's clearly stated on the record. So I appreciate the fact that if there is a cooling cooling period, a cooling off period, I'm glad they've, they've done that because that's the part that I, that I think was the most important in your bill. Yeah. And, and, and we were able to work with them and, and get that done. Um, which is why it was taken out. So thank you for the question. Thank you.

both of those were my questions.

Thanks. Just a follow up question. So as I was reading through, um, I caught one thing and I wasn't sure what the, why, why this was, you know, it talks about, um, requirements for the court record, what on the website, like 2 60, 2 63 and it says that the judicial council shall contract in accordance with the chapter and Utah procurement with a third party to establish and maintain the court record website. Is there a reason why we require them to go to a third party instead and if instead of it maybe possibly done in house or, Yeah, there, there's been a lot of conversations about this specifically as well. This was, was an ask that we, we had, um, something that has kind of been ongoing. Um, really the intent there was there's been an opportunity for this to be done in the past and it hasn't been done. Um, so, so we wanted to have that there that they, they could and, and maybe at an expedited pace get this up and going faster if, if some, if somewhere outside of what they had was being used. Okay. I, I guess just a follow up comment and more than anything, uh, you know, maybe verbiage to the sent that they shall do it with an option to go to a third party. I don't know. Just thought. Okay. Thank you.

Senator Mikel, Representative, um, I'm probably gonna answer the question too for Senator Vickers. There's some in the legal profession that think the current online resources aren't very good and they, they're, I I think they're clunky, they're hard to use and I think there are some people that would like to see a third party because the current status quo of what's been built out is, is, is suspiciously not that good?

Thank you Committee members, Mr. Chair, my name is Michael Drexel. I'm a little outta breath 'cause I was running to get here. So I appreciate you, uh, being patient with me. I've appreciated working with Representative Monson on, on this bill. We have, uh, had really good conversations and it's been my first time to work on a bill with him and it's been truly a pleasure. We, uh, we appreciate the changes that have been made to the bill. As mentioned, the Supreme Court did, uh, publish on Thursday or Friday last week, their own version of a rule that requires two years cooling off period, which is, which is a good long amount of time. Uh, we are concerned about the fiscal still and that's been an ongoing part of the conversation is trying to make sure that we can deliver on what the bill is asking in terms of records access as well as the audio access for parties. Um, in order to fill those audio requests, there'll be quite a few FTEs that are needed to manually process those, at least under the current structure. And we'll try and study ways to do that more efficiently. Um, in response to Senator ml's observation about, gotta catch my breath. The court's records website, it has existed in about the same form that it's been in for at least two decades. And part of the reason why we haven't made updates to it to make it more usable is we've focused our resources on other internal projects that are, uh, more about serving the parties directly in the cases. And to the extent there's a need to make these changes as now have been highlighted by this bill, we certainly have the talent and the experience to do it. Uh, it will likely cost more to the state to contract with the vendor and you'll see the language there says to establish and maintain. So we have to contract with this vendor to maintain it. And one of the things that's tricky is that puts us in a hard spot in procurement when statute directs that we shall have a third party vendor. It's hard for us to be competitive, especially when we already have an internal staff team, an IT team that could do this work. So we would appreciate if we had the flexibility to do that work, um, directly. Uh, otherwise thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee. Thank you for, um, listening to my testimony. My name's Lynndyl Smith. I used to be a law professor at the University of Utah and while there for 30 years, I taught the ethics class or the class in professional responsibility. I also served on the Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee for 20 years. Um, I wanna just briefly address, uh, Senator ml's concern about why things aren't the same with legislatures and um, uh, judges stepping down from their job. 'cause I know you folks have a year that you can't lobby. And I think the reasons are because the body of the legislature and the body of the courts are simply different. No one gets dragged in here to be arrest, to be sentenced or found guilty. No one gets dragged in here to be a witness. In fact, although we have a constitutional right to petition the government, nobody, no citizen has a right to file a bill. Um, on the other hand, the courts are open under the constitution and anybody can go to court and file a case on their own behalf. Anybody might be arrested or dragged into court, um, as a witness. And courts are difficult to, um, to maneuver for someone who maybe doesn't wanna be there or needs to be there. And for that reason, the rules of professional conduct have three principles. One is parties should be able to hire the lawyer that they want to the maximum extent possible. On the other hand, lawyers shouldn't be able to take a case if they're gonna, um, threaten the confidences of other parties that they have represented before. And, um, and finally, lawyers should be able to earn a living. And so rule one point 12 that has existed and and is based on the a BA standard rules of, uh, model rules of professional conduct has limited what judges can do. Very similar to what lawyers can do when they leave a firm or when they step down from a case. Currently, judges cannot be involved in any matter in which they were personally and substantially involved as a judge. And that goes on forever. Okay. Justice Pierces is never gonna be involved in a redistricting case. Okay? Not just for a year, but forever. And that's the balance that the courts have str have struck with their rules. And it's different because the legislative body is different than the judicial body. Thank you for your consideration.

Yes, Senator here. Yeah. So I've got, I've got a question and, uh, the question is the, the court is doing it. They, they've changed the rule, they talked about it, Mr. Dres talked about it. So are are you saying you don't support the,

the decision of the courts to do that? Well, I think the important thing is, I mean, the other important thing is the constitution gives the

Court, that's not my question. Do you support the rule that the court just, I

Haven't read the court. Okay. And I haven't read the rule. And I'm sure if the courts come up with a rule that they think is sensible, it'll be a sensible rule.

Yeah. Thank you. I'm Seth Stewart. I'm representing myself from American Fork and, um, I have had some insight into the process of, of at least the, uh, the justice courts and district courts and so on. Uh, just being present for, uh, arraignments and pretrial hearings as well as bench trials. And, um, the majority of those in my observation have been conducted remotely through WebEx. And, uh, this was a concern that emerged, uh, post pandemic is the fact that we did not return fully to in-person administration of, of these public trials. And that has substantially, um, negatively affected the public nature of them. And so getting a recording for any and all of those, uh, cases is actually vital in the, in the, in the interest of the public to preserve that public record and actually, um, retain a public nature to the hearings. I actually showed up in person for a, uh, for a charge in, in our, in my city here. And I was told that I had to go home and then do it via WebEx. And so where you can't have a body of the public actually assemble to observe the proceedings in the courtroom, in integrate many of these instances, uh, I I would submit that's a court underlying problem that should be addressed in addition to providing audio recordings and, uh, also just the process of pretrial diversions and plea bargaining. Uh, that's a private element actually under the current system that's not publicly disclosed, even though it's used as a substitute for the burden of proof. So I would submit those are underlying issues that, uh, that we should address.

A Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion that we delete an entitled and body first substitute hospital five 40 and replacement with second substitute.

I second motion that we favorably recommend second substitute house bill five 40.

I, I appreciate the motion. I think we have the, the opportunity, I, I've said this in a few different times during presentation and, and talking with others that I, I think we really have the opportunity in the state to have and, and to accelerate the, the view on the courts. We've been working with them and, and they've been great. I think that having resources available for retention elections is, is a huge win for those that are participating both judges and the, the, those that are voting. I think having, um, audio available at a smoother, with a smoother process is a, is a big win. And, and I think having financial disclosures that are, that create better transparency is, is really a key thing that we're trying to work on. So these, these things that we've worked on, um, the cooling off period, the rule that the courts have, have come up with and, and published themselves, I think all of these things are going to move us in a step further and I appreciate your support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm, I'd like to move sub one of HB five 40. Okay, let's see if we can find it. The motion is to first substitute HB five 40. We'd like to speak to it. Yes, thank you Mr. Speaker, pro tem colleagues. I wanna outline the changes that are, are made in, in the sub, um, in, in the original and compared to the sub. Now we're removing the requirement for the courts to livestream the, the public public court recordings. Um, we're going to give the audio directly to the parties that are involved in the case upon their request and, and for free. Um, this actually makes it a a little bit better for, um, the, the concerns that were raised as far as protecting some of the people and and issues involved in the courts. And we're also directing the Juab judicial counsel to make recommendations on whether and how to make additional changes to the audio portion of the bill. Um, those are the major changes in the sub. Mr. Speaker Proti.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. Um, I wanna rise in support of this, the, this bill. I, you know, in committee I actually voted a against it. Um, but I think the sponsor's done a really good job of, of listening to concerns and, and, um, making changes in the bill that are, are really good, uh, for the state. So I appreciate the sponsor, um, put getting it in a position, uh, that, uh, I'll be able to vote on it. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro tem, I'd like to make a motion to circle HB five 41st sub Motion is to circle first substitute house bill five 40. We'd like to speak to it. Yes. Just, just briefly. We got this sub made available this morning. I'd like to give the body time to review, um, the, the changes and, and we'll bring it back after there's time to review. Thank you.

The motion is to first substitute HB five 40. We'd like to speak to it. Yes, thank you Mr. Speaker, pro tem colleagues. I wanna outline the changes that are, are made in, in the sub, um, in, in the original and compared to the sub. Now we're removing the requirement for the courts to livestream the, the public public court recordings. Um, we're going to give the audio directly to the parties that are involved in the case upon their request and, and for free. Um, this actually makes it a a little bit better for, um, the, the concerns that were raised as far as protecting some of the people and and issues involved in the courts. And we're also directing the Juab judicial counsel to make recommendations on whether and how to make additional changes to the audio portion of the bill. Um, those are the major changes in the sub. Mr. Speaker Proti.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. Um, I wanna rise in support of this, the, this bill. I, you know, in committee I actually voted a against it. Um, but I think the sponsor's done a really good job of, of listening to concerns and, and, um, making changes in the bill that are, are really good, uh, for the state. So I appreciate the sponsor, um, put getting it in a position, uh, that, uh, I'll be able to vote on it. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro tem, I'd like to make a motion to circle HB five 41st sub Motion is to circle first substitute house bill five 40. We'd like to speak to it. Yes. Just, just briefly. We got this sub made available this morning. I'd like to give the body time to review, um, the, the changes and, and we'll bring it back after there's time to review. Thank you.

You, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I believe that in the state we have the opportunity and the ability to have the best judicial system in the country. There is lots to work on. Nothing is perfect. There is things that we can do differently. Um, house Bill five 40 is doing just that. It, it's doing things a little bit differently. It's finding some ways that we can improve and, and moving forward on those, on those things. There are four main points to this bill. Um, this substitute, um, removes the requirement that courts would live stream the audio. We will just make the audio available at an expedited, um, pace as, as well as it will be free to the parties involved in the case. Outside of that, it'll remain the same process that is already in place. So we will not be changing anything as far as the current process. Um, I have recognized that the audio live stream and recording access to, um, the original bill raised some concerns about privacy for victims. And, and we saw that and were able to work with, with the stakeholders on that. In addition to the audio provisions, the bill also directs the, um, the courts to create a single online access point for public records that's easily searchable and free up to 50 searches per month. Judges are supposed to be accountable to voters through retention, retention elections. Um, we expect voters to be informed about people that they're voting on, yet we don't have a place for voters to go when it comes time for retention elections. The current court records database, the exchange database is behind a paywall. It's difficult to navigate and it is almost impossible to get their, the information quickly and it costs money. Um, it makes it very difficult for members of the public to learn anything about judges on their ballot. So we're looking to fix that with this, um, this website. The third piece that this piece of legislation addresses is disclosure. So we are, um, asking the judicial council to create a rule that would create a financial disclosure rule for judges. And the fourth thing in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that we are, um, we, we have an, an, an issue with, um, former judges leaving the bench and then going and, um, representing or working for firms that are actively suing the state. The, um, the, there's a cooling off period in this bill, Mr. Speaker. It's a two year period. Um, and it, and it's narrowly tailored. It would not prohibit them from practicing law, it would just not allow them to step off the bench and immediately start making money by suing the state. We've been working closely with the courts on this bill. Um, they have been great to work with. We've been able to find some good, um, ground to move forward. They have been great partners and I expect that it will continue to be the, the case that they'll be great partners. And, and with that, Mr. Speaker, I'll yield to any questions.

I'll waive Summation has been waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to encircle HB 3 72.

Um, yes, I would. Uh, should I also motion to adopt the sub or should I? Okay. So I've made a lot of changes responsive to the concerns that have been expressed, uh, by stakeholders and by colleagues. And I am ready to present Thank represe embolism.

Um, I would first move Senate Amendment, uh, two, I believe in my name. It might be Senate Amendment one Motions in order. Do you wanna explain the amendment? Yeah. This was a request from the courts. They would like to be able to implement some of the, uh, some of the website upgrades themselves rather than using a third party. And this, uh, gives them that flexibility.

Yeah. So what the bill is about is, uh, it's oftentimes difficult to access court records. They are, you have to do specific requests for oral transcript or for oral recordings. You have to do, uh, you have to pay in order to get into their exchange website. This provides requirements for the website containing all public court records, and it addresses fees for the court records and requires the judicial counsel to create a rule on judicial financial disclosure, uh, to report to the judicial Judiciary Interim Committee. So essentially what we're trying to do is make the courts, uh, you know, as to the greatest extent possible, as transparent as the legislative website is. And with that, I'm open to any questions.

Thank you Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield to Question? Senator Brammer, will you yield?

Yes. Senator Stratton.

Thank you. Last year we worked on, uh, RFA to have not only the, the voice, but also the u utilizing the videos. Uh, what is the, what, what's going to be going for the protocol on, on the transparency? We're gonna be able to include videos on that.

No, this will largely be audio. Um, there may be a capability to add video in the future, but we don't have video right now in this bill.

Thank you. Thank you. I could, Mr. President, we do have, through COVID, all the courts have the video equipment and it's all in place. And that would be a, a very, uh, good, good opportunity for us at some point to, to bring that in. So we can, we'll put that at, uh, as a next step. And, uh, thank you to the sponsor of Good Work. I send support of the bill.

Monson, the Senate Make this bill better. It's a good bill. Yeah. Yes. I would like to, to make a motion to concur with the Senate.

We'd like to speak to that motion. Yeah, there's a couple things that have happened since this bill came off are, um, since it left us. So the two biggest things are first the cooling off period that was in the bill has been taken out. The courts have published a rule, um, for public comment and they are taking this on themselves. Um, and then the thing that has changed is there was a third party, um, requirement for them to create the website in which the public will have access to, uh, research judges for retention elections. The third party requirement has been taken out as well. So the cooling off period and the third party requirement have both been removed from the bill.