S.B. 327 Occupational Licensing Amendments: transcript

Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee, Mar 2, 2026

1. Committee chair22:21

   Uh, first bill up is Senate bill 3 27. Senator Johnson, I usually call, I usually call out the whole bill. Okay. And this is Senate bill 3 27, occupational licensing amendments. Senator Johnson, whenever you're ready.

2. Sen. John D. Johnson22:40

   Thank you, Madam Chair. You are welcome. Nice to see you there. Senator Kwan. Thank you. You look good in that seat. Madam Chair, members of the committee. SB 3 27 is a target occupational licensing reform bill. At Report it repeals state licensing requirements for four occupations. Commercial interior designers, court reporters, deception detected detection practitioners and music therapists. The bill does not pro prohibit these professions. It does not prevent anyone from voluntarily obtaining private certification. And it does not remove civil liability, fraud statutes, consumer protection laws, or contract enforcement. What it does is it remove a state mandated permission slip where the public safety justification is limited or outdated. Utah has led the nation on right sizing, occupational licensing. We have consistently applied a simple principle. Licensing should be reserved for professions where there is a clear demonstrable risk to public health or safety that cannot be addressed through less restrictive means. And these per four professions, that threshold is not met. Commercial interior designers operate in a market already governed by building codes and licensed art architects and engineers. Court reporters operate under judicial rules and professional standards. Courts still retain authority over official transcripts. Deception detection is already constrained by evidentiary rules and fraud laws. Music therapy can continue through voluntary, voluntary certification employer standards without a state barrier to entry. Licensing is the most restrictive form of regulation before we require it. It, we should be confident it is necessary. Technically, the bill, uh, repeals the relevant licensing chapters in Title 58 and makes conforming changes throughout the statute, including pro, pro procurement definitions and judicial references. It preserves judicial authority over court transcription standards, contra contract prohibitions that protect impartiality and court reporting existing criminal background provisions were applicable. This is a careful statutory cleanup, not deregulation by neglect. The the broader principles. Um, every licensing regime imposes cost, application fees, continuing education requirements, background checks, administrative compliance. These costs may be justified in high risk fields like medicine or structural engineering, but when applied where public safety risk is minimal, licensing becomes a barrier to entry, reduces competition limits opportunity. So SB 3 27 reflects a disciplined approach, regulate where necessary, certify voluntary, voluntarily we helpful and remove barriers when the state cannot clearly justify them. I respectfully ask for your, uh, favorable recommendation. And that concludes my presentation.

3. Committee chair25:39

   Thank you, Senator Johnson. Is there any, uh, discussion or questions from the committee? And I call on Senator Owens.

4. Sen. Derrin R. Owens25:48

   Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, senator, these, these, uh, and workforce physicians were put in place and regulated for some reason. I mean, at one time they made their way into code and you did good job explaining, uh, the health concerns or lack of concerns that would need to be around this. What, what, what do you think will be the impact on industry? Sometimes having that license, um, helps establish someone, it it help them distinguish from, distinguish them from the crowd, if that makes sense. Yeah. Give, give them a little seniority. Will this affect that? I, I don't think so because the market forces have driven that largely. I, you know, and, and, you know, these are still under, uh, specific rules that apply to the courts or, or, uh, commercial contractors. So I, I don't think so, but I, I mean, those are certainly good questions.

5. Sen. Derrin R. Owens26:54

   Do you have any, uh, sorry, follow up. Madam Chair. Do you have, has there been any opposition from industry on this?

6. Sen. John D. Johnson27:01

   Well, I have gotten a few calls from the, from the court reporters, and maybe some of them are here today. They can explain their position, but Okay. The other ones I haven't really heard any feedback from, so thank you.

7. Committee chair27:18

   Thank you. Uh, we have a question or comment from Senator Millner. Just a

8. Sen. Ann Millner27:22

   question. How did you select these particular, um, license employment licenses?

9. Sen. John D. Johnson27:28

   Uh, I, I actually worked with, uh, Veritas and, and, uh, they've been, they've been, uh, looking every year at areas where we, we might, you know, they've been working with Doppel and they, they talked to Doppel about, you know, possible areas where we could have some loosening, you know, of, of the requirements. So I think these, these fields are ones that are pretty well documented. And I think even the court reporting standards now are changing a bit. And, uh, so that, that, that was basically where they came from.

10. Sen. Ann Millner28:05

    Have you talked with, followed up with Jeff Shumway or Have I talked to Jeff Shumway in, uh, who does kind of, is doing all this licensing review work?

11. Sen. John D. Johnson28:15

    I mean, we're in a process of going through all those professions, all the licenses over, I don't know, four or five year period. And Jeff's been taking different ones, different years.

12. Sen. Ann Millner28:25

    Uh, have you talked with him at all?

13. Sen. John D. Johnson28:26

    I, I think that's, I, I, Veritas can actually clarify that. I think they're here, they might, they might be able to clarify that better. I, I can't remember exactly who they've been talking to, so.

14. Sen. Ann Millner28:37

    Okay. I mean, I can understand some things like interior design. I, I, I don't think the person who helps me has a license, uh, specifically for that. But I wouldn't go anywhere else. So, I mean, I can understand, um, kind of some differences in, um, levels, et cetera. Just, it just like, why these, So, so are you, are you familiar with these and are, are, because obviously you seem to know quite a bit about this. So are you, are you feel familiar with some of these that, that maybe are not?

15. Sen. John D. Johnson29:13

    Well, the one that actually, I don't know about court reporting at all, so I'll be interested in hearing.

16. Sen. Ann Millner29:17

    'cause I thought, okay, that seems like a very specialized skill. Um, and do people need training for that? But do they need training and license, or do they just need training? Um, I mean, it just raised questions for me 'cause it's, I don't know the details of it, which is why I wondered if you talked to, um, to Doppel and to, uh, to Mark Re or, uh, Jeff Sway because they've been working so intensely on this in the Department of Commerce. And then the, the other one that I wondered about was music therapy. Um, 'cause I've been an advocate for a behavioral health tech uhhuh. Um, because on one end we have people who, in fact, should be the ones who do diagnosis and develop treatment plans. But sometimes you just need somebody at a different level just to keep following up with an individual and make sure they're using the tools and or they're doing what they're asked to do. And that doesn't require, I think, the same level of licensure. I I just don't know enough about these to be able to discern that.

17. Sen. John D. Johnson30:28

    Right. And, and, and Jeff Shumway usually does a pretty detailed analysis and, um, that I respect.

18. Sen. Ann Millner30:36

    Okay. Thank you.

19. Committee chair30:39

    Thank you. Uh, seeing no other comments, um, I will open it up to the, uh, the public Who here would like to speak on this bill? Come on up. Awesome. You could, If you don't mind, please remember to state your name and who you represent. Yeah,

20. Jon England, Libertas Institute31:03

    Absolutely. Thank you very much. Committee. My name is John England with the LABAs Institute. I appreciate, uh, the opportunity to share just some of my thoughts. Um, some of the questions that Senator Millner brought up, um, we did speak with Mark Steinle in LER specifically. Um, these, uh, licenses are on likely to be reviewed, but it will be five years or so. Um, so when I spoke with him, um, some of the background that he gave me is that in many states, these occupations are not licensed. They're, um, and, and nothing in this bill would prevent a, uh, employer or a contract from requiring a license. Um, and so, uh, just as we were speaking with him, and, you know, Libertas has constantly had the stance of, you know, reducing regulations on licensing. And so this is definitely, um, some areas that we felt we could, um, maybe push, uh, the, the ball forward a little faster than, uh, LER would get to them. So thank You. Thank you very

21. Committee chair32:05

    much. I'll bring it back to the committee for any, uh, comments or motions. Yes. Senator Millner.

22. Sen. Ann Millner32:23

    Good question. Um, I can understand you're wanting to move forward, so, uh, not wait five years. Is it possible that we could change this from, we do it this year to, we are directing them to study it and bring, and so that we bring recommendations back next year?

23. Unknown speaker32:41speaker not certain

    Are are you asking me? I'm asking, I'm asking the senator. That's, but, but you can also respond.

24. Sen. John D. Johnson32:48

    Uh, that would be fine with me. I mean, I just think I, I'd like to know more and maybe this is fine, but I'd like to know more and I'd like to have Department of Commerce do run their process on it. And if we changed it to that, we just said we want that to be done this next year. Um, and that way next se next session, we could run an appropriate bill. I'd be fine with that.

25. Committee chair33:19

    And I will take the chair's prerogative to weigh in on that as well. I, um, also, uh, agree that it's, it's a little premature to just go straight to, uh, uh, repealing the license. I know that within music therapy, uh, uh, the industry is very concerned about having a, a license there. And, and I'm actually, uh, surprised that we didn't hear from them today. But perhaps that's not something that, uh, we, we have a chapter here, but I did talk with the national organization and, you know, one of the NCSL uh, conferences. So I do think it is appropriate to, oh, go ahead. Did I do something wrong? No, I don't. Okay. I, so I do think it is appropriate to look for a substitute, uh, to, um, uh, change it into a study. I think LER does need to weigh in. And, um, I see some lights on now. Um, and I also see, uh, Senator Millner wanted perhaps to respond. I'm gonna go ahead to go to Senator Millner on that.

26. Sen. Ann Millner34:32

    Actually, I wanted to make a motion. Um, I'm going, um, make a motion that we probably recommend this to the Senate. I'm gonna ask that you, uh, substitute it in the Senate and direct ler, um, or whatever the right mechanism is to review this this next year. And let's bring back the, um, their recommendations. And I, you know, they're, we do tend to sometimes overregulate and over license, and some of these things can be carefully broken out to levels, and I'm very comfortable with that. But I'd really like to have more thorough review. Perfect. So my motion is that we pass out, uh, Senate Bill 3 27 with a favorable recommendation to the Senate, but, uh, with the request that, um, Senator Johnson substituted so that there can be, uh, ler can study this this next year and bring back a thoughtful recommendation. So it has been motion that we favorably recommend SB 3 27 occupational licensing amendments to the full body of the Senate.

27. Committee chair35:45

    Uh, are, is there any discussion on that? Senator Owens? Thank

28. Sen. Derrin R. Owens35:50

    You, Madam Chair. Um, I appreciate the motion. I'm gonna speak to that as well. And I, I really like the idea and appreciate Mr. England from Bertos coming. I think by, by looking at these and pulling them to the top of the list, and maybe that's what the substitute does, is that they've helped us identify the ones that really need attention first. And so I will be supporting that. If, if we were just going straight in, I think I would oppose. But if the sponsor's willing to do that, I, I think then, then the work really helps what is in place already. Thank you.

29. Committee chair36:24

    Thank you. And I will also mention that I'm gonna be a, a no today, but a yes when, once I see the changes in a, in a, uh, in a substitute. So I will place that, uh, motion for a vote. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye a. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And I'm a, I'm a no. And that passes three to one with Senator Kwan Voting No. Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson.

30. Sen. John D. Johnson36:56speaker not certain

    Ah, Senator Johnson. Thank you.

31. Committee chair37:01

    Uh, thank you, Senator Johnson. Thank you. Um, I'm going to call up now, HB five oh seven second subs,