Legislators / Matt MacPherson
Matt MacPherson
Republican · House District 26
Hear from them directly
Contact Rep. Matt MacPherson
- Email: mmacpherson@le.utah.gov
- Office: 350 N State Street, STE 350, Salt Lake City, UT, 84114
Constituents get priority, so say you live in their district. Writing about a specific bill? Open it and use Take action for a ready-to-send message.
Watch or join a meeting
Every committee hearing and floor session is open to the public and streamed live on le.utah.gov. Each committee's agenda has the link to watch or join online, and how to sign up for public comment.
Matt MacPherson serves on:
- Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee
- House Education Committee
- House Government Operations Committee
- Government Operations Interim Committee
- Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee
- General Oversight Committee
What they've said
546 remarks on 121 billsH.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Rep. MacPherson said the fifth substitute was discussed earlier in the House and Senate but never adopted, and that its only change is correcting the name of a database used by the Driver License Division.
▶ Watch at 12:02Read what they said
Uh, yes. So this uh, uh, fifth substitute was the one that we had materially talked about here in the house and on the Senate committee and on the senate floor, but just never got adopted. The Amendment Amendment itself just simply was a technical change. Uh, renaming the name of a database that the Driver's license division uses. Uh, we currently have the wrong name for it, so this was just a, a simple name correction.
S.B. 252 Water Usage at State-owned Facilities Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks why the bill is needed and whether state agencies could do this without a law.
▶ Watch at 31:55Read what they said
Will you yelled? Yes. Representative. Is there any reason why we, um, need to mandate this? Couldn't the state agencies just start doing this without a, a bill in law?
S.B. 62 School Finance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Describes the bill's requirement that certain program funds be used for teacher and classroom compensation, says schools and their associations support it, and says it adds transparency on how tax dollars are used.
▶ Watch at 54:01Read what they said
what the program is actually used for in schools, which is teacher and classroom compensation. So, um, in that way the, the funds become slightly more restricted. Uh, but this is a move that's supported by the schools and their associations and provides additional transparency for how tax dollars are being used. I move to Concur.
S.B. 304 Protective Order Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks the body to look at an amendment on the bill and, because the bill did not get a committee hearing, moves to circle it.
▶ Watch at 1:06:38Read what they said
Just very quickly? There is an amendment on there that I ask that the body look at and since didn't get a committee hearing, wanna circle it?
S.B. 292 Autonomous Systems Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks to yield to the sponsor for a potential series of questions.
▶ Watch at 1:17:07Read what they said
Thank you Madam Speaker ProAm. Will the sponsor yield to a potential series of questions? Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions?
S.B. 292 Autonomous Systems Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks why the new liability standard applies only to level four and level five autonomous vehicles.
▶ Watch at 1:17:17Read what they said
Um, I've got a question under the, the new liability piece. Um, it's currently, it looks like that it's defined only under level four and level five a DS equip, uh, vehicles, even though the a DS, uh, definitions, um, include level three, four, and five. And I'm just curious if you can help me understand the, um, the reasoning behind that, uh, decision.
S.B. 292 Autonomous Systems Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks whether level three vehicles operating in driverless mode should qualify under the new liability standard.
▶ Watch at 1:18:20Read what they said
Thank you. Mad Madam Speaker Pro Tam. Um, as my follow up then, um, since several of the level three equipped vehicles have an option to go into a driverless sort of, uh, mode, um, though they still retain the driver interaction features, um, would there be, um, a specific, uh, I guess, um, concern that a vehicle that's operating in a driverless mode but is currently considered a level three vehicle should qualify under this, um, this, uh, new liability threshold standard? Um, thank you.
S.B. 292 Autonomous Systems Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Speaks in strong support of the bill, saying it addresses emerging technology and current liability and safety questions, and urges support.
▶ Watch at 1:20:24Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Speaker Pro Tam, I, I am in, uh, strong support of this, uh, legislation. This technology is rapidly emerging. It is already, in some cases in production. Um, it's going to be here if not already, um, very, very shortly. This is not only forward looking, but it's seeking to solve a, a, an actual current problem too. That there are these questions that, uh, that we have in law enforcement, that we have in, um, in liability when it comes to safety and understanding how to deal with how this technology is going to be impacting people. And I think creating these new liability standards are all additive. We're creating new categories, um, in, in, uh, …
S.B. 62 School Finance Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Describes Senate Bill 62 as a simple bill that renames the flexible allocation account to teacher and classroom salary support, so the account name matches the purpose of the funding used for professional staff hours.
▶ Watch at 1:30:04Read what they said
Uh, thank you. Um, Madam Speaker Pro. This is a very, very simple bill, um, currently in the, um, code. It names this, uh, a particular section of, uh, in our public education funding flexible allocation account. Um, that money actually came from the professional staff services. Um, we, it was moved, um, last year or perhaps the year before into the flexible allocation account, but it is all still currently used for, for professional staff hours. So this bill, all it does is renames that flexible allocation account to teacher and classroom salary support. And that is all the bill does, just to ensure that that account name reflects the purpose of the funding.
S.B. 213 Utah Payment of Wages Act Statute of Limitations · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the substitute limits claims filed after the first year to the company, while claims filed within one year may also name executives, and delays implementation until 2027.
▶ Watch at 1:46:06Read what they said
Yes. So, uh, this is actually a pretty complicated change. Um, so I apologize. I'm gonna take just a moment. Currently under, uh, unpaid Wages Claim Act, um, you can file either an administrative or a civil claim. And there's been some, um, confusion over what the lim uh, what the, um, um, the statute of limitations is on this. A, um, federal district court had established a separate, um, timeline for this. And a state district court had established a separate, uh, timeline recently. And so there does need to be an adjustment to this code, but the adjustment is a little more complicated. So what this does is goes into the Unpaid Wages Claim Act that currently defines …
S.B. 213 Utah Payment of Wages Act Statute of Limitations · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Calls the substitute an elegant solution to a difficult problem and thanks the sponsor for the work on it.
▶ Watch at 1:48:17Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is an elegant solution to a very difficult problem, and I appreciate the good sponsor of this Substitute Two's work on this.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the Senate added an amendment clarifying the timeline for law enforcement to submit domestic violence cases to prosecutors.
▶ Watch at 2:08:47Read what they said
ordered. Would like to speak to it Just briefly. We, uh, the Senate added an amendment that, uh, uh, clarified the timeline when it comes to, uh, law enforcement, uh, submitting domestic violence, uh, cases to prosecutors.
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks the sponsor to yield to a series of questions.
▶ Watch at 2:25:50Read what they said
Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question or two? Representative Burton, will you yield to a series of questions?
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
MacPherson asks the sponsor to yield to a series of questions.
▶ Watch at 2:25:50Read what they said
Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question or two? Representative Burton, will you yield to a series of questions?
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks what specific changes the fifth substitute made from the fourth, and Burton's answer is that it adds language on clerks not altering election procedures to favor or discriminate against candidates and adds midterm vacancy provisions from Section 20A for the legislature.
▶ Watch at 2:26:04Read what they said
Thanks. I I was going through the changes, um, in the, uh, substitute four, and it looked like they were pretty minimal, but it is a pretty long section. Can you, can you go over that one more time as far as what, what was the specific change between sub four? Yeah, I can do that. I mean, I'm, I I just talked about sub five, but going back to sub four, sub five, sorry. Um, there's a line in there on line, um, 6, 6 4. This is a clerk may not alter election procedures or process to favor discriminate, uh, again against, for, for another candidate. It adds language also at 7 23, uh, from, from section 20 …
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
MacPherson asks what specific changes were made between substitute four and substitute five, and Burton responds that a clerk may not alter election procedures to favor or discriminate against a candidate and that midterm vacancy language from section 20A was added for the U.S. Senate and the legislature.
▶ Watch at 2:26:04Read what they said
Thanks. I I was going through the changes, um, in the, uh, substitute four, and it looked like they were pretty minimal, but it is a pretty long section. Can you, can you go over that one more time as far as what, what was the specific change between sub four? Yeah, I can do that. I mean, I'm, I I just talked about sub five, but going back to sub four, sub five, sorry. Um, there's a line in there on line, um, 6, 6 4. This is a clerk may not alter election procedures or process to favor discriminate, uh, again against, for, for another candidate. It adds language also at 7 23, uh, from, from section 20 …
S.B. 304 Protective Order Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the amendment adds a clear and convincing evidence standard to the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:40:42Read what they said
Uh, yes. This just adds a higher standard of, um, of clear and convincing evidence, um, to this bill.
S.B. 304 Protective Order Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the bill lets a party in a child custody or cohabitant protective order case, where the order is used to change parent time or custody, ask the court to find by clear and convincing evidence that the other party knowingly submitted false information, with remedies including attorney's fees, restored parent time, and a child mental health therapist for the prevailing parent, and offers to answer questions.
▶ Watch at 2:41:03Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speakers. So what this bill does is under sur circumstances when a protective order is filed in child, uh, uh, custody cases or in, uh, cohabitants, uh, relationships, um, and that, uh, uh, protective order is used as a method to change a, uh, parent time relationship or to, uh, remove custody, that there is an, uh, an option to file a motion, um, that would petition the court to state that if the other party had knowingly, knowingly submitted false information in order to, um, adjust that, uh, um, uh, custody, uh, situation. Um, and if the court finds it now under the amendment under a clear and convincing, uh, standard, and then there's some remedies …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Moves that the House refuse to concur with the Senate amendment and ask the Senate to recede from its amendments.
▶ Watch at 2:51Read what they said
Mr. Speaker, I move that we refuse to concur with the Senate amendment And ask the Senate to receive from its amendments. Yes, Mr. Speaker?
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says the bill was presented in a Senate committee as a fifth substitute, which the Senate did not adopt, and asks that it be sent back.
▶ Watch at 3:10Read what they said
Just very quickly, the Senate committee hearing, we presented on a fifth substitute, as did the good Senator presented on a fifth substitute and they failed to adopt it. So, uh, we'd like to send it back because that is necessary.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Presents H.B. 539, Public Safety Modifications, saying most of it clarifies existing code.
▶ Watch at 1:46:09Read what they said
Public safety modifications. Did you see what Shallenberger did? Yes. Okay. I will try to be even briefer even though this one has a significant number of, uh, pieces. Uh, just say most of it's clarification of existing code.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Confirms the bill passed the House with no no votes and expects no real opposition, and notes Attorney General additions on jurisdiction and domestic provisions.
▶ Watch at 1:46:24Read what they said
That is correct. Okay. And we don't anticipate any real opposition. There's been a couple of pieces added by the Attorney General, um, to clarify jurisdiction as well as, uh, uh, updating, um, uh, domestic. I'm sorry. Yeah. Um, the, uh, okay. If you have questions, let me know. Senator Pitcher.
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · House floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Argues the fifth substitute would apply the same health code approach used for alcohol and tobacco to kratom, citing alcohol and tobacco death and harm figures.
▶ Watch at 1:30:06Read what they said
You know, I would. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So there's been a great amount of discussion here about, uh, the dangers of, uh, Kratom. For example, the number of, uh, deaths, um, you knowumm has been sold in this state since 20, I think 14 before it was regulated. We started regulating it in 2019, and as the good sponsor pointed out, most of the deaths from that, uh, from Raum only, have only occurred recently, mostly due to the synthetic, um, uh, 7 0 8 that has been, uh, proliferated and is it's bad stuff. We need to get rid of it. I'd also like to point out that, uh, in this state, um, in a far greater degree, …
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · House floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Says alcohol and tobacco cause more deaths and harms than kratom, and proposes adopting a broader health code rather than banning individual products one at a time.
▶ Watch at 1:30:06Read what they said
You know, I would. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So there's been a great amount of discussion here about, uh, the dangers of, uh, Kratom. For example, the number of, uh, deaths, um, you knowumm has been sold in this state since 20, I think 14 before it was regulated. We started regulating it in 2019, and as the good sponsor pointed out, most of the deaths from that, uh, from Raum only, have only occurred recently, mostly due to the synthetic, um, uh, 7 0 8 that has been, uh, proliferated and is it's bad stuff. We need to get rid of it. I'd also like to point out that, uh, in this state, um, in a far greater degree, …
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · House floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Asks why alcohol and tobacco are regulated and taxed while other products are banned.
▶ Watch at 1:36:13Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate this conversation. And while I try to be very, um, you know, direct in my presentation, I try to make, uh, no light of the underlying discussion. Um, and I am trying to bring up what I think is a, a good discussion about the, the direction of this legislature, the actions that we've taken in previous years and in this year as well. Um, and I just asked the body one rhetorical question. When we are talking about alcohol and tobacco and other items, we currently, what we do with these products is we regulate and we tax. So I ask the body to ask yourself for far more dangerous products that …
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · House floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Asks why alcohol and tobacco are regulated and taxed while some other products are banned.
▶ Watch at 1:36:13Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate this conversation. And while I try to be very, um, you know, direct in my presentation, I try to make, uh, no light of the underlying discussion. Um, and I am trying to bring up what I think is a, a good discussion about the, the direction of this legislature, the actions that we've taken in previous years and in this year as well. Um, and I just asked the body one rhetorical question. When we are talking about alcohol and tobacco and other items, we currently, what we do with these products is we regulate and we tax. So I ask the body to ask yourself for far more dangerous products that …
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Supports the bill, saying it modernizes the leave program and makes state benefits more competitive.
▶ Watch at 2:37:49Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Em, I rise in support of this bill. This, uh, is a good change. It modernizes the, uh, program quite a bit, makes it more competitive and generally speaking, for the vast majority of, of state employees are gonna see more benefits in, in general and in discussion with individuals. I've worked with, um, many companies, corporate places across the country that have migrated to these types of, um, uh, mixed PTO programs. And there's always concerns from employees and then typically, um, over time, they are seen as a great benefit to them. So very much in support of this bill. Thanks,
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Supports the bill, saying it modernizes the state benefit program, makes it more competitive, and gives most state employees more benefits, as similar programs have worked at companies he has worked with.
▶ Watch at 2:37:49Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Em, I rise in support of this bill. This, uh, is a good change. It modernizes the, uh, program quite a bit, makes it more competitive and generally speaking, for the vast majority of, of state employees are gonna see more benefits in, in general and in discussion with individuals. I've worked with, um, many companies, corporate places across the country that have migrated to these types of, um, uh, mixed PTO programs. And there's always concerns from employees and then typically, um, over time, they are seen as a great benefit to them. So very much in support of this bill. Thanks,
S.B. 180 School Nutrition Amendments · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Rep. MacPherson raised concerns about the fiscal impact of the bill, the transfer of Uniform School Fund money, and the amount of school food that goes uneaten.
▶ Watch at 48:44Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My, my questions really come and, and it's really just a concern over the fiscal impact on this. So it looks like the first year, and I actually AP applaud you for the creativity and funding on this. I know this has been an item that you've tried to, uh, funding for, for some time. And, uh, I too have worked on trying to fund for certain things and trying to find creative way to do things. But this moves, um, looks like one time money from uniform school funds, um, this year and the next year from the stabilization account, 5 million and then ongoing would require, um, uh, funding essentially. And so I guess …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked whether the working group considered mandatory expulsion rules and superintendents' discretion when offenses occur.
▶ Watch at 1:06:51Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my question actually is kind of on the side of this, 'cause I was just curious about your working group. Um, one section that I don't think is in this area of code is when it comes to when these offenses originally occur. We do have mandatory expulsion language and code right now for certain types of offenses, but a lot of cases currently superintendents kind of have a, uh, a discretionary ability to kind of, um, intervene in certain circumstances. Has this at all been considered also in part of your review of this whole process? I'm just curious.
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked whether the working group also looked at superintendents declining to intervene in mandatory expulsion cases, while noting that topic is outside this bill.
▶ Watch at 1:08:08Read what they said
Yeah. And I think my question comes more on the opposite side. If there is a mandatory expulsion event, essentially in a superintendent decides not to, uh, to effectively, uh, intervene and, and, and prevent that, uh, from happening. I'm just curious if that was looked at as well, but again, it's not part of this bill. I was just curious since you had a working group on it. Yeah, thank
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Moved House Amendment 6, which clarifies references to school districts as LEAs and the definition of when school is not in session.
▶ Watch at 1:09:59Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd move House Amendment six. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it just Briefly? This clarifies some of the language. Right now. It has a school district listed in many areas of this bill we're in, indicating that it's an LEA and the relevant LEA. Um, also there's some language starting on line one 20 that talks about when school is not in session. Currently, when you're in session, the definition works just fine, but in the negative aspect, when we're talking about when we're not in session, there's some lack of clarity on how it applies to, um, schools with summer break and certain things. So we made some clarification …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Moved to pass SB 167 out favorably as amended.
▶ Watch at 1:11:09Read what they said
Yep. I'll continue. Uh, motion to pass out favorably SB 1 67 As amended. That motion is an order.
S.B. 269 School Board Meeting Notification Requirements · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked whether school boards already must comply with OPMA and whether the bill would change OPMA.
▶ Watch at 1:14:57Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. A couple of just brief questions here are, isn't the school board already have to, uh, comply with Opma right now as far as their meetings?
S.B. 269 School Board Meeting Notification Requirements · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Described past experience with city council agenda publication timing and said the bill would not affect school boards' ability to caucus.
▶ Watch at 1:15:16Read what they said
Correct. And let me just say, when I was on the City council years ago, I would get my packet like delivered to my house on Friday for a Tuesday night meeting. And then they would wait till Monday after hours to publish the agenda, even though everybody knew what was gonna be, you know, on there. And I, I think that's just a way of, of kind of keeping citizens uninformed and out of the loop. So, yeah. So this would ask the school boards to do 48 hours. Thank you. And then, um, uh, this wouldn't affect in any way their ability to caucus
S.B. 269 School Board Meeting Notification Requirements · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked whether meetings beyond the regular scheduled meetings fall under the requirement.
▶ Watch at 1:15:59Read what they said
Um, but if they're having, as long as they're 11 or so scheduled meetings fall under this requirement here, any additional meetings outside of that?
S.B. 269 School Board Meeting Notification Requirements · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked whether the bill would require school boards to change anything about partisan caucuses.
▶ Watch at 1:16:26Read what they said
I, I, I guess recently, obviously by making the, the body, uh, partisan, they have the ability to caucus. Um, and that might include, they may have a quorum, for example, in a, um, majority caucus. So would this require them to change anything? Um, when it comes to their caucus ability?
S.B. 269 School Board Meeting Notification Requirements · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Said the bill requires publishing an agenda before a public meeting and asked for clarification on how it affects caucuses.
▶ Watch at 1:17:03Read what they said
Well, and, and Mr. Chair, if I may continue, because this section says that before holding a public meeting, publish an agenda. So this seems to do the opposite and says you have to publish an agenda if you're gonna have a public meeting. And I'm just, I I just want to clarify. Yeah. 'cause I don't wanna weaken their ability to, to caucus.
S.B. 269 School Board Meeting Notification Requirements · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Said the two positions do not appear to conflict and thanked the sponsor.
▶ Watch at 1:17:34Read what they said
Okay. I I think it's just, they're just like two ships passing in the night, so. Okay. Thank you. Alright,
S.B. 119 School and Classroom Amendments · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Noted the bill does not require LEAs to use the materials and asked whether $64 million could be spent on a program no one adopts.
▶ Watch at 1:36:56Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think some of these questions were somewhat answered, but I'm in the same vein. 'cause looking at the fiscal note, um, the 64 million and then down below, LEAs spend approximately 3.3 million statewide on textbooks for each grade. The actual savings will depend on the LEA and the amount they're able to use. Um, but it also seems to go to the question of, uh, since in line 94 of the, of the bill and the substitute, uh, sub four, it says that a state board name may not require an LEA to use it. And this is obviously just available to them if they so choose. So, I, I guess my question …
S.B. 119 School and Classroom Amendments · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked why the bill does not require LEAs to use the materials if they would save money and reflect Utah values.
▶ Watch at 1:39:05Read what they said
And if I could follow up then, is there Yes, please go ahead. Just from a policy perspective, I think I can understand why, but I'm just curious why you chose to not make this compelled then to the LEAs. Um, if this would be a, a, a tremendous savings to the state and we're gonna be reflecting the Utah values and, and have that, why, why wouldn't we just require that?
S.B. 119 School and Classroom Amendments · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked whether the state board would prioritize $64 million for this over its other unfunded priorities.
▶ Watch at 1:51:15Read what they said
Thank you. Um, this is, I don't know if this is a fair question, but $64 million for this, um, is a lot. Um, and I understand there's some considerations of savings that might be in order here. Um, do you think that if you had, um, because I understand you guys, the state board had a list of priorities of spending items, um, many of them did not get, uh, funding. Um, so I'm just curious if $64 million in, um, income tax funding just became available, is this, uh, where that the state board would prioritize that money? Right now, I'm just, because I I, I'm not seeing necessarily the direct one-to-one savings. So I'm just curious if …
S.B. 119 School and Classroom Amendments · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Said that without required adoption the resource may just add to existing curriculum, so he would support the motion to hold for now.
▶ Watch at 2:00:01Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I struggle a little bit with this one only because, um, this, this bill is, is written and presented as a, um, an opportunity to provide a, a service that our districts need, um, at a cheaper rate than we're doing to solve some problems. But it's got a, this catch 22 in my mind that if we're not mandating and if we're not requiring it to be adopted, then I'm concerned we're just adding on top of our current curriculum an online resource that they can use, um, if they so choose to. Um, and yet at the same time understand why we don't mandate it. Because we don't wanna do that. And we …
H.B. 407 Public Education Information System · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Presents H.B. 407, saying the bill was changed to put a replacement of the Aspire data system on hold, set a five-year compliance target for LEAs, and direct existing appropriated funds to data-sharing and threat assessment data.
▶ Watch at 11:19Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill originally had a grand design, but after, uh, working with, uh, the State Board of Education and many other, um, partners, we decided that we didn't have the, the time or honestly the ability to tackle the fiscal note, the sub second substitute. Um, this, this bill originally was trying to solve some of the data issues we have between LEAs and the State Board of Education. This has been a long ongoing problem for many, many years. Initially, this bill was going to replace the aspire system that the state board currently manages and runs and runs, um, and, and has developed, uh, for many of the charter schools and smaller LEAs that …
H.B. 407 Public Education Information System · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explains that House Amendment 1 makes the bill consistent with data-sharing rules for higher education and college and career readiness programs.
▶ Watch at 14:17Read what they said
Yes, absolutely. Mr. Speaker. Um, we were approached by Yi just saying that in some of the data that has to be provided and shared right now, currently under separate bills, we also are sharing some of that data with our higher education in college and career readiness, uh, programs. And they just wanted to make sure that that is consistent in this language as well.
H.B. 407 Public Education Information System · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Gives closing remarks that the bill is simple, the money has already been appropriated, and so there will be no fiscal note.
▶ Watch at 15:12Read what they said
Back to you Representative MacPherson for summation. Thank You Mr. Speaker. Again, very simple, bill. Now we've already appropriated the money that's, uh, that's currently in there. So there will be no fiscal note. Thank you.
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the bill is tricky and has been worked on for some time.
▶ Watch at 20:09Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, colleagues, this is a, uh, tricky bill and working on for some time
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Presents the bill, which targets frequent repeat offenders and would limit a magistrate's pretrial release options to those with a supervisory or financial component, and says pretrial services, civil commitment and other options may be added later through a Senate substitute or amendment.
▶ Watch at 20:25Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this bill, um, represents many months of hard work with, um, many of our different agencies. We've, uh, um, been organized with, uh, prosecutors, with the courts, with defense attorneys, with indigent defense, um, with, uh, pretrial services with the jails and the sheriffs. Um, and we've, we've, uh, ended up breaking this bill into two pieces. Um, this current piece of the bill is intending to solve only one problem. Currently in, um, in our courts, in some of our jurisdictions, we have a subset of individuals that are utilizing, um, and I use that word specifically, are courts, law enforcement, and pretrial services. At, at an ex, at a very high rate. Some …
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says pretrial services may meet the supervisory standard after talks with the Salt Lake County jail, and that he plans to amend statute to separate pretrial services into two categories to ease jail load.
▶ Watch at 25:50Read what they said
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, after working with Pretrial Services previously, they believed that, um, their services did not meet the standard of the supervisory component. But after speaking with the Salt Lake County Jail and some of their pretrial services, they believe that several of their, uh, pretrial services may actually meet the standard. And so we are actively yes, trying to come up with a way to amend the current statute to separate pretrial services into two categories, those categories, which most of our services fall under right now, which don't offer a supervisory component. And those that do, that would take a huge load off of, and it's the, the request from the Salt Lake County …
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Confirms the intent to amend or substitute, says the work is in progress, and says it cannot be finished in the next few minutes.
▶ Watch at 26:54Read what they said
Yes, absolutely. My, uh, my meeting with them was just minutes ago, which is why I wasn't on the floor and we circled this bill. Um, and so it's, it's a work in progress right now, but I'm unfortunately unable to get it out in the next few minutes.
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Gives closing remarks saying he will keep working on adjustments to reduce the impact on county jails, that the issue affects more than jails and individuals, and that the bill is not perfect and more work remains into the next session.
▶ Watch at 28:16Read what they said
You, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the conversation on this. Again, I'm committed to continue to work on making those adjustments, um, in order to minimize the impact that would have on some of our county jails. Um, but understanding that this is an issue that affects more than just our jails. It affects more than just the individuals that may, for example, the homeless or the, or, those that are, um, mentally ill or those that are drug addicted that fall into this population. There's more considerations than just that group as well. There's considerations on how this impacts the community, how it impacts our law enforcement and our courts, how it impacts our pretrial services, that they're providing these …
H.B. 604 Local Government Official Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Presents HB 604, which would bar people in certain state and local executive positions from also serving in the Legislature, with a grandfather clause for one current officeholder.
▶ Watch at 31:05Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, so this is an interesting bill currently in our Utah constitution. It defines that, uh, or it states clearly that positions of profit and trust in the executive branch cannot serve in a legislative branch. Um, many states have applied this policy more broadly in statute to include all the way down through their municipal legislative positions as well. Just to clarify that, we believe in a separation of powers and that individuals serving in the executive branch in positions of profit and trust, um, explicitly those, um, cannot simultaneously serve in a legislative branch capacity. So what this bill essentially seeks to do is identify positions that would fall under the, um, executive branch. …
H.B. 604 Local Government Official Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says a policy analyst is compiling a list of statewide positions that would fall under the bill, and that the roles are title-based with functions set in rule or statute.
▶ Watch at 35:34Read what they said
Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker for the question. So, um, what I can do is provide, and, and I apologize, I'm looking for it right now in my email. Um, we had the policy analyst, um, pull a list of all of the positions currently statewide in the state of Utah that would qualify under this definition. Um, and, uh, it is a title, uh, based role. Um, but the roles themselves have functions, um, typically listed under either rule or, um, statute right now. And so there would be some definitions in code, but I think it might be more clear if I were to provide a list of all of the positions, not the people, but the positions …
H.B. 604 Local Government Official Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says that under current language executive director, director and division director positions are treated separately from executive branch agencies, and says he will bring up the list.
▶ Watch at 36:56Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker for the question. So under the current language, um, the position of executive director, director or division director working in the state executive branch, um, is I believe, and I may have to double check with my, uh, drafter on this, but based on the analysis that we got is separate from executive branch agencies. And so this would be more clarified to specifically talking about the governor's office and not executive branch agencies. Those are, uh, uh, uh, put in a separate section under State Executive Branch Official, where we're looking at, um, um, oh, actually I've got that backwards, sorry. So the, uh, state executive branch official is looking at the executive branch, uh, …
H.B. 2 New Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Supports the motion to circle so members can discuss a possible amendment, noting that all bills, including base budget bills, are subject to amendment.
▶ Watch at 40:22Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would support a motion to circle only because I want to state for the record that I think all of our bills are subject to amendments. They're subject to substitutions, including base budget bills. If there's a conversation to be had and, uh, we need a few minutes to get an amendment to discuss, I think that's, uh, worthy of our time to, to wait and discuss it. We can still vote to oppose that amendment if it comes out, if, uh, that discussion turns out differently. But I think, uh, the good, uh, uh, sponsor of the, of the, uh, substitute motion is, uh, brought up an interesting point worth considering. Thank you. Representative …
H.B. 604 Local Government Official Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says he thinks the amendment is a good one, notes that the governor's cabinet includes about 15 executive directors and a few commissioners, and says the clarification does not change the bill's intent.
▶ Watch at 41:19Read what they said
Yeah, I, I, I actually think this is a, a good amendment though. I do wanna clarify that. Currently the governor's cabinet includes many of the commissioners. Um, I, I do have the list now finally in front of me that I will forward out, um, to the house if you'd like to see it. But currently that does include, um, about 15 executive directors and a handful of commissioners, um, including many of the ones that were brought up. I still think that this clar, uh, clarification is fine. I don't think it, it, it, uh, uh, changes the intent of this bill and I don't think we're really limiting on who it is intended to cover, but I …
H.B. 604 Local Government Official Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Supports the motion to circle and says the bill may be revisited later.
▶ Watch at 47:34Read what they said
Uh, I would support that motion. At this point we'll make an adjustment, but I'll, uh, we'll see if we come back here in the next 15 minutes or not.
H.R. 8 Resolution Admonishing and Censuring Judge Don M. Torgerson · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Presents the resolution to censure Judge Don M. Torgerson over comments he made at a May sentencing in a child sexual exploitation case and the lack of public accountability since then.
▶ Watch at 1:15:12Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker colleagues. Um, last May Judge, uh, Torgerson presided over the sentencing of an individual. He is 22 years old. He pled guilty to two felony counts of child exploit, uh, sexual exploitation. Perfect. And during that hearing, he made many comments that were wildly widely reported and I find very troubling. And in fact, uh, most of the public found very troubling as well. First, after viewing two of the videos that depicted young children, um, being raped and sexually abused, he made a comment that he had seen worse. This is just flat out unacceptable for any of our judges, for any of our public officials. And then when it came to justifying a lighter …
H.R. 8 Resolution Admonishing and Censuring Judge Don M. Torgerson · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
In closing, asks members to consider the impact on victims and notes that Judicial Conduct Commission complaints were dismissed with a warning in August without public satisfaction.
▶ Watch at 1:35:20Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bro. Tam, I appreciate this conversation. The chance we had to, um, to bring this in front of the body. I wanna point out a couple of things in my summation here. Um, some of this has been covered a little bit briefly, but just to put some context to it. In this particular case, the statement made after reviewing child sexual abuse material that, that he'd seen worse. I would like if the body would be willing to imagine for yourself that if it was your child in that video and you had to hear a judge say that in open court on the record, how would you feel? Would you feel like that this …
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves to adopt the second substitute, which removes the fiscal note components per the committee's recommendation.
▶ Watch at 1:39:55Read what they said
You Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt Second substitute. That motion is in order. We'd like to speak to it. Just Briefly. We took out all the goo components that would've included the entire fiscal note and that was by recommendation of the committee as we passed it through the
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the substitute removes components that had been in the bill, including the fiscal note, at the committee's recommendation.
▶ Watch at 1:40:00Read what they said
Briefly. We took out all the goo components that would've included the entire fiscal note and that was by recommendation of the committee as we passed it through the
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explains that the bill updates definitions for level three, four, and five autonomous vehicles and directs UDOT to issue a request for information to vendors.
▶ Watch at 1:40:38Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very simple. Bill. We're updating the definitions of certain types of autonomous vehicles, uh, levels three, four, and five. Um, these technologies don't technically really exists today. Also sends out to RFI through, uh, UDOT to, uh, collect some information from vendors so we can get more information on how to design our code around this emerging technology. And that's the bill.
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explains that the bill updates definitions for autonomous vehicle levels three through five and directs UDOT to issue a request for information to vendors.
▶ Watch at 1:40:38Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very simple. Bill. We're updating the definitions of certain types of autonomous vehicles, uh, levels three, four, and five. Um, these technologies don't technically really exists today. Also sends out to RFI through, uh, UDOT to, uh, collect some information from vendors so we can get more information on how to design our code around this emerging technology. And that's the bill.
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says a Cybertruck would likely fall under a level two definition, which is already in code.
▶ Watch at 1:41:23Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. I believe that would fall under a level two, uh, uh, definition, which is currently in code.
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Responds that such a vehicle would likely fall under a level two definition, which is currently in code.
▶ Watch at 1:41:23Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. I believe that would fall under a level two, uh, uh, definition, which is currently in code.
H.B. 604 Local Government Official Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the substitute removes all state components and bars certain county manager or mayor positions from concurrently serving on a city, town, or county council in the same jurisdiction.
▶ Watch at 1:45:51Read what they said
Just briefly. All this does is takes out all the state components. This is just simply saying that if you're serving in a county, um, council or county, I'm sorry, county manager position or a mayor position, you can't concurrently serve in a city, town, or county council position within that same, uh, jurisdiction.
H.B. 604 Local Government Official Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says he has already given his speech and asks to waive summation.
▶ Watch at 1:46:57Read what they said
Back to your Representative MacPherson. Mr. Speaker, I've already given my, uh, speech, so I'd like to just waive and get us outta here.
H.B. 604 Local Government Official Amendments · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says they already gave their speech and waives further remarks.
▶ Watch at 1:46:59Read what they said
Speaker, I've already given my, uh, speech, so I'd like to just waive and get us outta here.
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked why the bill would make electric equipment mandatory if agencies have already found benefits in moving to it.
▶ Watch at 47:50Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so my question I guess is, um, as I'm looking this over, why, uh, if, if, uh, the agencies are finding the benefit of moving to electric equipment, why, why are we having to make it mandatory? Uh, sorry, I'm not, say that one more time. Why are we making it mandatory? Yeah. So if, if the agencies have been finding benefit from moving in these circumstances to the electric, uh, systems, um, then, then why are we making it mandatory across the board, essentially?
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Rep. MacPherson shared personal experience with electric equipment and raised concerns about reliability and power for commercial use in varied weather.
▶ Watch at 48:45Read what they said
Thank you. And the reason I bring it up, so I, uh, uh, in another life, growing up in Las Vegas, my father owned a landscaping company and we, I spent many a hot, uh, Vegas summer, uh, uh, using this type of equipment. Typically, obviously it was always two stroke, um, type gas powered stuff. And, uh, and I know the techno at home, I use electric. I think they work great in that scenario. Um, my concern is mostly about, um, when it comes to the more commercial, uh, application, um, reliability of the, um, uh, the power of the equipment, reliability of having access to it over long periods of time and different types of weather, heat …
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked how facilities manage and maintain equipment and whether mixed electric and gas fleets would be needed.
▶ Watch at 50:26Read what they said
Mr. Chair, can I ask some follow up questions? Yeah, you may. Um, so have we looked at, so, um, are, are these facilities themselves then, do they ma manage and maintain their equipments individually? There's not, um, there's not a, uh, a separate, uh, department or anything that's, uh, that's servicing multiple facilities. I guess my question is, is, um, are these self-regulated sort of locations or are we talking about, uh, groups that may be traveling or moving, uh, to, to service many locations where we may be cre creating a scenario where they have to have a mixture of both electric and gas powered to meet all their needs?
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked about the practical benefits and drawbacks of operating two sets of equipment.
▶ Watch at 51:37Read what they said
And then, so what would be the benefit, I guess practically speaking to if you're running a, a, a, um, an operation where you, where you're maintaining and using both sets of equipment. So what are the benefits and drawbacks? Is there some concern about, um, you know, having now two different sets of equipment in these cases? Or is the intention to eventually move, uh, to one set, um, as the technology improves? Or I guess, can you walk me through that?
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked whether the state would evaluate total equipment cost over its lifespan, given higher upfront electric costs and lower maintenance costs.
▶ Watch at 57:51Read what they said
Thank you. And that, I guess that question brought another one up then. So from, uh, at least from my experience, and maybe it's, it's different, uh, obviously the tech is constantly changing, but the electric units typically cost more upfront, but the maintenance costs and the, the, the lack of fuel costs and charging batteries tends to be lower maintenance over time. So are, are you saying that even though there's not a fiscal impact, that you're, you're, you're trying to evaluate the total cost of the equipment over the lifespan, even knowing that perhaps the upfront cost may be higher, but the maintenance cost might be lower over time? Uh,
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked whether emissions from electricity generation and battery manufacturing and disposal were considered.
▶ Watch at 1:02:17Read what they said
Lot of question. Go ahead. So, um, Just to, uh, understand too, 'cause we're, we're, even if we do this and replace the, the two stroke engines, we're, we're still replacing 'em with another, um, a system that's still gonna require power generation and manufacturing. Has that been taken into account as well as far as shifting some of that air quality basically to other areas and perhaps some of the other aspects of, uh, batteries manufacturing and and disposal that is included into that process?
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked the sponsor whether local agencies can currently purchase electric equipment under existing procurement rules.
▶ Watch at 1:05:15Read what they said
Um, I'm gonna ask instead the sponsor, uh, a question if I could, you may do that. Um, does the, does this, do we currently, let me rephrase this. Can we currently purchase this equipment today? Can the, can the local agencies under 50,000 square feet of property needing maintenance in the Wasatch front, can they currently under our procurement purchase electric equipment?
S.B. 221 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Raised concern about increment locking up funds for decades and asked how the five-trigger limit was chosen.
▶ Watch at 1:19:05Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, some of my questions have been kind of partially answered, but I kind of want to dive into a little bit more of those. Uh, you had mentioned the, but for argument, I do wonder how much of an argument, um, that is rather than a, than a guarantee. And I've had concerns about the, um, the increment, uh, tax capture seeming to kinda lock up, uh, funding, um, for decades, uh, essentially. Um, and so I, I'd I'd wanna ensure that if we are clarifying this in a way that, um, you'd mentioned the triggers right now that they are in some sides, that, that the understanding is there's just one and in some, …
S.B. 221 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked whether extraterritorial spending moves tax revenue from one place to another and whether it increases density near transit.
▶ Watch at 1:21:23Read what they said
Thank you. And I do have two follow ups, if that's okay, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be quick. That's fine. Good. Um, so the other piece is about the extraterritorial spending piece. Um, my question is, is are we, uh, essentially, um, generating tax revenue in one place in order to spend it for housing in another? And is this, and I'll, I'll make it two questions. Is the effect of any of this going to increase or solidify higher density bills in some of the, uh, transit Loa, uh, nearby transit, uh, locations?
S.B. 221 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked whether that would change density outside the zone or only apply to already-zoned land.
▶ Watch at 1:23:07Read what they said
So will that move then, um, or change the, um, density landscape of some of the, uh, outside of that zone areas? Or is that only looking at existing plots that are already zoned for that level of density?
S.B. 221 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said he was unsure what problem the bill solves and supported the motion to hold.
▶ Watch at 1:42:36Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I, I've been somewhat confused I guess by this, uh, bill and the conversation too. And, um, but I guess my, my only real question is, is I'm not certain what'll happen if we don't pass this bill. Maybe is the, the biggest question I have is really understanding what we're trying to solve here and knowing what we're getting at as a benefit out of it, and putting them both on the scales and being able to weigh together. Um, so I, I guess I'd be as supportive of a motion to hold, uh, for right now as well.
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked whether employees would lose any banked sick leave.
▶ Watch at 1:56:32Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, and so I know you've both gone over this a couple of times, but just to clarify, so there's no loss of banked time and so how does that apply to the use it or lose it, um, bank time scenario that we've discussed?
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked how the short-term disability benefit works, including eligibility and waiting periods.
▶ Watch at 1:57:29Read what they said
Thank you. My second question has to do with the short term disability, if that's okay. So, um, can you walk me through, 'cause short term disability under this section is intended to replace, I would imagine a portion of what the sick leave was intended to do. But typically there's, at least in my experience, when it comes to short term disability, kind of some requirements as far as, uh, eligibility, there might be a waiting period. Um, you may have to be burning some PTO before it kicks in. Can you walk me through how the short term disability actually works in these cases?
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked whether employees could use PTO to supplement short-term disability once banked sick leave runs out.
▶ Watch at 2:00:13Read what they said
So that, uh, that benefit, which I like with being able to use that banked, uh, sick leave to, uh, ensure that that 60% remains at a hundred percent. Um, but, but obviously, uh, over time that bank leave will, since it's not accruing anymore, that will, that will fade out. And so they, they will be still capped eventually at a 60%, um, on the short term disability. Is that correct or is there, could they still apply their PTO to make up for that? They
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Described a past serious leg injury and asked when short-term disability ends and whether long-term disability follows.
▶ Watch at 2:01:00Read what they said
Appreciate that. And my last question is, is a scenario. So, um, several years ago I, uh, broke my leg, um, pretty severely. I spent 12 weeks, uh, in an elevated, uh, leg brace on my back and a bed. Um, and, uh, that was a long time. Uh, and then it took almost nine months of physical therapy to be walking properly again. Um, and so it sounds like under this scenario, if I was a state employee those first two weeks, uh, of my injury, I would be relegated to using my paid time off under this new program. Or if I had a banked sick leave, I could use that. And then the short term disability, if …
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked whether employees would trade the bill's new benefits for keeping a full one-to-one PTO conversion of sick leave.
▶ Watch at 2:13:30Read what they said
Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Um, and I appreciate all this information, um, and the, uh, reporting that you're bringing back from the employees you've, you've polled. I guess one question I might have, 'cause you mentioned there's a lot of good here with the additional, uh, changes that have been made as far as, um, some of the new compensation numbers, the new rollovers, the, um, the PTO, the, the new accruals. And you'd mentioned though that, um, if it was a one-to-one benefit match between what you're losing with sick leave, um, and, and by combining that to getting PTO, that that would be, uh, something that you would prefer. I guess it, has the conversation been had, …
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Clarified he meant stripping all new benefits in favor of a larger PTO bank.
▶ Watch at 2:14:39Read what they said
Yeah. And the new, uh, PTO accrual schedule, um, and that the, the faster accrual, uh, timelines, um, there's a lot in here, like you had mentioned with the, um, uh, maternity leave, which I understand is not part of this now. Um, but also the, um, the, the, the new short-term disability and some of the other, uh, benefits that are in here, I guess if those were all stripped out and this was instead applied towards just increasing the paid time off bank, in your mind, do you believe that that would be, um, a, a good trade? Is that what your employees would want rather than the mixed, um, benefit change here? What
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked whether PTO banks are fully paid out and what happens to an employee with no banked leave who needs short-term leave now versus under the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:34:38Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize I had to step out for a moment and, uh, if, if it, I know we're in the motion phase, but I did have a question because some of the public comment brought up a a, I think a significant point about the P-P-P-T-O bank and the payout. There was some conversation about whether or not they would not get that money. And then also a, a question that had come up that if you had no leave banked today and you ended up on short-term leave, what would happen now versus what would happen under a scenario when it's passed? And I'm just curious if it's, if it's okay with the chair, …
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Restated his question about an employee with no banked leave.
▶ Watch at 2:35:52Read what they said
So if you were an employee today that had no banked, um, time off or, or sick leave and you needed to take short term leave, um, for medical reasons, um, what would, how would that look under the today scenario versus under, um, the proposed scenario that's
H.R. 8 Resolution Admonishing and Censuring Judge Don M. Torgerson · House Rules Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Presents the resolution admonishing Judge Don M. Torgerson over his statements at a child sexual exploitation sentencing and the lack of public action or apology afterward.
▶ Watch at 34:25Read what they said
Thank you, chair and committee. And I apologize. I, this is a weird committee. This is you guys weird me at weird times. I am so sorry. That is true. I've been here a lot, you think I would've learned by now. So I appreciate the opportunity to present this. As you know, there's been a number of, um, bills this session, and even last session looking at, uh, judicial, uh, accountability. And this is, uh, a bill. This is a, uh, a resolution that, uh, that stems from some activities from a particular judge going back last May, um, to go over some of those details without getting too graphic, um, there was an individual who was brought before …
H.R. 8 Resolution Admonishing and Censuring Judge Don M. Torgerson · House Rules Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Responds that prosecutors have discretion, that the judge's statements were inappropriate, and that he is open to the amendment while noting the language was negotiated with the minority caucus.
▶ Watch at 51:16Read what they said
Um, I'm looking over the, those sections right now. Um, I, I, I will, I will say, um, to just kind of bring this into, um, full perspective here is the reason why the prosecutor is not listed here, and I think this is relevant to many of us here, is there is a, there is a component for a prosecutor when it comes to what is possible. What can you do? You may have a lot of charges, you may have a heinous crime, but the, the matter comes down to what can you prove in court? What resources do you have available, um, to prosecute these cases? And they make those decisions, um, on their own. Um, and …
H.B. 604 Local Government Official Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Presents HB 604, which would make certain executive-branch positions of profit or trust incompatible with serving in the legislature or municipal legislative bodies, requiring officials to choose a branch, with a grandfather provision for one identified individual until the next election.
▶ Watch at 1:30:10Read what they said
Thank you Madam Chair, members of the committee. I apologize. I'm gonna take a second to bring mine stuff up here too really quick and because I'm getting old. Okay. So what this bill essentially does, um, pretty simple in concept. Many states do this currently in the Utah Constitution. Um, there is a provision that prevents, um, uh, those that are in positions of trust or, um, or profit in the, um, executive branch to serve in the legislature. And many states have adopted this rule to apply across all legislative bodies, municipal and otherwise. Um, in Utah we don't have that similar sort of framework and language. And so what this bill essentially seeks to do is to …
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Presented the bill, which would require supervised or financial release conditions for defendants with prior convictions and multiple charges in a three-year window, and said a task force was replaced by a working group.
▶ Watch at 1:34:15Read what they said
Thank you. So currently, um, just for some data, uh, purposes, I'll let you know that we have a significant number of our, uh, pretrial services that exists in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County in particular. And that's because the services are where the people go and the people go where the services are. And that has put some disproportionate effect on law enforcement in our, um, capital city and the county, uh, surrounding it. What this means is, is that, uh, if you look at the data last in just one year, about a thousand people represented nearly half of all charges and, and, uh, court cases in Salt Lake City, there is a problem. I've, I had …
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Confirmed that both prior convictions and charges together trigger the condition, and said the current requirement applies to judges rather than jails.
▶ Watch at 1:39:08Read what they said
Yes, both combined. Um, and so would that apply to, to jails if someone came in through, you know, qualify for, for, for being held without own recognizance release without these special conditions that that means the, the jail in this case wouldn't be able to, uh, release 'em on own recognizance either. Um, the current requirement under this section is speaking specifically to the magistrate or judge and not to the jails.
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Explained that prior convictions exclude traffic offenses and that charges within a five-year window are counted.
▶ Watch at 1:39:41Read what they said
As far as convictions, prior convictions would exclude only traffic, uh, essentially misdemeanors and convictions. And then the charges would be, um, basically, uh, also excluding, um, uh, traffic violations, other, uh, criminal, uh, charges, misdemeanor or felony, uh, charges within a five-year window.
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said the bill targets low-level offenders who account for many court and pretrial resources.
▶ Watch at 1:40:03Read what they said
Correct. Uh, so someone could come in, for example, if, uh, ride tracks without taking, get a theft of services and then come back and then ultimately not qualify for own recognizance release. So if they'd been priorly convicted of a either misdemeanor or felony, and they had at least five of those types of charges or similar charges. Um, that's actually the, uh, the, an intended target of this group is there's individuals that are actually low level offenders currently. That those are the ones that are primarily, we're talking about those thousand that are, that are taking up nearly half of all of the court and the pretrial services, um, resources right now. And law enforcement resources tend …
H.B. 593 Bail Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Thanked the committee and said he is willing to keep working on the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:46:19Read what they said
I will waive. Um, just thank you for the committee and I understand that I'm willing to continue to work on this.
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Presented the first substitute to H.B. 581, which updates autonomous vehicle definitions to current standards, sends a request for information to vendors, and allows GOEO to issue grants without a funded account.
▶ Watch at 29:56Read what they said
Thank you chair and members of the committee. I'll let you know. The, um, the original version of this bill, which maybe you've looked at, was a little bit more ambitious and it was trying to do a lot of things that its first substitute, um, has dramatically changed the, uh, the scope of this bill. So, effectively all this bill does now is it updates a, some of our, some of our definitions when it comes to level three, level four and level five autonomous vehicles. These vehicles are not technically or traditionally on the roads today. This is mostly future, uh, looking. And then instead of setting up the regulatory and the safety environment, we're sending out to …
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said the fund was never intended to be funded, that a second substitute will make word changes to say so, and that GOEO keeps permissive authority to spend its own funds for this purpose.
▶ Watch at 32:40Read what they said
um, that's correct. It was never intended under the language of this for goo to actually, um, receive funding for this specif, uh, specific account. It was mostly just a permit, a permissive, uh, language to allow them to do this. Um, and, uh, the fiscal note essentially did not reflect that. So we have a second substitute that is not unfortunately ready this morning, but it will be ready, uh, on the floor that will just make a, uh, a couple of word changes there to indicate that this was not intended to be a funded, uh, item. So, yeah, that was exactly my question, and I feel much better about some of the changes without that. So if …
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said GOEO would fund this from its existing economic development authority, and that the RFI would identify needed changes to code, liability, or safety requirements.
▶ Watch at 33:48Read what they said
So, thank you for the question. And so this would just come from their existing funding, uh, structure. They already have kind of broad authority to issue funding for a lot of economic development purposes. This is just simply saying that you can do it in this space as well, under whatever their priority and guidelines are. Um, the RFIs that we're issuing through udot, they're already working heavily and they've invested tens of millions already into different types of autonomous infrastructure in Utah called V two X. And, um, they're gonna be going out to RFI, uh, under this, uh, in order to collaborate with the private industry, um, to identify what, what are the actual pieces of this …
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said he believes GOEO can already offer these incentives, though he is not fully certain, and that the bill targets the industry more specifically.
▶ Watch at 35:17Read what they said
To be completely honest, I believe they can. I'm not a hundred percent certain. I'm not sure if, uh, our fiscal analyst is available to discuss about that, but this would, this isn't really targeted, uh, specifically to the industry. It's just more of a blanket right now. This allows them to kind of target a little bit better.
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said the state has spent tens of millions on V2X infrastructure, that private industry can close first and last mile gaps, and that the bill gives GOEO specific authority to target private-sector efforts.
▶ Watch at 35:51Read what they said
For sure, we, we've spent tens of millions, uh, locally with the government level on this, what's called V two X technology that allows autonomous infrastructure on a networked sort of basis. Um, but the solution as far as, um, when you get, uh, the last mile issues, so we've got all this infrastructure we're planning for the Olympics, for example, we've got a tremendous amount of growth where you're looking at double tracking tracks. We've, and, and front runner, we looked at a lot of different, uh, methods of improving kind of our, our transportation infrastructure. But the biggest bottleneck to all of that is always that first and last mile. And if you happen to live or work …
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said the technology is new and largely not yet available, that the bill sets definitions and an RFI to build a plan for future legislation, and that guardrails are hard to set before the industry is clearer.
▶ Watch at 37:50Read what they said
The current, uh, issue perhaps with that is, is the technology is pretty new and there's very few that are actually pursuing it. The, the level three, four, and five technology. Um, for the most part, the level three technology is, is a technology that it rarely you would ever see. Actually, I think Mercedes had one vehicle that was certified for level three. Um, most of the tech for three, four, and five just doesn't exist. Um, so this is really future looking. Um, it's difficult to say how you would actually design something, um, that would benefit or detract from any particular company or technology or vendor, because most of this technology is emerging and we're just, we're …
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked to bring up a staff or industry representative to answer the follow-up question.
▶ Watch at 40:13Read what they said
Um, if you'd like, I'd like to ask up, uh, maybe a, a call, a phone, phone a friend to see if she would like to come up and maybe ask, uh, answer some of these if that's appropriate. Mr. Chair.
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said GOEO could already do this, that the bill tries to set guidelines, and that it is difficult to set full guardrails before the industry is defined.
▶ Watch at 40:27Read what they said
Um, I will answer, at least for my part is that, um, currently they could do this already. Um, this is trying to put some guidelines in place and what that would look like. Um, but again, it's, it's difficult to set total guardrails when you don't know exactly what the industry looks like.
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Gave closing remarks saying the definitions revert to federal standards, that the RFI will guide future steps, and that he is willing to remove the GOEO incentive language if the committee wishes.
▶ Watch at 46:38Read what they said
You Chair members of the committee. I appreciate the conversation on this. Uh, you are right. We do need update some of these definitions. These do revert back to the federal definitions. So the definition concerns, I think are, uh, have been resolved. We had some additional definitions under the original bill that, uh, were perhaps a little too ambitious and we're waiting for the RFI to determine how to really set those moving forward. So this reverts back to federal definitions. Also, the RFIs are important to collect the information to get updated standards. Um, I do have that second sub that's looking to ensure that there's not additional funding being provided to go EO and just saying to, …
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said he would be happy to remove the GOEO references, that it is not critical to the bill, and that a substitute is coming to adjust that section.
▶ Watch at 47:48Read what they said
If that is the desire of this committee, I'd be more than happy to do that. 'cause it's more important that we get the RFIs and get some updated definitions, then we put some language into go on how they issue, um, uh, uh, grants essentially under this, under their existing program. The reason I'm asking you this at this stage is because if we vote no, it's, it's dead. If we vote to go forward, then we've got one chance to, we've got another, another chance to look at it. And so If that is, uh, if, if there needs to be more discussion on the committee, but I'm happy to, again, that's not the critical piece of this …
H.B. 581 Autonomous Vehicle Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Agreed to adjust the GOEO language as the committee requested.
▶ Watch at 49:21Read what they said
Uh, can we, My analyst is here as well and heard it from my lips. Let's go ahead and adjust that.
H.B. 455 Peace Officer and Dispatcher Standards Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Presents the bill, which would let certain people with qualifying offenses at least 10 years old, who have had them expunged or dismissed and have no further law enforcement contact, become POST certified, with agencies still deciding whether to hire them.
▶ Watch at 1:08:48Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the committee. I apologize for my tardiness. It's that time obsession. Um, this bill is pretty, uh, simple. Um, but I think it could be impactful for a handful of people. Just to put some context, I was contacted by a, uh, constituent of mine when he was a teenager. He had, um, a conviction, uh, for receiving stolen property. Uh, he was purchasing items online and selling them. He didn't know they were stolen. He, uh, lived on his own, had a public defender. Public defender convinced him to take a plea in Aban, which he took and was told after 18 months, he'd have no further. Uh, it would basically as though …
H.B. 455 Peace Officer and Dispatcher Standards Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says POST originally wanted to screen candidates itself but asked that this be removed, and that hiring agencies conduct thorough background checks, as in his constituent's five-month process that ended with him found ineligible under the current rule.
▶ Watch at 1:15:35Read what they said
I, that's a very good question. Thank you. Originally, under the first version of this bill, we actually put, um, uh, into the hands of post and into the dispatch, uh, commissioned the, uh, ability to kind of screen and determine for themselves. Um, and they asked that, that we remove that we, they actually said if they meet the qualifications, they would like to just be able to train them. But it's up to the law enforcement agency. They go through a typically a very in depth background process on these individuals, sometimes contacting neighbors. In fact, in my constituent, he went through a five month process where they contacted all of his neighbors and his family. They went …
H.B. 487 Legislative Branch Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Explains that the bill sets in code the powers of a legislator and makes technical corrections requested by the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.
▶ Watch at 1:17:39Read what they said
Thank you again. Um, so this is also a very simple bill. Currently we don't have, um, well, let me back up. Th this bill basically just is two very simple things. One, it, uh, sets in code the actual, um, powers of a legislator. Surprisingly, it's not in code or in the constitution right now. We have a lot of new legislators, especially in the house every year. And there are some questions that come up from time to time in this area. Um, so we decided to put that into code. And then O-L-R-G-C has contacted us. The whole, basically second half of this section is kind of a reification. They make some minor adjustments to what are …
H.B. 487 Legislative Branch Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says new legislators often have questions about legislative powers, such as whether they can open a bill to repeal Prop 4, and that putting these powers in code gives people a reference; also says more training for new legislators could help.
▶ Watch at 1:19:17Read what they said
It's a good question and it's something that has come up probably more so on the house than on the Senate side. I would imagine, uh, where there's a little bit more tenure there. Um, I'm not calling anyone old, I'm just saying, um, on the house side. Uh, though we do get, uh, a lot of turnover, a lot of new, uh, a lot of new legislators. Um, and there's some questions that come up from time to time. One question that was actually brought up, uh, amongst, uh, some house members, which had an interesting answer. Um, and uh, and this isn't intended to be a political statement, but a question was brought, could a legislator, um, uh, …
H.B. 487 Legislative Branch Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Thanks the committee for its questions and says he will keep working on any remaining concerns as the bill moves to the Senate floor.
▶ Watch at 1:23:41Read what they said
I appreciate the committee's, um, questions on this. And, um, if there's any other concerns, I'm happy to just keep working on it as it brings forward to the Senate floor.
S.B. 181 School Discipline Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asked how the bill differs from last year's seclusion policy.
▶ Watch at 1:19:51Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, thank you Senator, um, for this, uh, bill. This, uh, reminds me of, uh, bill, I believe you brought last session. And, uh, and, and I was both reading and listening at the same time. So I apologize if maybe you already covered this, but, um, can you walk me through what differences are between the, the policy at least that you, you presented last year in this committee and, and what this bill is doing?
S.B. 181 School Discipline Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asked whether the definition of seclusion, which allows a room or an area, should be changed or clarified.
▶ Watch at 1:27:26Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize, I have a follow-up question for the sponsor, if that Yep. You're welcome to ask a follow-up Question. Thank you. Um, and uh, and, and it goes back to, I think that last year when it was a question I think I had still was that seclusion and seclusion rooms are sometimes not necessarily fully defined. And I know we have a definition for seclusion. Could mean a room or it could mean an area. And I'm, I, I guess I'm still just, uh, I still just want to make sure that, because there's, it doesn't seem like there's an actual definition for a seclusion room other than what the standards for a …
S.B. 181 School Discipline Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asked the State Office of Education to help answer the definition question.
▶ Watch at 1:29:02Read what they said
They're, they're experts and we spend a lot of hours. And, and if to, as in premise to your question, um, to the question of the good representative, um, yeah, I, I'll just let her explain some of the stuff. It's, it's some technical stuff, but I, I apologize. Can I get the question one more time? Yeah.
S.B. 181 School Discipline Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Said he is concerned the word area leaves a gap and asked whether to strike it or add it to the definition.
▶ Watch at 1:29:51Read what they said
Area. And I'm just curious if that's, that, that's been my concern about this before. And I think it's still my concern now is are we over, do we have some, um, are we overseeing maybe, um, or, or, or, or not addressing potentially, uh, an issue here. Do we think it's not an issue? Uh, I'd just like to potentially even strike that particular word if we don't need it, or if we need to include that in the definition. Uh, uh, I'm just curious if there's some input on this, um, piece.
S.B. 181 School Discipline Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asked whether standards exist for seclusion that happens outside a designated seclusion room.
▶ Watch at 1:32:03Read what they said
Thank you. And Mr. Chair, can I ask, um, CA follow-up question on that, then? Yes, please Go ahead. Um, thank you. Chrisanne. Yes, thank you for that definition is, is is there already either in code or under this bill right now then? Um, 'cause I understand we're trying to put guardrails around, um, when seclusion specific rooms are put in place, do we already have those good standards in place for seclusion areas or when we are using seclusion outside of a designated room? Or do those need to be looped in or captured in any way?
S.B. 181 School Discipline Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asked whether the answer required adoption or a motion.
▶ Watch at 1:33:29Read what they said
I wanna make sure you got that correct answer. And, and I'd be willing to, if it's not past my time, do we need to adopt?
S.B. 181 School Discipline Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Supported the motion and asked that guardrails also cover seclusion in private settings and other areas.
▶ Watch at 1:36:30Read what they said
Yes, I'm very supportive of this motion as well, and I thank the, uh, senator for her good work on this for a number of years now. Um, and I think this is a very good move in the right direction. My only concern still remains is that the goal of this is to, um, make sure that we are putting the right guardrails around, uh, seclusion when it's used, especially when it's used in these, um, kind of private sort of settings. And, and that, uh, and I'm sure she will continue to look at, uh, other areas where seclusion is used and see if there's additional protections I would hate for, uh, a school to, uh, not utilize, …
S.B. 240 Higher Education Institutional Governance · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked about the salary and the role of the proposed board professional in the fiscal note.
▶ Watch at 1:44:17Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator. Um, just a quick question on the, uh, fiscal note on this bill. It looks like that the salary on this particular role is, uh, and, and fully benefited salary is about 300,000. What, uh, what, what exactly is it? Because it sounded almost like an auditor that they were hiring, but it, it's, it's something more or less than that. I, I'll let, I'll let the commissioner answer that.
S.B. 240 Higher Education Institutional Governance · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Rep. MacPherson said he had expected a compliance-type role and thought the salary range seemed higher than expected.
▶ Watch at 1:45:23Read what they said
That, I think that answers my Question. Okay. I just, we can wait, I can elaborate more on what we found, but, Well, I think my initial read on this was, it was someone more in a, in Yeah. In a compliance type role. Yeah. And I thought that salary range seemed a bit higher.
S.B. 241 Early Literacy · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asks whether the benchmark definition is tied to an existing program currently used in schools.
▶ Watch at 2:11:55Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I do have a couple of questions, um, with some of the definitions here. He uses, um, right at the beginning, uh, benchmark reading assessment, um, and ties that to reading on grade level. Um, and then a definition of what the benchmark reading assessment means. Is that tied to a particular existing, uh, program that we use right now for determining that in schools? Yes.
S.B. 241 Early Literacy · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asks whether districts currently use Acadience and how its results are reported.
▶ Watch at 2:12:50Read what they said
So do all currently districts use Acadians as their primary tool for that right now? Yes. Okay. Yep. And then, um, just to follow up on that, so currently in the Acadian system, does it, does it give you a percentage base or is it more of a pass fail right now?
S.B. 241 Early Literacy · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asks why the statewide goal is being raised from 70% to 80% when current reading levels are lower.
▶ Watch at 2:13:48Read what they said
Thank you. And, and Mr. Chair, I do have a couple of more questions. I'll try to be quick if that's okay. So, um, there's online 74, there's this adjustment to the strenuous statewide goal from 70% to 80%. Um, and I'm, I guess my question there is, is that, uh, from what I understand, our current standards are well below 40 or or 70% right now. So why increasing the, the benchmark at the SA
S.B. 241 Early Literacy · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says current reading levels are below the 70% standard and asks how raising the goal helps reach it.
▶ Watch at 2:14:58Read what they said
So, um, just to clarify then. So if our current standards are our, our, our current, um, reading levels are, I think in the forties right now, percentage wise. And the, the statewide standard right now is 70. We're not meeting it. I'm not sure how raising it to 80 helps get there. Can You I, our superintendent walk do that.
S.B. 241 Early Literacy · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Expresses concern that the higher standard may disproportionately affect certain schools and areas.
▶ Watch at 2:16:15Read what they said
My, my only real concern, I guess, comes from how this may disproportionately affect certain schools and areas when we're, we already have a standard we're not meeting, and now we're gonna set the bar even higher and then even tie it to some of these programs. It, it, it, it seems like it might be punitive in certain areas.
S.B. 241 Early Literacy · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asks whether tying the benchmark to current measures will automatically improve reported results.
▶ Watch at 2:17:37Read what they said
And, and Mr. Chair, last question. That's okay. So by tying these current, um, the way that we currently measure our on grade level reading and making these adjustments to, um, tie it to benchmark, does that by default automatically improve our current measurement? We're changing kind of the rulers, so to speak.
S.B. 241 Early Literacy · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says he will vote no because he is concerned that changing the benchmark and goals could raise reported literacy rates without improving actual outcomes.
▶ Watch at 2:27:22Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I'm going to be opposed to this motion, um, but I just wanna explain briefly, I think there's a lot of good things that are being accomplished here, but I'm concerned about, um, the shifting goalposts. I think, uh, 15 years ago we folks started focusing on graduation rates, and those rates improved from 80, mid low to eight, mid eighties, up to quite a bit higher now into the nineties. Um, but we did not see any increase. In fact, we saw lags in many cases on proficiencies. Um, my concern here is that under some of these new definitions that literacy rates in the state of Utah will go from, in the …
S.B. 268 Religious Curriculum in Schools · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Explains the amendment, saying some definitions duplicate existing law and proposes cutting seven lines.
▶ Watch at 2:45:57Read what they said
Just briefly? I, I really, really like this bill. I like everything in it and everything about it. My concern is, is that there is some, um, duplicate definitions that are being added here that already exists in some other areas. Um, we already have, um, some good, uh, language around this. We already have Supreme Court ref, uh, precedent around some of this. And I don't want to create a whole, uh, a tiny little section of code here that may actually confuse the issue. Um, making definitions of religious texts and the history of religion and philosophy. Um, I think that we already have that, from what I understand from the state, um, superintendent, we already have that. …
S.B. 268 Religious Curriculum in Schools · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Moves to recommend the bill favorably as amended.
▶ Watch at 2:47:29Read what they said
Mr. Chair, go ahead. Representative motion to pass out favorably SB 2 68 as amended.
H.B. 407 Public Education Information System · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says he is ready to present House Bill 407, the first substitute on public education information systems.
▶ Watch at 2:49:50Read what they said
Yes. If I can just present for my chair, it'll Be just fine. So House bill 4 0 7, first substitute public education Information Systems
H.B. 407 Public Education Information System · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Presents the second substitute, which keeps the optional replacement of the Aspire system on hold, requires LEAs to become data compliant by 2030, and uses already appropriated State Board of Education funds to help LEAs comply.
▶ Watch at 2:49:58Read what they said
Thank you Chair members of the committee. I'm actually gonna be speaking to the second substitute, and I apologize that just went live moments ago. I have discussed some of this with several of you here. The, uh, first substitute was seeking to replace the Aspire system, um, that is currently in place with our many of our charters and some of our districts. Um, and replacing it with a, uh, a new vendor based, uh, SIS that would then allow any, um, in the state to adopt that same system. Um, uh, purely optional. And then put, put the requirements for, um, for data compliance on the LEAs if they so choose to keep their existing system due to …
H.B. 407 Public Education Information System · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Confirms that the first substitute would move away from Aspire, and that the second substitute removes that requirement for now because of its fiscal complexity.
▶ Watch at 2:53:13Read what they said
So that, that's correct. Under the first sub. This, the second sub though, um, removes the, um, the move to the, to remove aspire out of the day this day? No, just, we're gonna wait on this. We're gonna wait on the Aspire piece because the fiscal impact is just too complicated right now at this point in the session. So we're gonna remove all those requirements.
H.B. 407 Public Education Information System · House Education Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Moves to adopt the second substitute to House Bill 407.
▶ Watch at 2:53:53Read what they said
I'm going to, you remember the committee? I will make a motion to adopt second substitute HP 4 0 7.
H.B. 583 Initiative and Referenda Signature Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asked why the fiscal note shows an ongoing cost of $205,000 when no new technology cost is listed, and said he is wary of unfunded mandates.
▶ Watch at 39:17Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also agree this is a good, um, idea. Um, though I'm curious, when I look at the fiscal note, it looks like they didn't say anything about not being able to do this. And I'm just curious, uh, this has an ongoing cost of $205,000, um, but I'm not seeing any, any millions of dollars in, in creating new technologies or processes. I'm just curious if, if you can explain why the fiscal note is the way it is on this, This may come as a surprise, but eight sessions in fiscal notes are still a mystery to me. And, uh, no, I, you know, I am not a fan of unfunded mandates and, um, …
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asks the sponsor a question about the new criminal section on electronic communications abuse of elected officials.
▶ Watch at 59:43Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize f that I'm a little late on this, but I do have a question for the good senator if he would indulge
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asks whether the electronic communications abuse crime is new or already exists in code.
▶ Watch at 59:53Read what they said
Bet. The, Um, section, um, I think it starts online line 1739 and it's the electronic communications abuse of elections or elected office. Is this a new, um, criminal, uh, section being added here? Do we not already have something like this in code?
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asks whether this section carries a heavier penalty than the existing section of code.
▶ Watch at 1:00:56Read what they said
Would be, um, so, uh, but I understand that this, this carries a, a heavier penalty than in this section of code. Is that right? At least that's what the, the code itself says is that carries a more serious penalty, uh, and should be charged under this section. Is it, does that seem correct? Based on your,
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Moves to pass the fourth substitute of S.B. 194 out favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:06:46Read what they said
You. I'll continue. Yes. Uh, uh, motion to pass out favorably. Fourth substitute SB 1 94.
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says he still has concerns about the added penalty language and its possible use, but supports the bill overall.
▶ Watch at 1:06:58Read what they said
Yeah, just briefly. I do have, uh, a little bit of concern still on the, um, the, the language being brought in here with the additional penalties. I know it's existing code and I'm, uh, but I do have some questions about just the, the, the clear language when it comes to the intent to retaliate, uh, threaten and interfere or influence a person in relation to an election process. And I wonder if that, uh, if we're seeing something like that today and if we're inadvertently adding some additional penalties in a place that might be used as, as a, as a cudgel. But I think, but I think overall, I really, really appreciate this bill and I know …
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says he has a question but otherwise favorably recommends the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:07:45Read what they said
Oh boy. We'll, we'll just, uh, Question, but otherwise I favorably recommend the bill. Alright,
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asks whether the bill intends to charge election-related conduct under this section unless a greater penalty applies elsewhere.
▶ Watch at 1:09:26Read what they said
So there's a, a, a specific line in here under 1771 where it says, if an actor can, for the same conduct be charged under this section, and I'll skip down a little bit. Um, the actor shall be charged under this section, um, unless a charge, uh, carries a more serious penalty. So are, are you saying that, that the intent is, is if, if it's related to elections to charge it here in this section unless they could be charged for a greater penalty somewhere else that's unrelated to elections?
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Explains that the resolution would define state agencies and add an optional bill-file field to record whether legislation was requested by a particular agency or group, so bill origins can be tracked and shared with caucus staff.
▶ Watch at 1:02:50Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, this is a pretty simple rule change. It would, uh, create a definition for agencies, uh, heads and, uh, state agencies. And when we would create a bill file, um, here in the house, it would have staff create a new, um, field that would be totally optional, that you could fill out, for example, that the legislation came at the request of a particular agency or a particular group. Um, that information would then be trackable and it could be sent to the caucus staff. Um, the purpose of this is so that as we've had discussed now for a number of years, that there's, uh, some concern about the number of bills that …
H.B. 386 Immigration Amendments · House floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Says the federal code defines the terms in question and that the motion to circle is premature.
▶ Watch at 1:33:54Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am also just, maybe just as a clarification, I'm looking at that section of federal code and it is a, a section that defines these terms. So I, I think that the motion to circle is premature.
H.B. 386 Immigration Amendments · House floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Says the motion to circle is premature and points to a federal code section that defines the terms.
▶ Watch at 1:33:54Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am also just, maybe just as a clarification, I'm looking at that section of federal code and it is a, a section that defines these terms. So I, I think that the motion to circle is premature.
H.B. 315 Human Development Instruction · House Education Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked whether schools could show a different video as long as it meets the bill's standards.
▶ Watch at 47:43Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for bringing this bill. I do have a quick, quick question, though, when I'm reading this bill, it, it seems to state that the EEA shall provide, um, a video so it doesn't seem to necessarily signify, just says a high definition ultrasound video at least three minutes in duration with all these details. Mm-hmm. Um, so is it in, in fact, this video we're talking about, are we saying that, um, that as long as they meet the standards in the bill, they can, they can show a different video if they so feel like it?
H.B. 315 Human Development Instruction · House Education Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Rep. MacPherson opposed the motion, citing last year's legislative removal of Planned Parenthood from schools and saying the bill does not require this particular video.
▶ Watch at 1:18:52Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think I'm gonna speak in opposition to this as well. Um, and I want to just kind of address one thing that I think was brought up here. Um, that, that the curriculum needs to be developed and go through this process, and that there is this process in place we want at the local level. But I seem to recall last year that after 50 years of having Planned Parenthood providing services in schools in Utah, it took the legislature, um, to say, no, stop. Don't do that anymore. We made them. And that was disruptive to schools because they had been providing these services, uh, um, a pro-abortion organization providing maturation and …
S.B. 186 Charter School Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says districts spend a large share of administrative budgets on reporting and asks whether the study would consider loosening reporting requirements and how that affects funding requests.
▶ Watch at 1:41:21Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, um, I think maybe part of my clarifying question here just got somewhat answered, but maybe some clarity, 'cause we did run a bill last year that created a, a, uh, a task force that is looking this year now, um, on the reporting requirements. Um, some of the data we got from last year included that many of our districts are expending upwards of 30% of their administrative budget and staff on the reporting requirements that are in place right now. Um, and that's pretty significant when you consider districts that are pretty large. Um, and then that disproportionate effect on charters. So, um, I guess my question is still though, as when this …
S.B. 186 Charter School Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Moves that the committee recommend SB 186 favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:46:59Read what they said
And I'm gonna make a motion that we pass out favorably senate bill 180 6 Motion is that we recommend favorably Senate Bill 180 6 charter school based funding amendments.
S.B. 216 Higher Education Performance and Enrollment Funding · House Education Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says he is still working to understand the bill and asks how the fiscal note's estimated shifts in funding between technical colleges and universities were calculated.
▶ Watch at 1:54:17Read what they said
Thank you Mr. And thank you for that explanation though. I am, um, still trying to wrap my head around it. So I'm trying to, 'cause I'm looking at the fiscal note and I'm trying to walk through what you've discussed and I see that, um, the estimations in here for how the, um, income tax fund would shift between different technical colleges in a positive way and away from other, uh, universities in a negative way. And I'm just wondering if you can walk me through why that specifically is, I know you've kind of covered that, but just trying to make sense of it all.
S.B. 216 Higher Education Performance and Enrollment Funding · House Education Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether the model considers factors such as urban or rural location, beyond program type, that may affect student costs.
▶ Watch at 1:56:35Read what they said
So Does this only look at the, the program nature or does it also consider other factors like, um, uh, urban versus rural and other factors may increase costs for, for students outside of the, the, the program types?
S.B. 54 Carson Smith Opportunity Scholarship Program Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asked whether the changes would direct mostly private donations to more eligible children without expanding state obligations; was told there is no fiscal note and explained the fundraising cap.
▶ Watch at 2:08:39Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just because I'm not as familiar with the Carson Smith, but this is mostly private donations almost entirely. Right. And so we're just changing, 'cause I know there's the state component of how this is playing out. So the, the changes we're making is just so that those private donations can go to more eligible, uh, children, right? That this isn't trying to expand, uh, any state obligations that may exist. No, there's no fiscal note attached to this. Um, the, the, in the, in the current law, it's built in for the fundraising cap to increase if we reach 90% or more of the cap in that given year. Okay. Thank you.
H.B. 502 School Attendance Modifications · House floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Asked the sponsor to yield to a series of questions.
▶ Watch at 34:47Read what they said
Thank Thank you. Mr. Speaker ProAm, just have a, a number of questions. If, uh, the speaker would be willing to yield, Will the representative yield to a series of questions?
H.B. 502 School Attendance Modifications · House floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Asked about attendance-based grading, including the option for LEAs to use up to 20% of a final grade and the treatment of excused absences.
▶ Watch at 34:59Read what they said
Thank you. Um, so there's a lot of good things in this bill. Um, there are a couple of things that I've still had concerns with, and I'm looking specifically at the attendance based grading. I know you'd mentioned that 10%, but it also looks like that LEAs can adopt up to 20% of the student's final grade, um, as well as including policies that may permit LEAs to ignore, uh, excused absences as well. Can you talk me through that portion?
H.B. 502 School Attendance Modifications · House floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Asked for clarification on line 157 of the bill regarding whether valid excused absences must be excluded.
▶ Watch at 36:32Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker Rotem, just to clarify that on line 1 57, it says that it may permit that an LEAs policy may per may permit valid excused absences, but that seems to indicate that they may also not permit valid excused absences. It appears that might be true.
H.B. 502 School Attendance Modifications · House floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Identified the line number and asked whether the language should require valid excused absences to be excluded.
▶ Watch at 36:57Read what they said
Line 1 57 Premier valid excused absences defined, I guess Mr. Speaker prom. My question would be, should that read, they shall require valid excused absences to be excluded.
H.B. 502 School Attendance Modifications · House floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Said that under the code, may is optional and shall is required, and asked whether the bill makes excluding valid excused absences optional.
▶ Watch at 37:29Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker rot. Tam, I'm, I'm under the impression that the word may and the word shall are very, very different in our code. And that may is an optional and shall is required. Can I get some clarification again on this particular section? The way I'm reading it, this is, is that a LEA may permit valid excused absences to be excluded from this policy, but that's optional under the word may.
H.B. 502 School Attendance Modifications · House floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Said he still has concerns about the language and suggested adjustments be made before final passage.
▶ Watch at 38:05Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker Otam. I, I think I would still have, I know there's a lot of good parts of this, and I know the good sponsors worked long and hard on this. Um, I, I, I still have some concerns over the, the particular language on this bill. Um, and, uh, I think that we should try to make some adjustments to it before passing the floor.
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Moves to pass SB 139, second substitute, out favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:08:53Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Motion to pass out favorably Senate bill 1 39. Second substitute.
H.B. 558 Elections Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asked the sponsor why he thinks people affiliate with political parties.
▶ Watch at 1:28:06Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Uh, positional placement there, uh, Just to the right. Yeah, it is true. Uh, got a couple of questions, if that's all right. You may go ahead. Um, and some of these are, are kind of little softballs, but I really am looking for a couple of things, but can I ask first, what is your opinion? Why do you think that people affiliate with political parties?
H.B. 558 Elections Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Noted the bill does not prevent candidates from declaring themselves unaffiliated.
▶ Watch at 1:30:31Read what they said
Thank you. Would this, and this doesn't preclude anyone from just not affiliating with a party,
H.B. 558 Elections Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Cited a Utah Democratic Party text claiming municipal wins and asked whether these races are already effectively partisan.
▶ Watch at 1:31:04Read what they said
One, one last question then. So I've gotten, I got a text, um, I got a text earlier or the end of last year. Um, I, I saved it on my phone. I thought it was interesting. I actually got a, a similar one from the Republican party. Um, but the one I, I have here, it was, uh, from the Utah Democratic Party and it said that we won big this year and they identified the number of mayoral and, uh, city council races that they had secured victory across, um, Salt Lake County and, um, outside of Salt Lake County as well. And I was just curious your thoughts on that. Do you, do you think then that …
H.B. 558 Elections Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asked whether she was saying disclosing party affiliation would lead voters to make assumptions about candidates.
▶ Watch at 1:52:47Read what they said
Thank you. Just a quick question. So are, based on what you were, you were stating, so it sounds like you're saying that if a voter is aware of a party affiliation, that, um, that you believe that that would cause them to have, uh, less, um, uh, um, agreement or, or, or opportunity to work together that the, if, if a party affiliation was disclosed than if they weren't disclosed. Is that, am I understanding that right? You said trust the voters to, to, to get to know the candidates, but if they disclose the party affiliation, then the voters will, will make a, uh, an assumption, I guess, is that what you're saying? Yeah.
H.B. 558 Elections Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Made a substitute motion to pass the first substitute favorably, citing low municipal turnout and vague candidate positions, and saying disclosure gives voters more information.
▶ Watch at 2:04:24Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a substitute motion. Alright. Would you like to, To pass out favorably HP 5 81 or 5 58 first substitute? And I'd like to speak to that. Okay, go ahead. Look, I understand that this is a, uh, there's some concerns over this. Um, this is a disclosure. I think we all talk about more information to voters is a good thing. If you look at the participation rates at statewide and, and, and in our federal elections here in Utah, they're pretty high. Uh, and if you look at historically our municipal election, uh, turnout rates, they're extremely low. Even after mail-in voting has come in, they're extremely low. If you …
H.B. 558 Elections Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Withdrew his substitute motion while saying he believes disclosure could improve low municipal turnout.
▶ Watch at 2:18:38Read what they said
Uh, thanks. You know, I, uh, am smart enough to read the room. Yeah. I'm gonna withdraw my motion. And, uh, and I'll just, if I can speak to that just briefly too, just, um, look, I don't, I don't think there's any problem with disclosures. I think when we look at municipal turnout rates, um, uh, versus, uh, our traditional partisan election races, there's something to be said here. People participating in elections is more important, participating at all in any way. It's something that typically both sides of a of the aisle typically try to beat the drum on. We want more people participating in elections, not less. Um, currently very few people participate in municipal elections. I …
H.B. 361 Elections Provisions Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asks how the bill's change to the legislative vacancy filing deadline would affect actual timelines.
▶ Watch at 2:30:50Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, thank you. I just have a quick question on lines. Uh, 1254 looks like there's an adjustment when it comes to a legislative, uh, vacancy, changing it from the requirements as well as the la uh, August 31st for a filing period to the last business day. What is that actually gonna change anything as far ashin lines or deadlines today? Because I know August 31st might not fall on a business day. So does this actually moving up those timelines or in practice, is that already the case or how does that work?
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House Rules Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Presented the bill, which would add an optional field to the bill tracker for noting whether a bill may have come from a state agency or similar location, so that OLRGC can track that information and provide it to caucus staff on request.
▶ Watch at 39:12Read what they said
Thank you. And thank you Committee. Uh, I'll be speaking to the first substitute. If you recall, we were here speaking to the original bill a little while ago. Um, the, uh, only real difference here is, is that now this is a request, um, that to, uh, add a field, um, into our bill tracker. So when you insert a bill, there'll be an optional location where you can, if you so choose, indicate if that, uh, partic particular legislation may have come from a particular state agency or, uh, or similar location, and then provides that O-L-R-G-C can track that information and compile it together and provide it to caucus staff members upon request. And that is the …
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House Rules Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Said the committee helped simplify the change, which would help gather data on where bills come from, citing complaints from staff, leadership, the executive branch and the public about some bills.
▶ Watch at 41:35Read what they said
to the bill sponsor. Appreciate The committee's, uh, work on this, uh, and, and helping me, uh, come up with maybe a, a very simple tweak here that might allow us to at least gather some data on where these bills are all coming from. Since we get a lot of complaints, it seems like, from, uh, some of our, uh, staff, uh, some of our, um, uh, leadership and some of the executive branch, and even from the public on bills. And it would be nice to know, um, if, if we so choose to disclose that, and perhaps we can get some more information, insight into where that's happening. So appreciate the opportunity.
H.B. 487 Legislative Branch Amendments · House floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Explains that the bill puts the role of a legislator into state code and includes technical changes recommended by the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel that do not change the effect of any bill.
▶ Watch at 12:16Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. Colleagues, this bill is pretty simple. It currently, um, puts into code, um, the role of a legislator, um, currently that is not defined in the Constitution or in our statute. Also, it includes from OLR gc some technical changes that are needed to ensure that, uh, bills after they've passed, um, the House and the Senate and before they're sent for enrolling into our code. Sometimes there's technical changes that need to be made that are just, um, wording, uh, numbers that have to be moved around. They're very technical and they do not affect any of the language or the effect of any of our bills, but the code needs to be updated …
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Explains that amendment one would require local education agencies to craft a policy letting parents briefly access their phones in unique family situations.
▶ Watch at 36:01Read what they said
Yes, I would. So, Mr. Speaker, I've worked, um, a long number of hours with both the good floor sponsor and with the Senate sponsor on this bill. And, uh, working together with them identified, um, a potential, um, amendment here that would allow or actually would require an LEA to craft a policy around those circumstances that I think have been brought up here a couple of times. There's, uh, situations sometimes I spoke with a woman in St. George, whose, uh, husband had died and their, uh, son was in high school. He is a freshman. The only chance, uh, that he has to go to school right now, even though he's, uh, having a very hard time …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Presents the fourth substitute of HB 136, which keeps driving without a license as an infraction, expands exceptions to vehicle impoundment, allows rapid fingerprint scans for people who will not identify themselves, and makes changes to license suspension and DHHS testing fees.
▶ Watch at 1:26:15Read what they said
Thank you Chair members of the committee. Um, I do have a, um, um, I don't wanna say co-sponsor, but an individual online, uh, that'll be, um, speaking with me. Her name is Jane. Um, also, I am gonna be speaking to the, lemme make sure I'm getting this correct. We have a fourth sub, fourth substitute. Yes. Okay. So I'm gonna just go through this very briefly. Um, there's a couple of pieces of this bill that are different from last year, but I really just wanna go over the, the basic policy pieces very, very briefly. Um, first of all, um, this currently, um, does not increase any penalties. Currently driving without a license in the state of …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Explains that the bill allows a reasonable amount of time for retrieval and includes exceptions where impoundment would interfere with law enforcement operations, which were added at law enforcement's request.
▶ Watch at 1:35:42Read what they said
Yeah, I appreciate the question. The, the, the current carve out says reasonable, a reasonable amount of time. And so that leaves it to law enforcement. But also there's a section that if it would interfere with law enforcement operations, for example, if it would take an enormous amount of time. Both of those are, are already carve outs where there there's no requirement for an impoundment. I don't wanna, I don't wanna put law enforcement at a disadvantage of roadside to Those were made at their request too, for that exact reason.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Explains that current law requires a one-year license suspension after a fatal or serious accident regardless of fault, and that the Driver License Division wants discretion over whether to suspend and for how long.
▶ Watch at 1:36:42Read what they said
the driver's license division when it comes to Yes. Um, so under the current, um, code, if you have been involved in an accident that, um, results in a fatality or I believe it's called Great Property Damage or something along those lines, um, currently, um, there is a, uh, a suspension of your license of a year. Um, and the, there are circumstances right now, this is an administrative, uh, process. And then there is a, uh, a process of appeal through that, that, again, it is also administrative, but the statute says that even without any fault, without any, uh, evidence, without any charges. Um, and, uh, DLD believes that under these, these types of circumstances that happen …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Says he was looking at the wrong bill and that the change starts at line 604.
▶ Watch at 1:38:09Read what they said
I'm gonna, oh, I'm looking at the wrong bill. So let me go to my own bill and then tell you what lines those are. We, we just added those very recently. It Starts at line 6 0 4.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Responds that the bill does not change officers' authority to stop drivers, that driver privilege card changes are not part of this bill, and that about 33,000 people hold driver privilege cards.
▶ Watch at 1:41:43Read what they said
These, these are really important questions and I, um, I, I would say that this bill doesn't change anything when it comes to, uh, law enforcement with their a, with their ability to, uh, engage with, um, drivers on the road. It doesn't increase or decrease or change any of their authority when it comes to pulling someone over. They do have to have a valid reason to stop someone. There's a, there's already a lot of, um, both, uh, laws on our books and case law, um, you know, surrounding that. And there's liability for them and, and, and in certain circumstances, and we're trying not to mess with any of that. But under the circumstance where they've already …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Explains his understanding from law enforcement that the fingerprint scan itself would not connect to immigration databases, and introduces Nate Mutter to explain further.
▶ Watch at 1:45:17Read what they said
We've, we've spoken about this briefly, but it is a bit of a complicated issue from my understanding. If Nate is here or perhaps he's back online, um, the, he is online. Great. The, the understanding that I've been given from, uh, law enforcement is, is that currently, um, APHIS is what we would normally check, but there's sometimes additional databases they check, which is why we made other databases. But currently the, um, the, or the current, uh, like warrant system that we're checking and the ICE databases, they're not connected. So if a warrant is returned, so if you were to do a check and a warrant came up on an individual that would return a record back, …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Gives a summary of statewide data from several agencies on car crashes and hit-and-runs involving unlicensed drivers, including a fatality in Utah Highway Patrol data, and says the bill gives officers tools where they are most needed.
▶ Watch at 2:03:01Read what they said
Thank you. And I, I promise I will sum for less than 30 seconds, but I do wanna just share, we collected some data statewide from several agencies, and I just wanna share some of those briefly. In the nine to 12 month or to 18 month period, Clearfield PD had 14, I'm sorry, 24 car crashes from unlicensed drivers Layton City PD 262 car crashes. These are just crashes. Um, Payson PD 33 car crashes, St. George, uh, 91 car crashes. Utah Highway Patrol had 11 fatalities, including Jane's husband. Um, and, uh, and a total of 58 hit and runs, um, Weber County, um, 19 car crashes. And then West Valley City PT had 1,106 car crashes, um, …
H.J.R. 25 Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution - Secretary of State · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asks what advantage Utah gains from its Lieutenant Governor model, since most states use a Secretary of State or board.
▶ Watch at 1:09:03Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, quick question. Since essentially no states, I think maybe one or two states seem to follow Utah's pattern here and, uh, you know, virtually all states either used as Secretary of State or a board, what can you tell me, do you know, what is the advantage that Utah has for having the elections with Lieutenant Governor's office?
H.B. 529 Secretary of State Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Moves Amendment 1 to change the words Lieutenant Governor to Secretary of State.
▶ Watch at 1:44:01Read what they said
Bring it up here again. Uh, it's Amendment one. Yes. It was just catching a word change where says, Uh, I'll move amendment one. Okay. And I was just informed that that amendment one just, uh, changes the word Lieutenant Governor to Secretary of State. Secretary of State. It was a word. Correction. Okay. So that's the motion that we move Amendment one.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Said the substitute is a technical wording change, responding to an Attorney General concern about compliance with the state constitution, and does not change policy.
▶ Watch at 1:02:45Read what they said
Yeah, just very briefly. Um, this is a technical change. Uh, the Attorney General had flagged a particular section needed clarification to ensure that it was in compliance with the state constitution. It doesn't change the policy, it's just a, a wording change to ensure that it's com in compliance.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Says the substitute is a technical wording change, requested by the Attorney General, to bring a section into compliance with the state constitution without changing policy.
▶ Watch at 1:02:45Read what they said
Yeah, just very briefly. Um, this is a technical change. Uh, the Attorney General had flagged a particular section needed clarification to ensure that it was in compliance with the state constitution. It doesn't change the policy, it's just a, a wording change to ensure that it's com in compliance.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Summarized the bill as mostly clarifications, including venue for related crimes, protective orders for nonprofit volunteers, pretrial detention for repeat domestic violence offenders, sibling domestic violence, jail release agreements, and stalking.
▶ Watch at 1:03:40Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, colleagues, this is a pretty policy dense bill, but it doesn't have a, a ton of, um, new policies. There's a lot of clarifications here. Um, the Attorney General had indicated there is, um, a couple of circumstances where, um, uh, our venue clarification, um, in the statute of, of criminal activity when they are committed in a series that there are occasions when those crimes can be combined, um, when it comes to prosecution. But currently the definition of the locations where the cases can be tried limited to certain areas, including districts, and the code isn't clear whether or not that is a judicial district or some other type of district. This clarifies …
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Presents H.B. 539 as a mostly clarifying bill covering venue for combined crimes, protective orders for nonprofit volunteers, pretrial detention for repeat domestic violence offenders, sibling domestic violence, jail release agreements, and stalking.
▶ Watch at 1:03:40Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, colleagues, this is a pretty policy dense bill, but it doesn't have a, a ton of, um, new policies. There's a lot of clarifications here. Um, the Attorney General had indicated there is, um, a couple of circumstances where, um, uh, our venue clarification, um, in the statute of, of criminal activity when they are committed in a series that there are occasions when those crimes can be combined, um, when it comes to prosecution. But currently the definition of the locations where the cases can be tried limited to certain areas, including districts, and the code isn't clear whether or not that is a judicial district or some other type of district. This clarifies …
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Explained that the change addresses children in the victim's presence who may not be the offender's children, so a no-contact restriction protects them without placing uninvolved children in state foster care during the case.
▶ Watch at 1:08:24Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, yeah, this is an additional clarification. Currently, right now, under domestic violence in the presence of a child, it's assumed that the child is the child of the victim or of the perpetrator. But that's not always the case. And there are circumstances when a single, uh, parent, for example, is engaged in sibling on sibling, uh, domestic violence under the current code in front of, for example, their children where, uh, as it stands under the current, uh, code, and it's not the intended effect that those children during their remand to jail, that those children would be put into the state foster care system rather than being allowed to be still be parented …
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Explains that the provision addresses children present during domestic violence, restricting contact with them so they are not placed in state foster care while the case is pending, and is not meant to allow contact with a child victim.
▶ Watch at 1:08:24Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, yeah, this is an additional clarification. Currently, right now, under domestic violence in the presence of a child, it's assumed that the child is the child of the victim or of the perpetrator. But that's not always the case. And there are circumstances when a single, uh, parent, for example, is engaged in sibling on sibling, uh, domestic violence under the current code in front of, for example, their children where, uh, as it stands under the current, uh, code, and it's not the intended effect that those children during their remand to jail, that those children would be put into the state foster care system rather than being allowed to be still be parented …
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Said the bill reflects work with the Attorney General, defense attorneys, and victim advocates, has broad consensus, and asked for support.
▶ Watch at 1:10:01Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've worked really hard with the Attorney General with, uh, uh, swap with the defense attorneys. We've, and tried to ensure that, uh, all of the, um, individuals that have an interest in this, including the victim advocates, have had their voices heard. Um, and we currently have, um, uh, essentially a full consensus on this bill. There's a lot of clarification here that's absolutely needed with only a couple of new policy changes, especially when it comes to, um, uh, to volunteers and, and when it comes to, um, protecting volunteers of non-profit organizations, including LDS missionaries at Temple Square. Um, and I would encourage your support on this bill.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Summarizes the bill as having broad consensus after work with the Attorney General, defense attorneys, and victim advocates, and urges support.
▶ Watch at 1:10:01Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've worked really hard with the Attorney General with, uh, uh, swap with the defense attorneys. We've, and tried to ensure that, uh, all of the, um, individuals that have an interest in this, including the victim advocates, have had their voices heard. Um, and we currently have, um, uh, essentially a full consensus on this bill. There's a lot of clarification here that's absolutely needed with only a couple of new policy changes, especially when it comes to, um, uh, to volunteers and, and when it comes to, um, protecting volunteers of non-profit organizations, including LDS missionaries at Temple Square. Um, and I would encourage your support on this bill.
H.B. 487 Legislative Branch Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Presents HB 487, which would define the role of a legislator in opening or refraining from opening legislation, and makes technical code-correction changes that move two code sections into one.
▶ Watch at 51:39Read what they said
Thank you Chair members of the committee. I'll be speaking to the first substitute if you haven't yet seen it. Um, this is a pretty simple bill, honestly, this, uh, outlines, uh, exactly what the role of a legislator is, and according to their own judgment and conscious to open or refrain from opening any legislation in area, any area of code. Um, and then subjecting that, uh, those actions who are rules that is consistent with the constitution. Currently, the specific roles of a legislator to do this is not defined either in code or in the Constitution. So this is just something that proactively seems to be a good measure to establish. Also, if you look at that …
H.B. 487 Legislative Branch Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Explains that the first substitute removes a section on refraining from voting, which had been intended for committee hearings without a quorum, to avoid misunderstanding.
▶ Watch at 55:48Read what they said
Thank you. One thing that that sub does clarify that I neglected to mention in that first section on the legislator's autonomy, there was a section that I think that there were some questions over where it had refrain from voting, um, that was intended to focus on issues like committee hearings where there may not be a quorum. We just removed that to make it just very clear that, um, again, you can open a bill file, you can vote yes or no as far as refraining from voting that was removed to prevent any sort of, uh, misunderstanding.
H.B. 487 Legislative Branch Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Responds that the language came from OLRGC, gives no new powers, moves some sections into one, and makes only cleanup changes that do not alter the meaning of law.
▶ Watch at 57:12Read what they said
Uh, yes. Thanks for that clarification. This, this came directly from, uh, O-L-R-G-C. It's not intended to give any new abilities or powers to them. Just a clarification on how their ability to cr uh, clarify the code as passed. There's sometimes just some very simple minor adjustments that need to be made in the bill language before it's adopted into code. This doesn't, this basically does move, yes, a couple of sections into one. It is, there is some clarification, but there is no changes as far as what their abilities are. And if you look at line 2 36, that, um, none of this includes any corrections that would alter the meaning or the effect of law. This …
H.B. 487 Legislative Branch Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Supports placing the bill on the consent calendar, saying it contains no new material and only clarifies existing code.
▶ Watch at 59:42Read what they said
Um, I appreciate that motion. I think that's totally in order. I think that there's not really anything, um, new about any of this code. There's some clarifications in existing codes and recon. Um, and I think that it would be appropriate. I appreciate the motion, if that's what the committee would prefer.
H.B. 129 Education Board Amendments · House floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Asks how the bill assigns the State Board of Education an executive branch role, given its dual role and its reporting to the legislature.
▶ Watch at 49:27Read what they said
Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. So if I understand correctly, the, the Constitution itself doesn't specifically outline the State Board of Education as an executive branch agency, and they seem to have kind of a dual role in legislative and executive. And they, and they do report to the legislative branch, uh, as much as they do the executive. I'm wondering if the sponsor could walk me through the understanding of how this is essentially assigning them an executive branch role.
H.B. 129 Education Board Amendments · House floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Says the board's role in managing day-to-day school matters is a policy question, and that he understands the bill's intent but struggles with it.
▶ Watch at 50:27Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. I, I have struggled with this, uh, this concept for some time. The, um, there is a discussion to be had, I think, uh, in policy and whether or not we want a state Board of education that actually fulfills their duty of, of managing the daily operations and management of the schools. Um, they are an elective body, um, as well as what the legislature's role is in education. And I think that in many times the state board has, um, kind of allowed the legislature to take over their duties and tell them essentially what it is that we want them to do. But at the same time, when you talk to …
H.B. 370 Sex Offender Oversight Amendments · House floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Asks whether changes between the substitute and the underlying bill affect the fiscal note, which he says is not yet visible online.
▶ Watch at 1:10:34Read what they said
Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. Em, um, could you address the fiscal note? There's um, I I know the underlying bill had a, uh, a fiscal note in the substitute. I I'm not seeing it yet. So I'm just curious if there were any changes between the substitute and the underlying bill that would, uh, change that fiscal note.
H.B. 455 Peace Officer and Dispatcher Standards Amendments · House floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Presents H.B. 455, which would let POST certify adults with certain past convictions for corrections or dispatch jobs if more than 10 years have passed, the offense was not violent or sexual, and the charges were dismissed or expunged, and says agencies would still not be required to hire them.
▶ Watch at 1:28:23Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker, pro temp colleagues. This bill, um, addresses an issue and it comes to hiring from post. Currently, if you are a juvenile and you have a, um, certain convictions from your cr uh, from your juvenile record, those are not counted after a certain cooling off period. There's an assumption that after a number of years, usually around three to four years, that if you haven't committed any additional crimes, that they will actually consider you for certain types of employment in, uh, post, which is used for qualifying employees for both, um, law enforcement officers for corrections and as dispatchers for, uh, some of our emergency services. Um, currently though, that does not apply to …
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Presents HB 302, which would let cities adopt one official flag, allow other flags freely, limit official-flag-only displays at schools, airports, transit facilities, and courthouses, and subject flag adoption to Administrative Rules Committee review.
▶ Watch at 1:44:15Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Em, this. Um, if you got, if, uh, colleagues, if you'll recall last year, there was a bill that was passed that, uh, um, identified certain types of, uh, flags and displays that could be held in certain locations. Um, and then shortly after the session, um, one of our municipalities adopted, uh, a number of additional official flags in order to, uh, kind of skirt around the state law. There's been a lot of discussion about what, uh, the process we should do. Um, I've been working, uh, greatly with the, the league, with Salt Lake City, with, uh, the different stakeholders. And what we came up with was a solution, um, in this bill, …
H.B. 88 Public Assistance Amendments · House floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Says the bill addresses accountability for state-funded benefits rather than charity, and supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:11:22Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker colleagues. I'd like to speak just briefly about the, some of the conversation that's been had. I think there's a conflation of two different issues here. Um, and one is charity, which the people of the state of Utah are very good at. The people do that a lot. In fact, uh, there's nothing, this bill that prevents people from providing charity. I think there was some discussion of the Sermon on the Mount. Um, I don't believe that, uh, in that discussion there was any, uh, direction to give your money to Caesar so he could do it for you. Um, I think the concern here is that just like in public education, we're not …
H.B. 88 Public Assistance Amendments · House floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
MacPherson says the bill does not prevent charity, that the debate concerns accountability for state-funded dollars, and says he supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:11:22Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker colleagues. I'd like to speak just briefly about the, some of the conversation that's been had. I think there's a conflation of two different issues here. Um, and one is charity, which the people of the state of Utah are very good at. The people do that a lot. In fact, uh, there's nothing, this bill that prevents people from providing charity. I think there was some discussion of the Sermon on the Mount. Um, I don't believe that, uh, in that discussion there was any, uh, direction to give your money to Caesar so he could do it for you. Um, I think the concern here is that just like in public education, we're not …
H.B. 463 Special Education Funding Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
MacPherson noted the large fiscal note and past growth in special education funding and asked whether rebalancing existing resources would be a better solution.
▶ Watch at 51:31Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so my questions are, are similar vein, so $68 million fiscal note. Um, and, and there's been discussion around lack of funding, but at the same time, our special ed funding has increased 20 fold in the last 10 years. Um, dramatic, dramatic increases the vastly largest growing portion of the public ed budget. And so I'm, I'm curious because of some of this discussion and whether or not based on what we've dec deciding are some of the problems is, is that there's a, a a lack of the balance of the resources being applied because some students may need far fewer, uh, resources than other students, but the formula is flat across all …
H.B. 463 Special Education Funding Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
MacPherson asked whether some students cost less than the allocation and whether funds go to individual students or to LEAs.
▶ Watch at 53:36Read what they said
And Mr. Chair, if I can follow up, doesn't make a balance. Well, that another question. Yeah, Go Ahead then. Um, so I guess to to, to build on with that, um, is it fair to say that if you have some students that are costing six times as much, you have other students that are costing less than the actual allocation? And, and help me understand too, when it comes to, 'cause I'm not certain how, when it, after it leaves the state allocation here and it gets to the state board, that funding, is that actually to the student level or is that funding going to the LEA to the school based on those counts? And then, um, …
H.B. 463 Special Education Funding Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
MacPherson said he still prefers studying how to target resources rather than increasing the overall amount.
▶ Watch at 55:43Read what they said
I appreciate that clarification. I think that helps me understand this. But I, I think it still gets to the concern that if we increase the bucket in total, then we might be coming back here again, as those numbers fluctuate, might make more sense to try to study this and try to figure out if there's adjustments that can be made on capturing how, how can we best provide the resources where they're needed rather than just into the entire bucket. But I appreciate this approach and I'm very interested in seeing where it goes.
H.B. 463 Special Education Funding Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
MacPherson moved to hold the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:04:09Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm gonna make a motion to hold and I'd like to speak to that,
H.B. 463 Special Education Funding Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
MacPherson said the problem is real but proposed an interim study to develop a funded committee bill, noting the bill is unlikely to be funded this year.
▶ Watch at 1:04:16Read what they said
Ahead. Um, I think that there's, um, a obvious problem. We know that there is one, we've discussed this before. Um, I think that there's a lot of, uh, uh, misunderstanding of how we fund public education. Um, how it went from weighted pupil units and multipliers to now add-ons and additional, uh, ways. Um, I appreciate this approach, but I'm not certain that this is getting to the core issue. I would suggest that we bring this to an interim, study it and actually find out if there's a combination of reallocations as well as perhaps funding increases. But, uh, the, the, uh, legislature has been dramatically increasing funding, uh, in this category for many, many years. And the …
H.B. 463 Special Education Funding Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
MacPherson opposed the substitute motion, citing the large fiscal note and the many bills awaiting floor action.
▶ Watch at 1:09:06Read what they said
Yeah, and I, I guess my, my only concern with this motion to, to favorably recommend is that with a 58 or $56 million fiscal note with a hundred bills deep on our house board, the likelihood of us actually even passing it on a house floor at this point with we know we have to either have funding in place, um, before or there's, there's a lot of, uh, there's a lot of concerns in addition to what I've already brought up, that even, even without those, um, with, with something with such a large fiscal note that I, I'm concerned that what, how it may be unnecessarily adding, uh, additional workload where we might be able to solve …
H.B. 463 Special Education Funding Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
MacPherson said the bill was not on the State Board's or appropriations committee's priority lists amid budget cuts and argued an interim study producing a consensus committee bill would be more effective.
▶ Watch at 1:18:12Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. And I know this has been a very long discussion. I think this actually emphasizes why I think the motion to hold is a good idea. I think this discussion will continue on the floor as well. Um, and I, I, I think that when we're talking about the education budget right now and what, you know, we had to identify 290 something million dollars in, in potential cuts from the public education program. And we had several hundred million dollars in additional funding requests. Um, many of them from the state board. Um, this wasn't on the state board's priority list when they gave us the list of their, uh, funding items, I don't believe. …
S.B. 131 Charter School Eligibility · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Made a substitute motion to adopt House Amendment 1.
▶ Watch at 1:39:43Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a substitute motion to adopt house amendment one.
S.B. 131 Charter School Eligibility · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Explained that the amendment strikes leftover COVID-19 emergency definitions and charter school language for the 2020-2022 school years.
▶ Watch at 1:39:57Read what they said
Briefly? I spoke to the, uh, sponsor about this as well. Uh, we have some leftover code in this section regarding, uh, COVID-19 emergency definitions and specific language for charter schools, um, within the 20 20, 20 21 and 20 21, 22 school year. And I'm just striking those from the code.
H.B. 334 Educator Organization Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Asked whether a new commission is needed given the roughly 400 existing boards and commissions in code, and said the decision is for the committee and body to make.
▶ Watch at 1:44:43Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. And really, I thank you for bringing this though. I do have one question, and that is, um, we have, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 400, uh, boards and commissions in code right now. Um, is this something that needs to be in a new commission? You know, I'm I hearing from the people that I work with? Yes. And, and the people that I work with. Mind you, I, I represent a district that's very rural. Um, so having a very rural district oftentimes feels separate and distant from everything that's happening here at the Capitol. Um, so, so to those that I represent, yes, maybe to us that are part of those …
H.B. 334 Educator Organization Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Supported the motion and noted that under current statute legislators on these boards and commissions are compensated while other members usually receive per diem or stipends.
▶ Watch at 1:54:44Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also support this motion very look much looking forward to, um, seeing this. Um, and I think, uh, just to reference, I think what was brought up before and on those boards and commissions under statute currently, um, legislators have to be compensated for their time, uh, currently. And other, uh, other members of those, uh, commissions are typically not paid, uh, other than their per diem or their stipends for those, that's, I, I think according to statute, how that already exists. So thank you very much for bringing this
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Presents H.B. 148, which creates a school meals debt relief fund and adds an optional checkbox on individual income tax returns for donations, with a review timeline tied to a minimum annual collection amount.
▶ Watch at 1:03:00Read what they said
Thank you. Um, this bill is just bringing one tool in addressing school launch debt in our state. And you know, we, it is run in the millions of dollars and there's great people in our state that want to help. And right now it's really difficult to create a me what it does to create this mechanism. So regular citizens that wanna at the end of the year as they're, um, finalizing their taxes, wanna actually provide some support to school lunch debt. What it does is through a simple process, it creates, um, the school meals debt relief fund and it will, what it does, it places, um, check off box on the individual income tax return for …
H.B. 385 Specialized Product Sales Amendments · House floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Explains that the substitute expands the fee and regulatory structure to all retailers selling these products, with a flat fee to generate a steadier enforcement funding amount.
▶ Watch at 1:14:50Read what they said
Yes, I would. Um, so the underlying bill seeks to, um, generate a, a significant amount of revenue so that we can provide funding for enforcement of this. It's tied specifically right now to the retail, uh, tobacco specialty, uh, businesses, um, that is a very small subset of all of the, of the, um, retailers that sell these products. And so what this bill essentially does is it expands, um, the, uh, the fee and the regulatory structure to any business, any retailer that sells any of these products. Um, it lowers the entire, uh, uh, the individual fee on each, uh, business in this category. Um, but it makes it flat across all retailers in order to generate, …
H.B. 385 Specialized Product Sales Amendments · House floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Explains that the second substitute expands the fee and regulatory structure to all retailers selling these products, lowers each business's fee by making it flat, and keeps the rest of the bill's structure to generate similar revenue for enforcement.
▶ Watch at 1:14:50Read what they said
Yes, I would. Um, so the underlying bill seeks to, um, generate a, a significant amount of revenue so that we can provide funding for enforcement of this. It's tied specifically right now to the retail, uh, tobacco specialty, uh, businesses, um, that is a very small subset of all of the, of the, um, retailers that sell these products. And so what this bill essentially does is it expands, um, the, uh, the fee and the regulatory structure to any business, any retailer that sells any of these products. Um, it lowers the entire, uh, uh, the individual fee on each, uh, business in this category. Um, but it makes it flat across all retailers in order to generate, …
S.B. 147 Office of Inspector General of Medicaid Services Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked which substitute of the bill the committee was considering.
▶ Watch at 39:56Read what they said
Thank you. Um, I appreciate all the work that's going into this and, and I apologize a Ms. Spar, are we talking about the first substitute
S.B. 147 Office of Inspector General of Medicaid Services Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked whether the bill addresses oversight gaps like the audit finding that DHHS failed to collect almost $50 million in Medicaid rebates.
▶ Watch at 40:06Read what they said
Okay. It's already there. Is it there? Let me just bring that up real quick. You'll see The, Yeah. Okay, got it. Um, so I guess my question is, last year, um, an audit found that DHHS had, um, had failed to properly report certain invoices and we had failed to collect almost $50 million in rebates. And there was some question of whether or not this would have under a properly functioning office, been something that could have been seen or caught or potentially fall under the, um, this particular office. Is any of the changes or the adjustments we're making here looking at trying to ensure that that type of, uh, oversight on Medicaid services that don't directly …
S.B. 147 Office of Inspector General of Medicaid Services Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Followed up asking whether the Inspector General's office will be structured to catch problems proactively rather than after the fact.
▶ Watch at 42:42Read what they said
Thank you. And Mr. Sheriff, I can follow up. Yes, go ahead. Um, so I guess my question would be too is that, uh, Olag and, and our auditors are very good at this, and I, I appreciate their involvement now in this process, but I, I, I feel like that's still kind of a reactionary. It's like, it's a, it's kind of after the fact. And, and I'm wondering, um, if, if OIG is gonna be established in a way that can proactively kind of see these before we're kind of behind the eight ball and then saying, Hey, we, we missed another $50 million. Let's see what we can do to, to find that or, or fix that. …
S.B. 147 Office of Inspector General of Medicaid Services Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked whether the advisory board can shape how the Inspector General's office is administered so it can be proactive.
▶ Watch at 45:41Read what they said
And, and with that advisory board, are they, um, Mr. Sheriff, if that's okay, uh, with that advisory board, um, I know they can make recommendations for, for audits and, and such and, and maybe focus areas. Do they, do they have, they have the ability to kind of shape how, uh, the administration of, of OIG is, is happening too, so that it can be proactive about those as well?
S.B. 147 Office of Inspector General of Medicaid Services Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Moved to pass the second substitute of S.B. 147 out favorably.
▶ Watch at 51:07Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll make a motion that we pass out favorably sb uh, 1 47 second substitute, uh, from this committee.
S.B. 147 Office of Inspector General of Medicaid Services Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Noted he had sponsored a bill to disband the office, but said he appreciates the work on this bill and the legislative auditor's role and supports it.
▶ Watch at 51:16Read what they said
speak to that briefly, you would please. So, uh, I, I don't think it's any shock, uh, from some of you. I, I also had a bill on, uh, OIG that was looking to actually just disband the office and move all the functions into other areas. Um, I, I was deeply disappointed with where, where, where, where we were out. Um, but I am very appreciative of all the work that I see that's gone into this and the thought. Um, I appreciate the ola, uh, piece very much and I do think that this has a very good likelihood of being much more successful. And so I support the bill and appreciate it.
H.B. 511 Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked whether the 10% local bonus would affect overall bid pricing, and noted there is no fiscal note.
▶ Watch at 56:38Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I think my question's pretty simple. Um, these are mostly competitive bid, um, procurement process Yes. Uh, assignments. Right. And I noticed there's no fiscal notes, so I'm just curious. Um, uh, normally our process is looking at a couple of factors and prices, a big part of them. So is this, are, is procurement saying that a, that a 10% bonus to our resident, uh, companies is not gonna affect, uh, overall pricing
H.B. 511 Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked whether analysis was done on the tax revenue effects if the state awards contracts to local companies at slightly higher cost.
▶ Watch at 1:03:36Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize, I had a new question come up from the conversation, but, so, um, back to Representative Cutler's. Uh, I, I guess question has there, because I don't see anything in the fiscal note that outlines this, but if we're awarding then in those circumstances, perhaps a, a vendor that may have a slightly higher cost, for example, because they're a Utah preference, has there been any analysis done? I I assume that in that scenario, we're then capturing tax revenue now from that local company as far as, uh, wages we're cap capturing corporate income tax, if they're resident Utah Company has written any, uh, comparison is what those offsets might be is …
H.B. 511 Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Withdrew an earlier motion and moved to adopt the first substitute of HB 511.
▶ Watch at 1:09:46Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. I'll, uh, make a motion to favor favorably recommend HB five 11 First substitute. Oh, do we need to adopt still the first sub? First sub? I'll withdraw my motion and make a new motion to adopt the first substitute.
H.B. 511 Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Moved to pass HB 511 first substitute out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
▶ Watch at 1:10:20Read what they said
Will th make a motion if that is in the chair's, uh, desires then that, uh, we pass out, uh, SB five 11 first substitute, uh, from this committee with a favorable recommendation.
H.B. 511 Procurement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Said the idea is interesting and asked for more information on the fiscal effects of preferencing Utah companies, and said it is worth discussing on the floor.
▶ Watch at 1:10:35Read what they said
Just, uh, I, I think it's a very interesting, fascinating, uh, idea. Um, I, I'm curious about how, uh, what, what the fiscal side might say about, um, you know, additional captured revenue even from, um, preferencing Utah companies in some ways. Um, I'd be curious to find a little bit more, but I think it's a discussion worth bringing to the floor and, and discussing. So that's my motion. Thank You.
H.B. 409 Legislator Leave Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked whether the bill grants additional paid leave on top of legislative pay or teacher and state employee pay.
▶ Watch at 1:14:08Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Couple of questions. I'm looking at, uh, line 52, the LEA shall develop a leave policy. The grants a teacher is a legislator paid leave for an authorized legislative day for the number of hours legislator requests. And I'm just, um, based on your description of what we've talked about, I'm, I'm just, I I, I'm, I'm asking here is this, is this to grant additional paid leave days for state employees or teachers in addition to whatever they have and on top of legislative pay?
H.B. 409 Legislator Leave Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked whether the reimbursement comes out of legislative pay rather than being in addition to it.
▶ Watch at 1:15:15Read what they said
Thank you. And then my second question was, so if they, if the legislature is going to reimburse the, the personal costs of the state employee for the benefits, um, is that coming out of their legislative pay then that's not in addition to their,
H.B. 409 Legislator Leave Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked whether the bill would create a scenario in which the state pays personal benefit costs under a different tax treatment.
▶ Watch at 1:15:56Read what they said
And I apologize, Mr. Chair. I I do have a, just a couple, just clarifying. So for example, if you leave your job to come to the legislature and you're here for 45 days and you return back to your job, you may have, for example, if you did not elect to come to the legislative benefits, for example, you may have to come back and pay, uh, um, the employee portion of some of the benefits that you maintained, but you were not getting income for. So they were not getting any tax deduction, uh, tax deductible benefits that, that that income was essentially paying for. So you're gonna get an invoice, essentially. So I'm, I guess my question …
H.B. 409 Legislator Leave Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Said the explanation helps and asked whether the paid leave substitutes for legislative pay and is worked out between the two agencies.
▶ Watch at 1:18:22Read what they said
Okay. That makes, that makes a lot more sense. And, and my concern was that, that we'd be creating a scenario where perhaps there'd be an imbalance between different or same classes of employees and the benefit profiles for those, for things like, uh, health insurance, which might be in violation of, of employment law. And so I just wanna ensure that, that, so that makes more sense. So it is a paid leave portion that's basically substituting the legislative pay and that's just gonna be worked out between the two agencies? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank You. And,
H.B. 409 Legislator Leave Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Said he supports the bill because legislative benefits are replaced by the employee's state benefits, with no duplication.
▶ Watch at 1:26:27Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, um, I, I'll speak in favor of this as well, that I will, uh, say, based on my understanding at least, of how this bill has been explained, as that as the, as the, um, as the legislators, um, state benefits, uh, or pay, um, is going, is being replaced, that the legislative pay and benefits are, are going down. It's essentially one bucket is filling the other. There is no duplication. This is just a choice that they would like to make to supplant some of the legislative benefits and income to maintain their, uh, state paid benefits and income. And under that, uh, understanding, I support this bill as well.
H.B. 147 Government Form Submission Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asks about the fiscal note on the third substitute and why offering an electronic form would raise local government costs by hundreds of dollars per form.
▶ Watch at 1:33:37Read what they said
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, thank you for this. I really love this bill that I have a question that I had maybe previewed with you before. There only appears to be a fiscal note on the second sub, and so, uh, I don't see one, at least for sub three on here. Um, There should be one for sub three. Is there? It's there. Let me refresh. I see it now. It's the same as sub two. Thank You. Oh, but it's the same. Okay. So on the level local government impact, it estimates that the cost per form will go up by possibly hundreds of dollars. Do you have any explanation why offering an electronic …
H.B. 147 Government Form Submission Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asks whether the third substitute has been adopted and moves to adopt it.
▶ Watch at 1:38:57Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And has the third sub been adopted yet? It has not. Nope. I'll move the third substitute.
H.B. 147 Government Form Submission Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend HB 147 with the third substitute to the House floor.
▶ Watch at 1:39:29Read what they said
Um, yeah, I'd, uh, make a motion that we favorably recommend HB 1 47 with a third substitute, um, to the floor.
H.B. 147 Government Form Submission Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Says the bill is good, while noting continued surprise at the fiscal note. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:39:40Read what they said
It's a great bill. I'm still shocked at the fiscal note, but otherwise, good job.
H.B. 147 Government Form Submission Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Says the bill is clear and simple with broad consensus, no opposition, a long implementation period, and no fiscal note, and asks that it go on consent. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:41:15Read what they said
I think this is a very clear, simple bill and there's a lot of consensus behind this. There's no opposition. There's a long implementation date. It's a very simple bill. I think it should be put on consent. It has no fiscal note.
H.B. 112 Political Advertising Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked how the bill's May 6 effective date would apply to advertising created or running before that date.
▶ Watch at 1:50:17Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. And actually it is, yeah, just a little question if I could because, um, just really quickly, on the effective date of May 6th, how would this affect, um, any advertising that's done before that effective date? Going into the effective date?
H.B. 112 Political Advertising Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked for clarification on whether the bill would apply to advertisements created before the effective date or those running after it.
▶ Watch at 1:50:45Read what they said
So if you were to, if you were to put a, a two month campaign in effect in, uh, the end of April and that runs through this effective date, but you created it prior to, would this only apply to those advertisements that were created before This date or That are running through this state? I just wanna make sure I understand.
H.B. 112 Political Advertising Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Rep. MacPherson said he still supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:51:16Read what they said
I'm, I'm still happy to support this bill. I missed maybe some to look at. I think it's a
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Introduces HB 539 as a policy-dense bill and asks to have William Hains explain the first portion.
▶ Watch at 1:59:27Read what they said
Thank you Chair members of the committee. This is a policy dense bill, but I promise it will be quick. I have will still with me because there's a couple of sections of this bill that, um, have been asked by different stakeholders for us to, um, clarify some additional language that's in existing code. Um, and I'd like to turn it over to Will to explain that first portion of it before I ask swap to come up, if that's okay, Mr. Chair, to go through the remainder of the policy.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Refers to the second substitute and asks Ryan Robinson to come up and introduce himself.
▶ Watch at 2:01:31Read what they said
And then ask Ryan to come up here and introduce himself. Um, I, I will, uh, tell the committee I'm looking at the second substitute. Um, yeah, I saw that. And that will be, uh, where all this, uh, these policy discussions are coming from. I've got a PowerPoint to help us hopefully be a little bit more efficient in understanding, uh, the bill is that I can't see behind. They can, Can see. It's up. Excellent. Um, Need to introduce yourself, Ryan.
H.B. 539 Public Safety Modifications · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Says the cohabitant definitions need to be tightened, that this will be studied over the interim with law enforcement, and that the bill is a step in the right direction. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:15:47Read what they said
Just very, very quickly, I know that we're out of time. There is a, um, a long standing issue we have right now in our code and it comes to the definition of Cohabitants and this creates a lot of confusion around some of this language. So some of these definitions do have to be likely change. It's something I'm hoping that this committee can study over interim with law enforcement. There's some resistance to changing those definitions just simply because of how ingrained they are in the law enforcement practice. So with that in mind, the definitions do definitely need to tighten up. We are working on, um, doing that with all the partners involved. But I would say …
H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments · House floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
MacPherson asks whether the bill applies to all fines and fees, and whether it includes restitution or the state surcharge.
▶ Watch at 1:26:32Read what they said
Ahead. Uh, quick question on this. Um, does this apply to all fines fees? Does it include restitution or the state surcharge?
H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments · House floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
MacPherson asks whether the bill excludes the state's surcharge on top of those fees.
▶ Watch at 1:27:03Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And to be clear, does that exclude the state's 90% surcharge on top of those fees? Is that included?
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · House floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asks Rep. Chew if he will yield to a simple question.
▶ Watch at 1:31:55Read what they said
You, Mr. Speaker. I'm curious if the sponsor would yield to, to a very simple question, Representative Chew, will you yield to a simple Question? I appreciate a simple
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · House floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asks how the bill will affect school buses and students riding in the back.
▶ Watch at 1:32:04Read what they said
Perfect. I'm wondering how this bill will affect school buses where students are in the back mooning. I've got a sneaky, uh, feeling that probably won't affect that, because that might still happen in rural Utah.
H.B. 303 Family Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Asks whether the coercive control definition omits actual harm and self-harm or whether those are covered elsewhere in code.
▶ Watch at 1:40:35Read what they said
Um, I'm looking at the definition of course of control under lines 82 through 96, and I'm just, I'm curious, uh, on the language here, there's a section that says, um, that it includes a pattern of threatening to harm or kill, threatening self-harm, threatening to publish information, but it doesn't say threatening or causing harm or threatening or causing self-harm or causing or, or actually publishing. And I'm just curious if that is an oversight if that's covered in another section of code, or is the intent to include not only threats, but the actual activity itself?
H.B. 303 Family Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Asks whether the new household animal definition means threats to harm a pet are not covered by the separate harm provision.
▶ Watch at 1:41:50Read what they said
Um, there's a new definition though, it looks like for a household animal. And so I guess I'm, uh, does the threaten to harm or kill a household animal, um, if we have a new definition for that, does that mean that that's not covered then under the other section of actually harming or, uh, killing a household animal?
H.B. 303 Family Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Says he supports the policy and wants to make sure the definitions are correct.
▶ Watch at 1:42:50Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Uh, Mr. Speaker Pro tem. Very supportive of the policy. Just wanna make sure the definitions are correct. Thanks.
H.B. 426 Online Education Service Provider Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asked whether licensed educator requirements already exist in these programs.
▶ Watch at 47:58Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, can you help me understand, do, do we not have currently a requirement for licensed educators in these programs right now?
H.B. 426 Online Education Service Provider Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asked why the fiscal note does not reflect any local hiring costs.
▶ Watch at 49:49Read what they said
And Madam Chair, if I could just follow up. Um, so I don't see any of that reflected in the fiscal note though, as far as local impact that there would be any hiring costs. Is that
H.B. 524 Public Education Financial Officers · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asked what the change does if the supervisory relationship has no control over hiring and firing.
▶ Watch at 1:20:18Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, my question was very similar, um, but I don't think that was answered. Um, in a relationship of supervisory role, if there's not a, a control over the position, uh, essentially the hiring, firing, what exactly is this change doing then?
H.B. 524 Public Education Financial Officers · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asked what supervision of a superintendent looks like in practice and what accountability tools exist.
▶ Watch at 1:21:53Read what they said
Thank you for that. And I, I guess to clarify, my, my question is more about the practical aspects, not, not necessarily the, the high level vision, but, um, what does supervision actually look like for a, um, for a superintendent? What, what, what accountability measures can they hold them to? What, what practical levers can be pulled when it comes to these misalignments if it doesn't include, uh, employment status? Like what, what exactly does, does supervision look like, I guess, at the ground level?
H.B. 524 Public Education Financial Officers · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said he supports the policy but may oppose the motion because he doubts it will change on-the-ground processes without clear levers.
▶ Watch at 1:27:15Read what they said
Thank you. Um, and I just wanna explain really briefly, I, I think I might be opposed, um, on this motion, uh, I support the policy, but my concern is, is that this doesn't, I I don't think that in a, um, supervisory relationship where there's not clearly defined, um, levers, uh, there we may not actually move the goalpost or actually change the on the ground processes. Um, and I do worry that, that while the goal is correct and that this may not actually get us there, may even complicate the issue more. So I hopefully we'll continue working on it. I expect it will, uh, have no problem with this committee, but I, I'm probably going to …
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Rep. MacPherson noted the bill's fiscal note and asked how many hours nurses typically work in schools.
▶ Watch at 1:39:15Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, it's funny how you create a bill with two words and it cost $3 million, but I will point out that this, uh, from the public education appropriations, this was, um, uh, put on our list. It was pretty high up on our list as well. Um, that $3.25 million, um, that was, uh, on the fiscal note here. But I guess I do have a couple of questions. So, um, when it comes to the salary adjustment, um, the eligibility requirements right now, you know, it looks at full-time versus part-time. Um, how many hours right now do nurses typically work in schools? 'cause they don't have classrooms, right? So it's just a, it's …
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Rep. MacPherson said his questions were answered and described his prior understanding of school nurses as part-time.
▶ Watch at 1:41:07Read what they said
Uh, yeah, that I, I think that covers my questions. I was mostly just trying to, uh, identify, um, if, if they have set hours, if they have assigned classrooms or it's just as an on-call or as needed type basis. I think my idea of, of nurses in schools is going back to your original, uh, statement. And I always kind of saw them as part-time figures in schools, but I, I know I haven't been in school for a long time, so perhaps that's changed quite a bit.
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Rep. MacPherson moved to pass SB 75 out favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:44:41Read what they said
There's not. Um, I'd like to make a motion to pass out SB 75 with a f favorable recommendation from this committee.
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Rep. MacPherson said the bill was highly prioritized by the Public Education Appropriations Committee and that he supports it as good policy.
▶ Watch at 1:44:49Read what they said
Just very briefly? We did highly prioritize this in the Public Education Appropriations Committee. Um, obviously if it's not funded, then this won't pass anyway. Um, but I do think it's good policy and we should adopt it.
H.B. 462 School Bus Internet Access · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asks about the bill's extended-trip definition and whether buses used only partly for extended trips would qualify for retrofit.
▶ Watch at 1:56:07Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions really, uh, gear around the, the actual direct language in the bill. So starting at line 34, um, extended trip means a school bus trip to a school sponsored of ed, including an athletic competition, academic competition or club activity that requires a student in grades seven through 12 to travel more than 60 minutes one way. And then if you go down to line 39, which talks about the appropriations, we'll grant the money for school buses used for extended trips. So I guess what I'm trying to find out here is a couple of things. One, this seems to indicate that the retrofit is designated to specific buses not. So whether that …
H.B. 462 School Bus Internet Access · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asks why eligibility is limited to rural schools when time on buses matters for urban students too, and says rural constituents report the problem.
▶ Watch at 1:57:57Read what they said
I'm gonna try to work through this quickly. All right. Very good. Thank you. Um, so since this has designated those, uh, travel time based on minutes rather than distance, I would argue that, um, coming from a urban district myself and having my kids been in events like these before, that sometimes it's not about distance, it's about the time. And many of my kids spent plenty of time in a bus, uh, traveling short distances where they were trapped in a school bus. And I guess going back to Representative Defay question, why is this just limited then to rural schools when urban kids will be facing these same exact issues? Um, is this just a funding, uh, …
H.B. 462 School Bus Internet Access · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asks for clarification of the bus definitions and how they apply to the grants, and says he would support the motion.
▶ Watch at 2:04:44Read what they said
Uh, yeah, thank you. I, I do wanna see some clarification on the definition of buses and how this actually applies to the grants, but, um, otherwise, obviously we did prioritize this funding as well, and, uh, would support a motion. Thanks.
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asked whether the concerns about cell phone risks also apply to adults in schools and workplaces.
▶ Watch at 2:14:18Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the good sponsor for, um, his work with me on this bill over the years. Now that this has been in process, um, I do still have a number of questions. Um, and so I will try to go through them quickly. Um, so you'd made, um, earlier some comments about how cell phones have all these, um, potential, uh, risks and, and obviously uses that aren't, um, intended to be used in schools. Um, would you agree that that doesn't necessarily only just apply to children, that adults and all of us really have those same possibilities when it comes to access to these cell phones and technologies and whether the workplace …
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asked why school staff and other adults are not held to the same device policy as students.
▶ Watch at 2:15:16Read what they said
I appreciate that. And I guess my, my first question then is, is why does this not apply then universally in the schools? Why, why, for example, aren't staff administrators, um, educators, other individuals similarly held to the same policy requirements?
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asked why adults who are 18 or older in schools are not excluded from the policy.
▶ Watch at 2:15:57Read what they said
I appreciate that clarity. So why then, um, are we not excluding adults that are children in schools are essentially, we have 18 year olds that are voters. They have jobs, they, uh, may purchase this own equipment on their own, yet they, those adults are not held to the same standard as the other adults in the same building. I'm curious if you can help explain that.
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asked how parents could have a role in local policy exceptions for family needs, such as sibling pickup.
▶ Watch at 2:16:44Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, and I guess one last, um, kind of clarification here. Um, I know there's some carve outs for LEAs, um, to make their own specific policies, um, when it comes to these issues. And you'd indicated that that's intentional so that they can craft the right policy for the districts that make sense for them. I guess my question is, is where the parents come in into this process. So if they have unique situations where their options might be limited, where they don't want to, for example, put their student on an IEP or a 5 0 4 plan, because that wouldn't be appropriate, um, for them to enroll them in some sort of …
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said parents in unique situations would be a minority and may find decisions difficult.
▶ Watch at 2:18:17Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would just say that, you know, by definition, these parents are going to be the minority and, and would be difficult for them to make those decisions, but I do appreciate that clarification.
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Moved to adopt the second substitute to SB 69.
▶ Watch at 2:33:25Read what they said
to the committee, uh, Representative MacPherson. Thank You Ms. Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a substitute motion to adopt second substitute.
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Described the second substitute as allowing parents to request a written exception letting a student use a phone only during passing periods, lunch, or before and after school, and cited other districts' experiences.
▶ Watch at 2:33:40Read what they said
Uh, yes please. Just shortly. So, um, what this bill, what this substitute does is provides a narrow exception for parents that would like to write a written notice to the LEA, that they, uh, need an exception. It would allow that student to continue to use their cell phone only during passing periods, lunchtime release time, or before and after school on school property. It would have to be in a manner that does not disrupt LEA operations or any other student. Um, it would not require them to receive a 5 0 4 an IEP plan in order to have this exception. Um, and, uh, the LEA may still continue to prevent, um, access to any, uh, inappropriate …
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said the LEA would determine what counts as materially disrupting use and that the exception is meant to be broad with narrow local enforcement.
▶ Watch at 2:39:01Read what they said
I, I believe that would be up to the LEA to determine, I think the, that the point here is to allow an exception to exist broadly, but then allow the LEA, the opportunity to design narrowly how to enforce it and apply it.
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Argued that parents should have a role in exceptions, that the narrow exception is unlikely to be widely used, and that LEAs can decide how to enforce it.
▶ Watch at 2:42:11Read what they said
Yeah, I appreciate all this conversation. I think that, um, anytime we're crafting legislation around children and schools and freedom and rights, um, that I think that we will always err when we err against parents, um, in education. I think that's always been the theme that we have tried to learn that lesson from. And I appreciate the sponsor's conversation with me on this topic. I, I do think that if we are not going to address the real issue that exists, um, and anyone that would like to discuss more personally with me, what that issue actually looks like in an LEA that refused to, uh, respond to those needs of parents, um, I'd be happy to share …
H.B. 493 Consumer Products Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asks about the scope of the bill and whether it would apply to restaurants whose menu prices differ from checkout prices.
▶ Watch at 47:02Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize, but, um, some, I'm just curious because I don't see here what, what is the scope of this? So for example, um, you had mentioned pricing differences between, um, pricing at a, for example, uh, on a shelf versus a checkout. So I guess my question is, scope wise, this apply to any commercial type sales. Could this work, for example, at a restaurant, if the menu pricing is different than when they charge you a checkout? What, how far does this go is I guess my question? Um,
H.B. 453 Unspent Funding Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Says he will support the motion but wants significant changes, including clarifying whether the account's balances lapse and how its restrictions work, and considering caps.
▶ Watch at 1:25:08Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, I'm actually gonna just quickly, um, support that motion, but I want to explain a little bit why I do think that there needs to be some significant changes here. Uh, I do like the creativity. I think the concerns have come up about the Blanding of the, uh, general fund and income tax fund are valid. I think removing the Paradise from that and focusing on the childcare, uh, piece and the, um, the, the social services aspect of this is, is probably, um, a better idea. Um, also, I think there's some concerns about, um, caps, um, I I think that would be reasonable to consider, um, uh, making some adjustments there. But …
H.B. 508 State Facilities Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asks how higher education construction costs compare with public education costs and whether the bill will raise or lower costs.
▶ Watch at 1:48:45Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, so I guess my question may not be exactly related, but I'm just trying to figure out, so when I look at um, higher education construction costs and I compare 'em to say public education construction costs, I think public education kind of does something similar to this right now where they do a lot of the architectural design planning before they go out for bonding typically or however they're going to, uh, essentially raise that money. But their construction costs are consistently much higher per square footage than even our higher ed costs. And I'm just curious if you could help explain, 'cause I know this isn't trying to follow that exact same process …
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · House floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Asked what the difference is between raw kratom plant matter and kratom extract under the retailer section of the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:21:36Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm looking at, um, the lines in starting at 69 under the Creto retailer, and, um, it, it includes, this looks like that this, this section here makes a change to creto extract versus, uh, the the raw plant matter. And I'm just wondering if you can help me understand what's the difference between the plant matter, the, the, the raw plant matter and the extract? What, like process wise or material wise?
H.B. 190 Child Care Business Tax Credit · House floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Said businesses should have lower taxes and that tax credits for services are acceptable, and stated support for the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:22:27Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to, uh, to state that, uh, I think that we should lower taxes on all businesses for any reason whatsoever. If they wanna provide, uh, a service and we want to give 'em a tax credit, let's do it. There's, uh, other businesses that, uh, we wanna provide a service and we can offer 'em a tax credit. We should do it. I don't see why we should talk about, uh, investments when we're talking about other people's money that we're already taking from them. Um, if we take less of that money, I think that would improve, uh, the government overall. And, uh, so I support this bill. Thanks.
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · House floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Compared kratom extracts to caffeine extraction and expressed concern that the bill groups natural leaf and extract products together with dangerous synthetics, which he agreed should be banned.
▶ Watch at 1:23:15Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. I just wanna, uh, maybe put some clarification around this as well. If you were to look at, for example, coffee or tea or caffeine, for example, these, this contains material that is also consider considered harmful. It is considered addictive. Um, yet generally we don't eat these materials raw. I mean, sometimes you brew them into a coffee or a tea, you get very low doses, but a lot of times caffeine is extracted and then it's inserted into things like drinks into sodas and energy drinks and other, um, um, products that we do consume. And I think that there's an understanding that we need to differentiate between the synthetic products that exist …
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Presented HB 148, which would create a school meals debt relief fund managed by the State Board of Education and add a donation option to individual and corporate tax returns.
▶ Watch at 2:15:23Read what they said
Representative MacPherson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Great to be back in the committee again. Um, So, uh, this bill, um, originated because, um, I, like many others, um, and, and through my businesses have made contribution towards, um, school lunch debt in the past for my local schools. Um, but yet year after year that lunch debt continues to build up. Um, and it does hang on LEAs individual budgets. It allows, uh, it, it requires them to, uh, prioritize paying for those expenses and it can take money from edu. Other educational priorities, and I know there's been a number of bills have been trying to tackle this issue statewide. Um, but what I had, um, discussed with trying …
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Answered that current donation options are not tax deductible and that schools do not aggregate lunch debt data, so the bill would create that data.
▶ Watch at 2:20:00Read what they said
So, um, in order to include it on that section, on the back of the tax return, um, none of those are actual tax deductible right now. There, there is, as I understand at least one charitable organization in the state that does allow, um, um, contributions on a tax deductible basis for that. The hard part right now is, is that the schools don't aggregate this data. So you might be able to, uh, call your local school or possibly even a district to get information on the debt for your particular area, but if you want to try to make an impact for the entirety of the state, you really have to kind of navigate each one of …
H.B. 364 Certified Teacher Librarian Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Moved to hold the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:23:18Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the good sponsor for reaching out, uh, uh, to me on this bill. And for the discussion. I apologize I missed the first part of it. Um, but I just, um, wanna make a motion to hold and I wanna speak to that, if that's okay.
H.B. 364 Certified Teacher Librarian Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Said schools object to the Legislature dictating who they hire and that the State Board should set such requirements, while supporting the idea behind the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:23:35Read what they said
Um, so my, um, my, when I talk to individuals at schools, when I talk to teachers, when I talk to principals, when I talk to school board members, when I talk to the state board of education, when I talk to education stakeholders, when they complain about the legislature, one of the biggest complaints they make to us is that we reach in to schools at the school level, and we try to tell them how to, how to do things, whether we are putting in programs or whether we're making requirements, um, mandates, whether they're funded or not. Um, and my concern here is that, um, that this kind of continues down that same path of, of trying …
H.B. 364 Certified Teacher Librarian Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Said he supports studying the policy in the interim but still supports holding the bill given limited education funding.
▶ Watch at 1:29:22Read what they said
Yeah, I'll just briefly, um, the policy I think is a good idea to perhaps send to interim to discuss because there is this, this discussion, I think Representative Arthurs, uh, Arthur has brought up about, you know, who's doing this work. Um, I'd also say that, you know, our, our funding for public education is, is not an endless resource. Usually funding that goes to something has to come at the expense of something else. And so I think there's a, a larger discussion to be made of, of what, where the priority needs to be and who's best to make that decision, uh, as far as whether it's the legislature, the state board, or local schools. Um, so …
H.B. 467 Utah Fits All Scholarship Program Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked the sponsor whether the substitute would create a closed list of accreditation bodies and how it would apply to tiny or new micro schools.
▶ Watch at 2:15:02Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. My question is for the sponsor of the substitute then. Um, so I'm trying to understand, so if, so this would create a closed, um, canon so to speak, of accreditation bodies, is that right? And 'cause that's what I'm trying to out here is if the, um, the working group that the, uh, that the sponsor has outlined was supposed to identify perhaps these amongst others. But is this, is this creating a, a closed list essentially of bodies that can function as accreditors for, 'cause I'm curious how this would apply to like a, like a tiny micro school or a new school trying to come online, uh, versus the underlying bill.
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Asks to hear from the sponsor on a question.
▶ Watch at 56:28Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative? Fay, will you yield to a question?
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Asks the sponsor to yield to a question.
▶ Watch at 56:28Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative? Fay, will you yield to a question?
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor knows how many non-education state employees are of childbearing age.
▶ Watch at 56:28Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative? Fay, will you yield to a question?
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Asked whether the sponsor knows how many non-education state employees of childbearing age there are.
▶ Watch at 56:35Read what they said
MacPherson, um, is the sponsor aware of how many state employees not in education are currently childbearing age women in the state today?
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor knows how many non-education state employees of childbearing age there are.
▶ Watch at 56:35Read what they said
MacPherson, um, is the sponsor aware of how many state employees not in education are currently childbearing age women in the state today? I would venture my good colleague has an answer to that. I, I only have a guess. That's why I was wondering.
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor knows how many non-education state employees of childbearing age there are.
▶ Watch at 56:35Read what they said
MacPherson, um, is the sponsor aware of how many state employees not in education are currently childbearing age women in the state today?
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Repeats the question and says he has only a guess about the number of childbearing-age employees.
▶ Watch at 56:35Read what they said
MacPherson, um, is the sponsor aware of how many state employees not in education are currently childbearing age women in the state today? I would venture my good colleague has an answer to that. I, I only have a guess. That's why I was wondering.
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Says they only have a guess on that number. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 56:47Read what they said
I would venture my good colleague has an answer to that. I, I only have a guess. That's why I was wondering.
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Opposed the bill, citing the lack of a fiscal note and possible reductions in public services when staff are on leave.
▶ Watch at 56:58Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, my, my concern here, I think comes back to some of the questions that have been brought up before about the fiscal note. When we're talking about if this included education, there'd be millions of dollars in impact when we're talking about in the state employee workforce that there won't be an impact 'cause they'll be absorbing those costs. What we're really talking about those degradation of services, we're talking about, um, Medicare employment, um, uh, we're talking about SNAP applications. We're talking about social services, things that are done by our state employees that those services will see a degradation because we're not gonna provide any fiscal note replacement costs for those employees when …
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Opposes the bill, saying it has no fiscal note for replacement costs, which could reduce public services such as Medicaid, SNAP and social services.
▶ Watch at 56:58Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, my, my concern here, I think comes back to some of the questions that have been brought up before about the fiscal note. When we're talking about if this included education, there'd be millions of dollars in impact when we're talking about in the state employee workforce that there won't be an impact 'cause they'll be absorbing those costs. What we're really talking about those degradation of services, we're talking about, um, Medicare employment, um, uh, we're talking about SNAP applications. We're talking about social services, things that are done by our state employees that those services will see a degradation because we're not gonna provide any fiscal note replacement costs for those employees when …
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Opposes the bill over fiscal note concerns and possible reductions in public services when state employees are on leave.
▶ Watch at 56:58Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, my, my concern here, I think comes back to some of the questions that have been brought up before about the fiscal note. When we're talking about if this included education, there'd be millions of dollars in impact when we're talking about in the state employee workforce that there won't be an impact 'cause they'll be absorbing those costs. What we're really talking about those degradation of services, we're talking about, um, Medicare employment, um, uh, we're talking about SNAP applications. We're talking about social services, things that are done by our state employees that those services will see a degradation because we're not gonna provide any fiscal note replacement costs for those employees when …
H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Opposes the bill, saying a policy without a fiscal note would shift work to remaining staff and reduce public services.
▶ Watch at 56:58Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, my, my concern here, I think comes back to some of the questions that have been brought up before about the fiscal note. When we're talking about if this included education, there'd be millions of dollars in impact when we're talking about in the state employee workforce that there won't be an impact 'cause they'll be absorbing those costs. What we're really talking about those degradation of services, we're talking about, um, Medicare employment, um, uh, we're talking about SNAP applications. We're talking about social services, things that are done by our state employees that those services will see a degradation because we're not gonna provide any fiscal note replacement costs for those employees when …
H.B. 306 Reinvestment Fee Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Asks whether the bill's definitions of capital intensive infrastructure conflict with the existing language on what reinvestment fees can cover.
▶ Watch at 1:44:21Read what they said
Um, I'm just trying to make sure I understand. Going down to, um, well, if we start at line 52 where it has the description of what capital intensive infrastructure means and what it doesn't mean, um, that includes things like regular maintenance and landscaping as far as what it doesn't mean. Um, and I'm curious, when you go down below to line, starting at one 17 on the reinvestment fee covenant, it includes on there these capital intensive infrastructure maintenance, uh, category that's been defined, but it also include includes in that category, things like, um, recreation amenities, common planning. So I guess my question is are, is there a, are there two different definitions here that conflict, if …
H.B. 306 Reinvestment Fee Amendments · House floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Restates his understanding that HOAs with capital intensive infrastructure fall under the 0.5% fee while standalone HOAs without it fall under the 0.25% cap, and asks the sponsor to confirm the definitions.
▶ Watch at 1:45:47Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I guess, um, if I could direct if that's allowed the sponsor to line 60 where it specifically outlines capital intensive infrastructure maintenance does not include the following. This looks like new definition, new code that's outlining not just what the low amenity association, uh, means, but also what capital intensive infrastructure both means and doesn't mean. And that's where my question comes in under maybe some competing definitions here that may conflict. So as I understand it, we're, what the bill is saying is capital intensive infrastructure, it defines what that is and if your HOA does have capital intensive infrastructure, then it would fall under a normal HOA and it would be subject …
H.B. 446 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Asked whether the unresolved tax lien provision could apply only to liens unresolved for a period of time, given multi-state businesses and frequent notices.
▶ Watch at 50:01Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, thank you representative for talking with me about this. And just kinda walk through the, the one concern I have is on the, um, the, the tax lien issue is, um, for someone that may operate multiple businesses across multiple states, um, when there's several jurisdictions, sometimes city, county, state involved. And, uh, there's a lot of sometimes, um, fee and other type issues that come in on a constant basis that sometimes, uh, jurisdictions submit those with a lien in advance, um, before they're resolved. And, uh, I guess I was wondering if you might be open to the idea of potentially amending this to look at only unresolved, uh, tax liens that …
H.B. 446 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Said the suggestion was good because entities sometimes make errors, and asked how disclosures would be updated during the year.
▶ Watch at 51:43Read what they said
but I just wanted to get your Feedback. Yeah, but I think that's a good suggestion because I do know that, you know, entities get it wrong too, and you may, and you're just Yeah. And how would you update Yeah, midyear con, you know, continuously with businesses and so forth. Thank you. So Good, good suggestion. Thanks.
H.B. 446 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Moved to amend the tax lien provision to cover liens unresolved for more than two years for which the officer is personally liable or that encumber property the officer owns an interest in.
▶ Watch at 58:22Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, I'd like to make a motion to amend on line 3 0 5. Um, the amendment would read starting at the very beginning for each tax lien unresolved for more than two years. And that would replace for each unresolved tax lien. So it would read for each tax lien unresolved for more than two years for which the regulated office holder is personally liable or that encumbers real property in which the regulated office holder holds an ownership interest.
H.B. 446 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Said the change addresses practical concerns with multi-state operations, that many liens are resolved quickly, and that wording on knowledge may need more work.
▶ Watch at 59:11Read what they said
I think my primary concern here is just the practicality of, again, dealing with the, especially, uh, when you're operating in multiple states, that there's, there's sometimes, uh, uh, a lot of these issues that come and go. And most of them are typically just resolved quickly. There may be some concern, I think that Representative Loubet brought up as far as the, the knowing aspect of it that I think, um, we might wanna wordsmith as well. But I think that this, this helps provide some protections already there, um, for the party. But, um, maybe it's something we can keep working on. I would, I, um, curious if, uh, the sponsor and the committee would support that change.
H.B. 504 Political Advertising Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Asks whether the bill's intent is to target media meant to mislead voters rather than AI use alone.
▶ Watch at 1:19:12Read what they said
Question for you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so, I understand the intent here, and I think this has been maybe talked on a little bit, but it seems like, uh, and, and clarify for me if I'm wrong, but the intent here is to get to the media that is intentionally trying to mislead people because of the AI generated content.
H.B. 504 Political Advertising Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Suggests adjusting the language so the bill clearly targets misleading content rather than disclosure of AI use.
▶ Watch at 1:19:34Read what they said
Correct. So if that's the, I I think that if that's the intent, that there might need to be an adjustment of this language to clarify that particular role. 'cause I think this is, this seems to be geared towards a notice or disclosure of AI of, in and of itself, as though the, it sounds like that from the discussion that we're really trying to get to ensuring that people aren't being misled.
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Presents HB 302, which would allow each municipality one official flag in schools, courthouses, airports and transit facilities, with other flags allowed elsewhere, and says it was developed with the League of Cities and Towns.
▶ Watch at 1:29:11Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair members of the committee. Um, so if you recall last year there was a bill that passed through this committee and, um, through and was signed, or I, I guess when it was enacted actually, and a law that limited, uh, flags, um, from, uh, municipalities being flown in schools and in certain other locations. And those, um, and that bill, um, after it went into effect, it, uh, created some, uh, confusion and there was some actions taken by, uh, municipality to adopt, uh, additional flags, um, that kind of put the state in a conundrum where we had a, uh, a state law and a municipal, uh, sort of, um, uh, situation put together …
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Says schools would remain limited to the official flags under the four categories.
▶ Watch at 1:33:06Read what they said
No. So currently the schools fall under the four categories that they would be, uh, required to only utilize the official flags.
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Says the review is not an approval process but a check that official flags meet the government neutrality standard, with the Administrative Rules Committee able to request changes.
▶ Watch at 1:33:45Read what they said
No. So in fact this, this was a, a good point that was brought up and I apologize I didn't bring it up earlier because this was actually probably our biggest, uh, conversation point with the league was understanding this piece and we made the substitute made a, an adjustment to this, uh, language. Uh, previously I think it was viewed as a, uh, a requirement to get approval. Um, and this is not an approval process. Um, municipality can go through their own process or adopt their flags however they like. The intention behind this is to ensure, essentially it's to try to stop the flag wars, so to speak, from continuing. And so there may be, for example, …
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Says the bill only regulates government speech by municipalities, counties and political subdivisions, not individuals.
▶ Watch at 1:36:53Read what they said
So there aren't any, this bill only talks about the city, municipal, municipality, county or political subdivision, and it only regulates the government speech. So this is, uh, unrelated to, uh, any individual.
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Says the bill has no effect on individual speech, though other laws may apply in some locations.
▶ Watch at 1:37:29Read what they said
and, uh, depending on the location or, but this bill has no effect on individual speech.
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Says a city could fly the flag only in locations the bill does not regulate, such as City Hall, and not at the four regulated facilities.
▶ Watch at 1:37:53Read what they said
Uh, yeah. Only, only in the, the locations that aren't regulated. So they wouldn't be able to fly it at a school, a courthouse, um, the airport or a, um, uh, UTA facility, um, as the government agency, a third party could,
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Confirms the City Hall point and says the regulated locations are the four categories, which are also restricted under current law.
▶ Watch at 1:38:16Read what they said
Correct. But a school couldn't fly a POW Flag? Uh, the municipality or the school itself could not, well, as long as the, I don't believe they can under the current law either. Hold
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Says the restriction is specific to cities, municipalities, counties and political subdivisions.
▶ Watch at 1:38:28Read what they said
Yeah. This is related. This is regulated specifically to cities, municipalities, county, or political subdivisions. Correct.
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Confirms that cities could fly the flag at City Hall and lists the four regulated locations.
▶ Watch at 1:38:40Read what they said
hall building. Yeah. The, the only regulations when it comes to what, what, uh, the state would regulate would be those four locations. Schools, uh, airports, um, courthouses and, uh, UTA facilities.
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Says the bill does not change existing code on classroom display, and the only change for schools is limiting municipal flags to one official flag.
▶ Watch at 1:39:40Read what they said
Property? Thank you for the question. And, and actually, and maybe this will help clarify too. So this isn't changing or repealing any of the existing areas of code. So we already have sections of code that deal with that right now. Um, this is not changing or affecting any of that. So this is just simply stating that, um, that the municipal flags themselves are going to be restricted to their official ones. So if they are currently not allowed, they will continue to be currently not allowed. The only change would be is that municipal flags that would be normally considered allowed under the carve outs of the, of the current law would no longer be allowed unless …
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Explains that the change applies only to municipal flags adopted as official flags in schools.
▶ Watch at 1:40:32Read what they said
So. The limitations here should be only on the only change. What we're making when it comes to schools under current law today is that municipal flags that have been adopted as official flags would no longer be allowed to be displayed, only the official single flag that would be changed under this section.
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Says that scenario is not part of this bill and is not considered display under current law.
▶ Watch at 1:41:21Read what they said
I believe, and that's not part of this bill, but I will just, from what I understand, under the current law, that's not considered display.
H.B. 302 Government Speech Neutrality Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Explains that the bill removes municipal flags from the regulated locations, allows one official flag there, and lets cities fly other flags elsewhere, such as at City Hall.
▶ Watch at 1:42:52Read what they said
Um, and so what this bill only does is it essentially eliminates the, um, the totality of the category of municipal flags. We're really talking today about one municipality that's adopted, I think four or five additional flags, three new flags. Um, those three new flags would not be allowed to be flown, um, in, uh, a school, a courthouse, a airport, or a UTA facility. But the municipality could go back and adopt one official flag. That official flag would be the flag that they could fly in those locations. That would be the, essentially the only change that's happening in schools is we'd be eliminating the municipal flags that have been adopted today from this section, and allowing …
H.B. 455 Peace Officer and Dispatcher Standards Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Presented HB 455, which would let a narrow group of applicants with an old juvenile or adult offense (at least 10 years since conviction, no other convictions, and no violent or sexual crimes ever) be certified by POST, leaving hiring decisions to agencies, and explained the substitute's change to remove POST's discretion.
▶ Watch at 47:04Read what they said
Thank you Chair members of the committee. Um, I'm gonna be speaking to the first substitute. Great, Thank you. So currently, um, when it comes to post certification, there's a couple of interesting requirements. So if you are a juvenile and have had a juvenile conviction or a record, um, and, and you're seeking later in life to, um, join law enforcement or dispatch, or you go into corrections, um, there's a certain set of rules that comes to cooling off periods, determining if there's been, um, kind of adjustments in your character and determining whether or not you're qualified, um, to, um, to join post. And, but there is a, a different issue that if you're an adult or …
H.B. 455 Peace Officer and Dispatcher Standards Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Summarized that the bill is narrow, does not change any agency's rights or standards, and gives agencies that want to hire in law enforcement, corrections, or dispatch a way to consider these applicants.
▶ Watch at 1:04:45Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll be very brief 'cause I appreciate all the comments here. Uh, this bill is trying to be very, very narrow, um, and not take away any rights of any agency. I, I very much respect our law enforcement agencies and all the hard work they do. Um, and I don't think that we should force any of them to change any of their standards at all. Um, and, and this doesn't seek to do that. It just, uh, to allow those agencies that do, um, want to work with these individuals or if they would like to work in corrections or in dispatch where those person, uh, those post certifications are also needed. This …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Explains that the Attorney General requested additional language allowing intervention in these cases when they are noticed, so they can be moved to a panel quickly, which addresses one of the court's main concerns.
▶ Watch at 23:08Read what they said
Yeah, just briefly. Um, the Attorney General had asked for some additional language when it deals with, uh, these types of cases that they, uh, when they get noticed that they have an ability to intervene in those cases so they can move those to a panel as quickly as possible, um, which alleviates one of the court's primary concerns.
H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments · House floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Says the amendment addresses the concerns raised, including a change to the intent standard from knowingly to intentionally.
▶ Watch at 1:51:14Read what they said
Just briefly. It really, uh, covers all the issues that, uh, the good representative brought up as well as, uh, a slight adjustment on the men's rea going from knowingly to intentionally. Um, and I think that covered all the concerns that we had, uh, discussed.
H.B. 36 Gold Medal Schools Pilot Program · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Moved to recommend HB 36 favorably as substituted.
▶ Watch at 2:12:49Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Motion to pass out favorably HB 36 as substituted. The motion for is to recommend Favorably House Bill 36 Gold Medal Schools pilot program as
H.B. 36 Gold Medal Schools Pilot Program · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Said he would leave comment on the bill to the sponsor.
▶ Watch at 2:13:02Read what they said
I think I'll leave it to the sponsor when her, she or her sermon comes up.
H.B. 399 Prohibition Against Student Character Tracking and Grading Systems · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asks whether the bill prohibits teaching character or only grading, tracking, and monitoring it.
▶ Watch at 3:00:32Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as I've read, read this bill a few times. I do have, I think, uh, a question that I don't, I don't know, maybe I'm missing something because there seems to be a lot of conversation here around character education and I don't see anything in this bill that prevents teaching character to students. What I see is that grading, tracking and monitoring, that is what is being prevented. I'm, I'm looking, so I'm just hoping you can help me understand. There seems to be a definition of what character education means in this section and that we're not to track score and grade that, but I'm, I'm not seeing anywhere that says you can't …
H.B. 399 Prohibition Against Student Character Tracking and Grading Systems · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says the bill text appears to allow teaching good character but not creating a tracked database, and asks for confirmation.
▶ Watch at 3:03:06Read what they said
Thank you. And, and to, to really clarify though that when I'm reading this bill, when I'm reading the, the, the lines here, this says specifically that the administration personnel and instruction personnel, nel may not categorize grade, implement, measure, monitor, or track characterized education. But I don't see anything here that's saying that they're not allowed to just teach them good character skills. And I, and, and that's where I, I seem, it seemed to feel like that most of the questions outta this committee is geared towards, well, if this bill were to pass, we can't teach good character to students any longer. This seems to say that, well, no, you can, we just don't want to create …
H.B. 399 Prohibition Against Student Character Tracking and Grading Systems · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Supports the motion to hold and offers to work with the sponsor on language adjustments.
▶ Watch at 3:32:37Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support the motion to hold. I just wanted to point out briefly, if you look at pretty much any national, uh, study from parents, they are, um, more interested in, uh, academic rating, uh, of their students and would like to have more focus in our schools on academics and less on, um, these soft skills, even though they are important to many people and, um, important that they're being taught. Um, but at the same time, when, when parents generally judge, um, schools, when they generally judge, um, performance, they're looking at academic scores. Um, I think that the, the bill itself has some adjustments that need to be made, uh, in order to …
H.B. 312 School Curriculum and Standards Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says the fiscal note is likely to be larger because the bill directs the state board to develop curriculum, and asks what happens if the bill is not funded.
▶ Watch at 3:45:40Read what they said
We're gonna go to Representative MacPherson first. Thank You, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll be quick. Um, I know that this has at least under the, um, first sub a, uh, small fiscal note is the expectation of the second sub that this would be the same, larger, smaller. So I think that this will be a larger, um, fiscal note. I think with, I'm not sure about the first sub, but um, this is definitely more involved than what Representative Ivory was. And so I think it will be a much larger, um, fiscal note and that has been, um, brought up in discussions with the ability to make our own curriculum and directing the state board …
H.B. 312 School Curriculum and Standards Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asks whether the bill's requirements would still apply to schools and the state board if the bill is not funded.
▶ Watch at 3:47:19Read what they said
Um, and just to, just so I can be sure though, but the requirements of this bill would still apply. We, we would still be requiring the LEAs and the state board to move forward with this even if we don't fund it, is that,
H.B. 312 School Curriculum and Standards Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asks about the state board's upcoming social studies curriculum review and its position on the bill.
▶ Watch at 3:49:06Read what they said
Um, my understanding is, is the state board is supposed to do, uh, social studies curriculum review next year. I guess my question is, is uh, how does that work? What's the state board's position on this? And, and wouldn't a lot of this work be done anyway bec they go through that process?
H.B. 312 School Curriculum and Standards Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says the bill should connect with the state board's review and link history subjects instead of teaching them in silos, then asks Representative Peterson about his history teachers.
▶ Watch at 3:49:37Read what they said
So, um, I think just as we think about, um, if they're doing that, should we try to make that bridge and correlate with what they did in elementary and put in some of these other provisions that are not currently, um, in the standards that I think would be very beneficial for our students to learn. So, um, once they're graduated high school, they, they can see what's going on in the world and they can make those connections. They can see, um, some of the mob ocracy that's happening and, and recognize it for what it is. And so, um, just making sure we have that being hit on multiple times in all building on itself rather than …
H.B. 312 School Curriculum and Standards Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says he remains concerned about the fiscal note and would like an updated note and possible changes so the bill can be properly funded.
▶ Watch at 3:57:21Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just, again, still concerned about the fiscal note and, uh, would like to see not only the updated note, but, uh, perhaps some potential changes, uh, that would drop that and would hate to put something in place that couldn't be properly funded. But, um, thank you.
H.B. 440 School Lunch Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asked whether students would be required to stay seated for 20 minutes even after finishing their food.
▶ Watch at 4:10:02Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm just looking to clarify, um, one little piece in here, um, specific lines. I'm looking at, uh, line 3 0 5, uh, providing a student with a minimum 20 minutes of seated eating time under the, the, the target goal, but then also on three 18, um, under the plan that they shall, um, uh, discuss at their meeting. It includes, uh, how much seated tide a student will have to eat lunch. And I guess my question is, is I think I've got a, a brother that, um, if we're both dishing up food in line, and if he dishes first, by the time I sit down, he's already consumed everything. He, he …
H.B. 440 School Lunch Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Confirmed that the goal is for students to be seated for 20 minutes whether eating or not.
▶ Watch at 4:12:38Read what they said
So, Mr. Chair, just to clarify, the, the goal though is for them to be seated for 20 minutes, whether they're eating or not. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
H.B. 440 School Lunch Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Opposed the motion to hold, saying the substitute should be adopted and remaining cleanup can be done on the floor and in the Senate.
▶ Watch at 4:26:35Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I oppose the motion to hold, just I think for two reasons. One, right now the motion is to adopt the substitute and I eventually assume the amendments. I think that is an important first step that should be done, regardless of a motion to hold that perhaps it was premature. Um, also think that this, uh, bill is moving in the right direction. This committee, I think, as we've seen today, is already extremely overloaded. And if we're talking about cleanup, then I'd prefer to see this policy move forward, um, where we do have time to correct it on the floor. I understand the, under the concept of cleaning these bills up …
H.J.R. 24 Joint Rules Resolution - Appropriations Subcommittee Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Presents HJR 24, which would let appropriations subcommittees hold an additional meeting, with chair agreement, to vote on whether to support EAC recommendations, and removes the speaker and Senate president permission requirement for that meeting.
▶ Watch at 1:09:55Read what they said
Ahead. Uh, it's always exciting to be here. Um, okay. So, um, we're looking at the first substitute on this bill. Um, and, uh, what this, uh, does is, is pretty simple. It might be a slight change from what the underlying bill does. This makes no changes to the executive appropriations process or timeline. It just simply makes, um, a, uh, an allowance for the subcommittees, the appropriation subcommittees to convene, uh, an additional meeting if they would so choose that the chairs agree, um, and that the purpose of that meeting is to simply hold a, uh, vote on whether or not to support the EAC, uh, recommendations for their, uh, sub appropriations, uh, committee, uh, particular, uh, …
H.J.R. 24 Joint Rules Resolution - Appropriations Subcommittee Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says the bill does not require a public portion and is meant to ensure subcommittees have the information needed to vote.
▶ Watch at 1:12:33Read what they said
Yeah, that happens, right? Yeah. And, and this doesn't require any public portion of that. This is just okay to ensure that they get the information so that there's something for them to actually vote, because Yeah, That's part of our press is currently.
H.J.R. 24 Joint Rules Resolution - Appropriations Subcommittee Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Confirms that both the House and Senate chairs must agree to convene the meeting.
▶ Watch at 1:12:57Read what they said
Yeah. So it's, it's the same rules for all of our, uh, joint committees that you would have to have both the House and the Senate chair to agree to Agree to convene. That's
H.J.R. 24 Joint Rules Resolution - Appropriations Subcommittee Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Notes the challenge of EAC combining all the budget areas. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:13:29Read what they said
Right. And so I know one of the challenges, the VAC is taking all of those things and trying to make them work together.
H.J.R. 24 Joint Rules Resolution - Appropriations Subcommittee Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says the meeting's purpose is to vote on the committee's prioritization decisions and not for any other purpose. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:13:44Read what they said
Yeah. And that, that ties to that previous section you said in 1 24 that they're, they're to give them like we already do. They're, um, um, the soap or the, uh, the decisions that were made based on that soap appropriations for prior. Just our prioritization prioritization list. And then if you look into the section on the vote, it does say that on line 1 29, the subcommittee meeting to vote on whether or not. So that is the purpose of that meeting is to vote on those and not for any other purpose. And is it as specific as we're mad about this one, but we're good with this one? Or is it It is just a …
H.J.R. 24 Joint Rules Resolution - Appropriations Subcommittee Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says the bill adds visibility and information for members and the public about how appropriations committees voted and why, without changing anyone's position.
▶ Watch at 1:15:09Read what they said
So I think, um, and I'm thinking of this practically, so, uh, uh, like many of you, I said on appropriations committee and we spend a lot of time working on our particular areas. Um, but at least for myself, maybe not for you, I don't really know much about what the other appropriations committees are doing and what they're discussing. This is just a, a little bit of, of visibility, not only to the public, but I think also to our own colleagues when it comes to these, um, to these processes. It's like when we're looking at any other bill, a lot of us a lot of times will look at the status of a bill and check …
H.J.R. 24 Joint Rules Resolution - Appropriations Subcommittee Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says the earlier version would have moved the EAC deadline up and that this version avoids changing the EAC timeline, though a new meeting may take some time.
▶ Watch at 1:17:21Read what they said
Yeah. I, I I think so. Uh, the original version I think would, um, was actually looking to push up e's deadline by a couple of days. And perhaps with a vote being, uh, uh, an opportunity for EAC to perhaps maybe make some adjustments if they're worried about maybe, uh, a subcommittee's, uh, disapproval for example. I think that possibly could slow down the process. And that's why I think I wanted to adjust this and not not mess with the a's timeline. They have a very important and difficult job, no doubt. And I know they're trying very hard to work on these. I I don't think we want to try to mess up that process right now. …
H.J.R. 24 Joint Rules Resolution - Appropriations Subcommittee Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Summarizes that the bill is a light first step that adds clarity and visibility for members without significant changes to the process.
▶ Watch at 1:25:07Read what they said
Thank you. Committee. And I will just say, you know, I've, we've looked at this, you are right. This has been a, an issue that many, many people have tried to tackle. Um, and I think there's a lot of ways that perhaps would move the needle in a further direction. But I guess the, the question is, is what, what can we actually accomplish? What, what can we actually do versus what might actually fix, uh, the problem? I think this moves us a little bit closer without actually making any significant or real changes to what we're doing right now. It maintains the, uh, the environment that, again, is the envy of many other states. Um, but also …
H.B. 114 Adult-oriented Performance and Material Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asks about the mens rea change in the substitute, noting that language appears to be struck from the section on distributing material harmful to a minor, and asks whether that was intentional.
▶ Watch at 32:22Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. And um, thank you for that, uh, explanation. I am, uh, got a question on lines. Uh, if we start at one 90, and this is the section you just discussed about nos or believes it has that men's rea uh, adjustment. But it looks like what I'm seeing here, and I just wanna make sure I'm understanding 'cause it looks like we're actually removing the intentionally, um, language and replacing it or at least removing it so that we're only leaving the nose or beliefs. Is that, Sorry, we had line one 90 of the sub or the, Uh, let me make sure I'm on the sub. I guess That's my problem. I see where …
H.B. 114 Adult-oriented Performance and Material Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asks to confirm that the intentional, knowingly, or reckless standard now applies in the new section and that the earlier section is not changed.
▶ Watch at 33:30Read what they said
I See. And then that includes intentional, knowingly or being reckless. Okay. So we're not changing the, the mens rea in the previous section, we're just changing it in the new section.
H.B. 114 Adult-oriented Performance and Material Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asks whether a substitute is ready to adopt and moves to adopt the first substitute to HB 114.
▶ Watch at 42:01Read what they said
Thank you. Mr. Chair. We have a sub to adopt, is that right? Yes, please. Correct. I move that we adopt, first substitute on HB one 14.
H.B. 114 Adult-oriented Performance and Material Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says Rep. Jack has worked hard on the bill and that the bill is going in the right direction, while suggesting a look at the other mens rea portions.
▶ Watch at 44:20Read what they said
Uh, yeah, I think Representative Jack has worked really, uh, a long time and has made a lot of adjustments to this. Uh, um, I like the way it's going. I, I, I'm interested to see if whether or not we need to make any adjustments to the other men's rea portions perhaps, but I think as is we, we're going in the right direction, so thank, thank him for his work.
H.B. 405 State Purchasing Reserve Funding · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
MacPherson moves to favorably recommend HB 405 as substituted.
▶ Watch at 1:11:12Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll make a motion to favorably recommend HP 4 0 5 as substituted.
H.B. 443 Amendments to Procedure to Fill A Legislative Vacancy · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asks what the cost difference is between delegate selection and a special election, and notes the fiscal note does not show it.
▶ Watch at 1:16:34Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. And I do have a couple of questions just going over this. So I know that there's a number of states that do this already. Um, and uh, is there, I I would, I guess I'm, I I've looked at the fiscal note as well and I'm not sure I, I'm understanding, do we know exactly what the cost in difference is when it comes to, 'cause if you're, if you've got a midterm vacancy replacement and you're doing a, um, an appointment through, um, delegate, you know, election process versus a special election, I would imagine we're talking about a pretty significant difference in cost. But I don't see, I don't think enough of that …
H.B. 443 Amendments to Procedure to Fill A Legislative Vacancy · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Responds briefly to the sponsor's explanation of the fiscal note.
▶ Watch at 1:17:41Read what they said
I see. And I will phone a friend who is more knowledgeable than I am. No, I won't phone A friend. Looks like you got it. Right on. Yeah, I think You're, I was clarifying. No, she was clarifying for me. Okay. Uh, I'm, I'm, I'm listening. I'm very effective at, uh, multitasking. So, so keep going.
H.B. 443 Amendments to Procedure to Fill A Legislative Vacancy · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asks how vacancies affect district representation, whether voters' election choice should still count for the full term, and whether a party should fill the seat.
▶ Watch at 1:19:01Read what they said
And I, I guess that leads into my second question because I, I, I, I understand at least from a votes by vote perspective that, uh, that concept, but I guess my concern is, is that the district's, uh, representation may not be, um, may not be filled there. And I just, I, I think that there, there's an interest in, in seeing those positions, uh, filled whether they, because they can hold those representatives accountable on their own if they're not gonna show up to a floor vote, for example, or a committee. Um, but I guess, uh, the other question would be, um, in the same vein when it comes to these, um, uh, these appointments, I think …
H.B. 443 Amendments to Procedure to Fill A Legislative Vacancy · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Says other states use various vacancy methods, sees the bill as a policy question, and will vote yes so the full House can decide.
▶ Watch at 1:42:18Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, you know, this is an interesting, um, idea too. I did a little searching, I don't know how true this is, this is chat GPT telling me. So I'm just gonna put this out there. But according to that, it says that we've got, uh, 12 states right now that fill these, um, vacancies just via appointment. No election of any kind. No, no one at all involved. Um, that we have nine states that do like us, that the party basically get, um, an election and that the governor just approves it essentially. And then according to this, there's nine states that do a, which I think is wild. A uh, uh, where the …
H.B. 384 Executive Branch Agency Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asked whether adding oversight would increase costs.
▶ Watch at 1:53:45Read what they said
Alright, thank you. Um, Mr. Chair. No, my, my question's really simple. I know there's no fiscal known on here, but it seems like if you're adding a division to additional oversight, I'm just wondering, is that not gonna increase any costs?
H.B. 82 Judgment Information Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 11, 2026
Presented H.B. 82, which changes the judgment lien filing requirement from the full Social Security number to the last four digits, and adjusts the effective date by one month at the recorders' request.
▶ Watch at 1:12:29Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Vickers on the committee. Um, this bill, uh, suffered a tragic fate last year because it passed the unanimously unanimously on the house consent calendar in the evening of March 3rd. And as you can imagine, that really, uh, was a problem. So what we did is we reopened this, uh, what this says, pretty simple. Um, currently, if a judgment is filed, um, and a lien is sought on real property, there's a process that has to be followed. And the, the law currently says that process includes you have to include the debtor's, social security number, date of birth, and driver's license number if known in order to correctly identify that individual. Now, …
S.B. 84 Department of Commerce Amendments · House floor debate (day 23) · Feb 11, 2026
Asks the sponsor to yield to questions and asks how the bill affects costs for people seeking bulk records and whether there are guardrails against using the fund to raise revenue or limit access.
▶ Watch at 20:24Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a potentially series of questions? Representative Walter, will you yield to a series of questions? I will yield to a potential series of questions. Thank you, representative. Yes, representative. Thank You, Mr. Speaker. Um, when it comes to this, uh, uh, I understand what the, uh, department, the division is, uh, looking to accomplish here. I guess my question, and maybe it's a concern as well, is how does this affect the actual cost to the, uh, to the cons to those individuals that are seeking bulk record data like this? Um, that it doesn't seem to be any particular price controls. This looks like a fund, uh, that that is …
S.B. 84 Department of Commerce Amendments · House floor debate (day 23) · Feb 11, 2026
Asks whether the agency can set and increase these fees on its own and whether there is an audit or reporting requirement.
▶ Watch at 22:16Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is there, is, does the agency itself by, by its own power essentially create, set, maintain, and control that fee, uh, that's associated with this? And could they unilaterally increase those? Is there any, I guess, uh, audit or any, any, uh, reporting on this that, that gives some visibility if we're allowing an agency to just tack on particular fees, whereas right now, if you go to third parties, there's going to be some market competition potentially for providing that service. So that keeps those rates a little bit lower, even though that we're paying 'em to a third party. I, I guess, can you, um, address that concern?
S.B. 84 Department of Commerce Amendments · House floor debate (day 23) · Feb 11, 2026
Asks what method is used to obtain these bulk records.
▶ Watch at 23:05Read what they said
Okay, perfect. And then last question, Mr. Speaker, if it's okay, um, what, what method is used to obtain these records?
S.B. 84 Department of Commerce Amendments · House floor debate (day 23) · Feb 11, 2026
Asks for clarification and whether bulk records requests made through the website or the records request process would have their fees changed.
▶ Watch at 23:27Read what they said
I'm sorry, uh, Mr. Speaker, what is the question? Uh, I guess if, if, if, uh, I'm curious how these record bulk, uh, record requests are made. Um, and if they're made through the website, through an application process or if any of these records requests go through Grandma where they are making bulk record requests and they're charging a fee for those. I just want to ensure that we're not trying to change how Grandma works and the fee associated with this through this process.
H.B. 234 Education Testing Amendments · House floor debate (day 23) · Feb 11, 2026
Supports the bill, saying RISE has shown no measurable impact on student competencies after several years and the pilot offers a chance to try changes.
▶ Watch at 57:30Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I, I'll rise in support of this bill. I've had, uh, some discussions with the sponsor, worked a lot in the public edu with the, uh, public education, uh, stakeholders on some of our assessments. And I I would just like to point out, we've, we've been using Rise now for seven or eight years in Utah and it has made no measurable impact as far as, um, increasing actual competencies in education. There's some, there's some more. Um, this is more of a compliance and a data gathering tool than it is, uh, providing any, uh, benefit, uh, to, uh, the students order the schools because those adjustments, whatever data we have collected that have …
H.B. 243 Gambling Revisions · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks whether skill-based player-to-player fantasy contests would be covered as proposition betting under the bill.
▶ Watch at 38:22Read what they said
Um, thank you. I I guess I have a question on, so if player to player fantasy type fantasy, uh, engagements where it's more based on skill, is that, is that still considered a proposition betting under this language?
H.B. 314 Firearm Purchase Amendments · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Presents the bill to remove the requirement that BCI create and maintain a separate duplicate form for firearm purchases, saying the form is never used and background checks and other purchase paperwork remain unchanged.
▶ Watch at 45:24Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. This, um, bill is pretty simple. Um, currently when you are purchasing a firearm in the state of Utah with a dealer, um, you have to fill out a background check. There's a number of forms that are required, but one form that's in addition to all of the forms that are in there is that there is a section here that requires BCI to create, manage and maintain a form where they collect this information, uh, separately from the information that's filled out by the purchaser. So this is never filled out by someone that goes into a store and fills out the form. This is simply managed by BCI. It's actually never been used …
H.B. 314 Firearm Purchase Amendments · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Answers that the longer retention period is administrative, giving BCI time to resolve failed payments or checks during purchases, and that the purchase process itself is unchanged.
▶ Watch at 46:48Read what they said
Oh, thank you Mr. Speaker for that. And I appreciate the question 'cause I actually neglected to bring that up. Yeah, there is an extension on the retention of the data. This is actually just an administrative reason. Um, just simply because with the, um, when it comes to simply purchasing a firearm, there's sometimes circumstances when the, uh, credit card information may not process or a check or something may not process. And since that data is deleted, it's shredded essentially from the system. Um, they've asked that that be extended a couple of extra days just so they can clear, uh, all purchasing, uh, for these uh, issues and they have contact information. But this is just an …
H.B. 110 Offender Modifications · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor will yield for a question.
▶ Watch at 2:06:17Read what they said
to the bill Representative MacPherson. Thank you Mr. Speaker Prote, will the sponsor yield do a question? The
H.B. 110 Offender Modifications · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asked about the fiscal note and whether the substitute changed it.
▶ Watch at 2:06:20Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker Prote, will the sponsor yield do a question? The Sponsor yield? Yes. Mr. Speaker Pro Ahead. Uh, I have a question about the fiscal note. I know that the prior version had a significant fiscal note. Can you speak to, I note, see an updated fiscal note on this substitute? I wonder if you could speak to that.
H.B. 110 Offender Modifications · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks about the fiscal note, noting the prior version had a significant one and asking whether the substitute has an updated note.
▶ Watch at 2:06:26Read what they said
Uh, I have a question about the fiscal note. I know that the prior version had a significant fiscal note. Can you speak to, I note, see an updated fiscal note on this substitute? I wonder if you could speak to that.
H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks the sponsor to yield to a series of questions.
▶ Watch at 2:21:16Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker with a sponsor yield to a potentially series of questions. Representative Owens, will you yield to a series of questions?
H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks whether the bill could apply to family members sharing phone tracking apps, such as after a divorce or when a child becomes an adult, and whether that could lead to civil or criminal liability.
▶ Watch at 2:21:24Read what they said
Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. Just looking through the language of this, um, my, I guess my question, since we have this, um, this section down below with the compensatory and statutory damages, uh, section, obviously I wanna ensure that the, the language is clear. And so, uh, if I could just ask, so in these circumstances, if you have, for example, if you have a family iPhone plan and you use frequently they find my iPhone app, which includes some historical tracking data, and you've gone through a divorce or your children become adults. Are there circumstances under the language of this that may, um, potentially put whether in a, uh, a divorce or, or a, a estranged child …
H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks about the permission and exemption language, and whether tracking history could be used as leverage in a messy divorce or estranged-child situation.
▶ Watch at 2:22:40Read what they said
I, I guess my question comes down to when it says here that, um, uh, online, uh, 72, the actor did not receive permission from the individual to place the tracking device. Um, or the actor knowingly uses a tracking application installed or otherwise used, and then it has, um, uh, down on lines 82 did not receive permission. And then, uh, if you go down to the, the carve outs, um, starting at line 100, it carves out peace officers, a parent or legal guardian of a minor or a caregiver who is a vulnerable adult. And it, it, I I just, I'm, I guess I'm wondering, it doesn't sound like that potentially that in those circumstances that they …
H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments · House floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks whether a minor child becoming an adult is covered, and asks that the damages language be made precise.
▶ Watch at 2:24:30Read what they said
And if I could clarify again, on the minor child becoming an adult, is that also in that section? Is that covered there under line 84? No. Okay. Uh, again, Mr. Speaker, I'm just, I'm just concerned if there's going to be some, uh, strict penalties right. Of action. Some damages listed in the statute that we make sure that the, the language is precise. Um, thank you.
S.B. 52 Substitute Teaching Requirements Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asked whether the bill changes how unlicensed educators are treated under the state board's licensure rules, and whether it is already the current practice.
▶ Watch at 55:55Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I had brought this question up, uh, um, to the good senator on this, uh, previously, but I don't know if we had a chance to really finish the discussion. I'm just curious about the, um, issue of, uh, PAC licensed educator versus unlicensed. Um, I understand there may be some, uh, consideration of these individuals would not fall under the, the same scrutiny as a licensed educator when it comes to, um, the state board's sort of requirements. Is, is there anything you can tell me about that? Is this a change or is this already the way it is?
S.B. 52 Substitute Teaching Requirements Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asked how a complaint against a substitute who is not a licensed educator would be handled under the current system and under the bill.
▶ Watch at 57:08Read what they said
Okay. Just, um, and I know we have a long agenda, but I just wanna make sure I understand. Oh, go ahead. Is that all right? Um, so currently a substitute. If they are, um, if there is some sort of concern or violation of, let's say, code of conduct or something along those lines where there might be a complaint sent to PAC if they were a licensed educator, how would it work under the substitute category? Either here, or maybe you know, how it works currently
H.B. 448 Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asks that the state superintendent comment on the amendment.
▶ Watch at 1:52:12Read what they said
Thank You, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering if I could ask the state superintendent to comment on this.
H.B. 194 Utah State Board of Education Ethics Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asks whether the ethics requirements for the executive branch also apply to appointed and other officials, and says he wants the standards to apply broadly.
▶ Watch at 2:04:11Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I've got a couple of questions that that is appropriate. Yep, go Right ahead. Um, so, um, I understand where this is coming from and I really, um, actually appreciate what you're doing here. 'cause when we look at, uh, our branches, we got three branches of government in our state constitution, but we also have the Utah State Board of Education that kind of fits. Some people think that they're kind of maybe a secret fourth branch maybe. Um, but, and I understand that you're trying to put these guardrails, same standards that apply seemingly to everyone. Um, but you had mentioned EE elected officials and I'm, I'm pretty confident I'll have to double …
H.B. 194 Utah State Board of Education Ethics Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor would support adding the judiciary to the same ethics standards.
▶ Watch at 2:05:06Read what they said
Fair. I I just wanna make sure, since we're trying to make sure the standards apply, that it may not necessarily have to look directly at just elected officials potentially in, in those cases. And so that's why I was asking maybe, and again, maybe be outside of the scope of this, but I'm just curious, um, the only other branch that really has none of these same ethics requirements or guardrails would be the judicial branch. Does that mean that you'd be supportive of perhaps, uh, updating or amending this to include, uh, the judiciary in maintaining those same level of ethics and responsibilities that the other branches have?
H.B. 194 Utah State Board of Education Ethics Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asks why the board is held to legislative-style ethics rules rather than rules that insulate judges from outside influence.
▶ Watch at 2:06:09Read what they said
So, and, and, and just to, to clarify here though, because these, the way the ethics are written for the executive branch legislative branch and what it looks like for the USBE is more focused specifically on the idea that you police the actors themselves, their actions are under scrutiny, under an ethics, uh, requirement. And that there is this public facing interest of keeping them ethical. Whereas the judicial ethics right now actually are the other way around to ensure that judges are insulated from the actors of outside forces, uh, that, but could possibly affect their decision making and doesn't look at their actions ethically outside of the courtroom at all. So that's why I'm just, I'm just …
H.B. 194 Utah State Board of Education Ethics Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Says he understands the reasoning behind the policy.
▶ Watch at 2:08:20Read what they said
I think so. I just wanna understood, understand the, the policy. And so I appreciate that. Thank you very
H.B. 194 Utah State Board of Education Ethics Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Says he will vote in support and that the ethics rules apply to all branches of government, and suggests the judiciary be addressed later.
▶ Watch at 2:20:56Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, I do, uh, appreciate this Bill. I'm gonna be voting in support of it, and just wanna make sure I clarify for all the members here, that we are talking about ethics that apply to not just elected officials, but to all members of our different branches of government. In fact, many of our state employees have ethics requirements as well. And, uh, as do our school teachers and many other people, a across, uh, the entirety of state government, I think that's a good thing, and I think it's important. And I think, uh, that it is a, uh, uh, this was an oversight that they weren't included in that. I'm glad we're …
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Explains that the bill creates a School Meals Debt Relief Fund run by the State Board of Education, allows optional tax return donations, and repeals the fund if it collects less than $30,000 in three years.
▶ Watch at 36:53Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill's pretty simple. Colleagues. Um, currently, uh, when you fill out a tax return at the very end of your return, there is a couple of check boxes where you can make, um, some donations if you'd like to a couple of different funds. These aren't tax deductible, uh, uh, donations, but they exist right there on the tax return phone form. What this bill does is establishes a new section, um, called the School Meals Debt Relief Fund. We'll acquire the State Board of Education to create and manage a fund for school meal debt and will allow anyone that's filing a tax return, both personal or corporate in the state of Utah to …
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says the fund's distribution would not be required to be statewide or by any particular method, and that the state board would have flexibility to target areas of need.
▶ Watch at 38:20Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. So currently this allows the state board to establish the fund and manage it. The concern comes in is based on just a practical question of if, for example, the amount of funds collected, and this is very small, distributing that evenly across the entire state when we're talking millions of dollars of school debt right now, um, may not be very beneficial and it might be best for them to target those areas that might see the most need. Whereas if there is a collected a larger amount of funds, we're giving them basically the flexibility to direct where those funds go. So they might be able to establish something and rule, …
H.B. 13 Municipal Services Fees and Political Subdivision Lien Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked to yield to a question from the sponsor.
▶ Watch at 39:52Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker with the sponsor Yield to a question. Representative Keller, will you yield?
H.B. 13 Municipal Services Fees and Political Subdivision Lien Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Rep. MacPherson asked whether the bill sets a statute of limitations preventing municipalities from attaching old fees to a lien.
▶ Watch at 39:59Read what they said
Is there anything in this that sets a, um, for lack of a better term, I guess a statute of limitations that doesn't allow a municipality to back charge for 10-year-old, 15-year-old fees and then, uh, attach 'em to a lien?
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says the donation is voluntary, the bill only lets the state board create the fund and an optional donation category, and it has no cost to the state.
▶ Watch at 40:04Read what they said
Uh, yeah, just briefly. I'll just say that again. This is voluntary. This, there's already multiple categories on the tax return that you can donate to. Um, this is only allowing the state board to establish a fund right now, if you have like me, uh, tried to pay off a school debt, a lot of times it's actually difficult to do. You can contact your local school, you can contact your local district. You can contact, um, perhaps certain individuals. But as far as trying to tackle this from a statewide issue, it's pretty difficult to do. And businesses and individuals that have tried to make, um, donations in this regard do struggle with how to appropriately and properly …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Explains the second substitute: it moves the fingerprint scanner implementation date, adjusts software vendor compliance, lowers the unlicensed driving penalty back to an infraction, and raises the administrative testing fee from $30 to $60.
▶ Watch at 1:14:16Read what they said
Uh, yeah, just briefly. We've had some discussion with, um, law enforcement and some of my colleagues. There's some adjustments to actually some legislation we ran last year that needed some adjustment in the code as far as moving the, uh, implementation date of some of the fingerprint scanners that had already been included, as well as, uh, making some adjustment to the, uh, compliance, uh, piece for the software vendor vendors that work with law enforcement. We've also, uh, made an adjustment. Um, currently the underlying bill enhances the penalty for driving without a license to a Class C misdemeanor, but we've decided to remove that back down to an infraction, which is what current law is under this. …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Explains that the second substitute moves the fingerprint scanner implementation date, adjusts software vendor compliance, lowers the penalty to an infraction, and raises the administrative testing fee from $30 to $60.
▶ Watch at 1:14:16Read what they said
Uh, yeah, just briefly. We've had some discussion with, um, law enforcement and some of my colleagues. There's some adjustments to actually some legislation we ran last year that needed some adjustment in the code as far as moving the, uh, implementation date of some of the fingerprint scanners that had already been included, as well as, uh, making some adjustment to the, uh, compliance, uh, piece for the software vendor vendors that work with law enforcement. We've also, uh, made an adjustment. Um, currently the underlying bill enhances the penalty for driving without a license to a Class C misdemeanor, but we've decided to remove that back down to an infraction, which is what current law is under this. …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says the bill keeps unlicensed driving an infraction but gives law enforcement tools such as rapid fingerprint scans and expanded vehicle impound rules, so drivers are removed from the road and vehicles can be released to a licensed driver.
▶ Watch at 1:16:16Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So what this bill does essentially is tries to tackle the problem of unlicensed drivers in the state of Utah. And so what it does is, uh, a couple of things. Currently driving without a valid license in the state of Utah is an infraction. It keeps it as an infraction, but it provides a, a couple of additional tools to law enforcement so they can actually enforce this properly. Right now, there's a, uh, a number of issues that come up when individuals either refuse or cannot provide any form of identification, whether it is a physical ID or if they're providing some sort of, uh, personal identifying information like a social security number, a …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Describes the bill as addressing unlicensed drivers by adding law enforcement tools, including rapid fingerprint scans, expanded impound carve-outs, and a $500 minimum fine for knowingly lending a vehicle to an unlicensed driver.
▶ Watch at 1:16:16Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So what this bill does essentially is tries to tackle the problem of unlicensed drivers in the state of Utah. And so what it does is, uh, a couple of things. Currently driving without a valid license in the state of Utah is an infraction. It keeps it as an infraction, but it provides a, a couple of additional tools to law enforcement so they can actually enforce this properly. Right now, there's a, uh, a number of issues that come up when individuals either refuse or cannot provide any form of identification, whether it is a physical ID or if they're providing some sort of, uh, personal identifying information like a social security number, a …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says the bill addresses unlicensed driving, not the requirements for licenses or privilege cards, which are governed by other law.
▶ Watch at 1:21:27Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, this bill only looks at, when it comes to, um, barriers, we we're identifying here what is the law, and if individuals want to comply with the law, then they shouldn't drive on our roads until they've got a valid credential. In this state, we do have our driver's, uh, licenses. We have temporary driver's licenses, and we have driver's privilege cards, and there's different categories of people that qualify for those different licenses. Um, but the, the, the requirements for those and how those work are, are not really a part of this bill that would be under a different category of law.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says the bill addresses unlicensed driving, that barriers to driver privilege cards are a separate area of law, and that licenses, temporary licenses, and privilege cards each have their own requirements.
▶ Watch at 1:21:27Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, this bill only looks at, when it comes to, um, barriers, we we're identifying here what is the law, and if individuals want to comply with the law, then they shouldn't drive on our roads until they've got a valid credential. In this state, we do have our driver's, uh, licenses. We have temporary driver's licenses, and we have driver's privilege cards, and there's different categories of people that qualify for those different licenses. Um, but the, the, the requirements for those and how those work are, are not really a part of this bill that would be under a different category of law.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says the bill's first section defines valid driving credentials, including privilege cards, foreign licenses, and licenses from other states.
▶ Watch at 1:22:08Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. In the very first section, it identifies what valid driver error credentials are in the state of Utah, which includes the privilege card, it includes, uh, foreign licenses from foreign countries and licenses issued by any state in the United States.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says the bill's first section lists valid driving credentials, including privilege cards, foreign licenses, and licenses from any U.S. state.
▶ Watch at 1:22:08Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. In the very first section, it identifies what valid driver error credentials are in the state of Utah, which includes the privilege card, it includes, uh, foreign licenses from foreign countries and licenses issued by any state in the United States.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says he does not know the answer and has not taken the privilege card test.
▶ Watch at 1:22:31Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I do not know the answer to that question. I've never attempted to take a driver's privilege card test,
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says he does not know the answer and has not taken the driving privilege card test.
▶ Watch at 1:22:31Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I do not know the answer to that question. I've never attempted to take a driver's privilege card test, And I am, I'm almost done with my questions.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says he does not know the stated reason the privilege card was created.
▶ Watch at 1:22:47Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. I do not know the exact stated reason by the drafter who or by the, uh, individual who passed that bill, so I cannot speak to their mind.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says he does not know the stated reason the driving privilege card was created.
▶ Watch at 1:22:47Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. I do not know the exact stated reason by the drafter who or by the, uh, individual who passed that bill, so I cannot speak to their mind.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Explains that low-value impounded vehicles often go unpaid, leaving impound lots to auction or give them away, and that the fee increase is meant to keep lots in business.
▶ Watch at 1:23:10Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah, this is actually a, an ongoing issue, um, that we've discussed with, uh, law enforcement with our impound, uh, yards as well. We have an ongoing problem where there is in all types of impounds, where vehicles are frequently being impounded, whether they have insurance or not, um, that are typically not of very high value. They're very low val value vehicles, and these vehicle lot fees just tend to not get paid. And, uh, the lots are then required to look for ways to recoup their, their costs. They can't keep these vehicles long term, so they try to auction 'em off, or in many cases, they end up putting them up, uh, for …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Explains that many low-value impounded vehicles go unpaid, impound lots lose money, and impound fees have not increased in a long time.
▶ Watch at 1:23:10Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah, this is actually a, an ongoing issue, um, that we've discussed with, uh, law enforcement with our impound, uh, yards as well. We have an ongoing problem where there is in all types of impounds, where vehicles are frequently being impounded, whether they have insurance or not, um, that are typically not of very high value. They're very low val value vehicles, and these vehicle lot fees just tend to not get paid. And, uh, the lots are then required to look for ways to recoup their, their costs. They can't keep these vehicles long term, so they try to auction 'em off, or in many cases, they end up putting them up, uh, for …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says his bill focuses on existing laws and enforcement tools and that the third substitute's privilege card policy may belong in a different part of the law for the body to decide.
▶ Watch at 1:31:26Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just speak briefly on this. So I, I did have a chance to talk over with a good, um, sponsor this, uh, substitute. Um, I, I, I will say that, so my bill is, uh, primarily focused on the current laws and on the enforcement mechanisms and the tools that law enforcement needs. Um, and this, this does specifically apply currently when you are trying to get either your license, if it's been suspended or revoked, or if you're looking for a privilege card, they look at your past driving history and if you've been continuing to violate the law, they typically add on more time to the time it's allowed for you to …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says the bill focuses on current law and enforcement tools, that the privilege card policy in the substitute belongs in a different area of law, and leaves the decision to the body.
▶ Watch at 1:31:26Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just speak briefly on this. So I, I did have a chance to talk over with a good, um, sponsor this, uh, substitute. Um, I, I, I will say that, so my bill is, uh, primarily focused on the current laws and on the enforcement mechanisms and the tools that law enforcement needs. Um, and this, this does specifically apply currently when you are trying to get either your license, if it's been suspended or revoked, or if you're looking for a privilege card, they look at your past driving history and if you've been continuing to violate the law, they typically add on more time to the time it's allowed for you to …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says his bill focuses on current laws and enforcement tools, that the motion addresses a different area of privilege card law, and leaves that policy for the body to decide.
▶ Watch at 1:31:26Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just speak briefly on this. So I, I did have a chance to talk over with a good, um, sponsor this, uh, substitute. Um, I, I, I will say that, so my bill is, uh, primarily focused on the current laws and on the enforcement mechanisms and the tools that law enforcement needs. Um, and this, this does specifically apply currently when you are trying to get either your license, if it's been suspended or revoked, or if you're looking for a privilege card, they look at your past driving history and if you've been continuing to violate the law, they typically add on more time to the time it's allowed for you to …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Gives summation, saying the bill targets lawbreakers and citing crash, hit-and-run, and citation data from several Utah agencies to support new enforcement tools.
▶ Watch at 1:38:09Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. Um, I I just wanna speak to a couple of things that were brought up here, um, to remind our colleagues that this bill doesn't target really anyone. All of our laws only target one group of people and that's those who break them. And this is, uh, again, in that same category. Um, I point out that, um, all of our road signs in, in Utah and in in English, and we require our driver's, uh, privileged car to be taken in English for that purpose. There's a, there's a reason why if you look at the statewide statistics on car crashes in Utah for the last five years, they've been …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Summarizes that the bill targets unlicensed drivers and cites crash, fatality, and hit-and-run statistics from several jurisdictions as reasons for providing law enforcement tools.
▶ Watch at 1:38:09Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. Um, I I just wanna speak to a couple of things that were brought up here, um, to remind our colleagues that this bill doesn't target really anyone. All of our laws only target one group of people and that's those who break them. And this is, uh, again, in that same category. Um, I point out that, um, all of our road signs in, in Utah and in in English, and we require our driver's, uh, privileged car to be taken in English for that purpose. There's a, there's a reason why if you look at the statewide statistics on car crashes in Utah for the last five years, they've been …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Says unlicensed-driver crashes and hit-and-run cases have risen while overall crashes fell, cites local law enforcement figures, and says the bill would give law enforcement needed tools.
▶ Watch at 1:38:09Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. Um, I I just wanna speak to a couple of things that were brought up here, um, to remind our colleagues that this bill doesn't target really anyone. All of our laws only target one group of people and that's those who break them. And this is, uh, again, in that same category. Um, I point out that, um, all of our road signs in, in Utah and in in English, and we require our driver's, uh, privileged car to be taken in English for that purpose. There's a, there's a reason why if you look at the statewide statistics on car crashes in Utah for the last five years, they've been …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
As sponsor, summarizes the bill, citing statewide and local crash, citation, and fatality figures involving unlicensed drivers and saying the bill would give law enforcement more tools.
▶ Watch at 1:38:09Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. Um, I I just wanna speak to a couple of things that were brought up here, um, to remind our colleagues that this bill doesn't target really anyone. All of our laws only target one group of people and that's those who break them. And this is, uh, again, in that same category. Um, I point out that, um, all of our road signs in, in Utah and in in English, and we require our driver's, uh, privileged car to be taken in English for that purpose. There's a, there's a reason why if you look at the statewide statistics on car crashes in Utah for the last five years, they've been …
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Says he missed much of the presentation and asks whether the committee is considering the first substitute.
▶ Watch at 52:00Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize I missed almost the entirety of this, but I understand we're looking at the first substitute then.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks whether the bill could lead to rate increases for remaining district members if other cities leave.
▶ Watch at 52:54Read what they said
Thank you. And Mr. Chair, if I could want to follow up. Of course. Go ahead. The um, and, and, uh, I'm not necessarily saying this as a bad way just to understand this though. Is there a likelihood or a suggestion here that this may affect the remaining, um, service district members as far as with they see rate increases likely as, as others perhaps start leaving?
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Moves to pass the first substitute of HB 429 out favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:08:51Read what they said
I'll make the motion to pass out fa favorably hb or first substitute HB 4 29 from this committee.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Says special districts have a purpose when limited in scope and subordinate to local elected officials, and supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:09:01Read what they said
Just briefly. And I'll say, you know, I'm, I'm not normally, uh, someone that, uh, honestly, just to be fair likes specialty districts, but I think that they have a purpose when they are very limited in their scope and their mission. They're financially transparent, but most importantly, when they are subordinate to their local elected, uh, uh, government, uh, uh, leaders. And in that regard, I think this is a very important bill. So I appreciate it.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks the chair for permission to speak again.
▶ Watch at 1:09:38Read what they said
Mr. Chair, can I just, oh yeah, I'm sorry. Is that all right? Back, back to the, uh,
H.B. 391 Vacancy Replacement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
MacPherson asked what the current process is for replacing a state senator who changes parties and resigns.
▶ Watch at 1:20:07Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, right now what is the require? What is the process? So if you were to, uh, resign, let's say as a state senator, um, and you changed your party affiliation and you resigned and you created either a new party or there was a a small party, what's the process by which that person gets replaced now?
H.B. 391 Vacancy Replacement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
MacPherson asked whether that process is set in statute or left to party rules.
▶ Watch at 1:21:35Read what they said
And is this statutorily set in the law how they do this process? Or is this relegated to the party's own rules?
H.B. 391 Vacancy Replacement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
MacPherson asked whether someone could resign, form a new party, and set any selection process they wish for their own replacement.
▶ Watch at 1:22:18Read what they said
And, and so just so I'm clear then, if this is relegated the rules of the party. Um, so if, if for example, I wanted to resign and establish my own party, I could set the rules for my own party on how I would find a replacement for myself and that there's no statute that says how that works. I can, I can make any selection process. I wish. Is that currently what the code says for a state and I submit that name to the governor and the governor selects that person?
H.B. 391 Vacancy Replacement Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
MacPherson said the process for statewide and legislative vacancies needs fixing, that the seat belongs to the people, and he would vote yes while working with Rep. Maloy on municipal adjustments.
▶ Watch at 1:50:45Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. And I will say that I do have just some minor, maybe holdups on some of these, uh, questions. I think that there is a significant issue, um, on these statewide, um, and, and larger like the, um, executive and legislative, um, seats. And we saw that play out, um, very recently. I think there's significant problems there that need to be fixed. I, um, I disagree with a lot of the statements made about the process that was put in place. Um, and uh, I think if you look at the rules under which they operated, they were absolutely not appropriate for what we would think. And, and I would agree with Representative Welton that …
H.B. 92 Presidential Electors Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
MacPherson asks whether the electoral college was designed to give the state a unified voice and whether the bill focuses more on individual voters.
▶ Watch at 2:01:37Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. I actually do appreciate this. Uh, I always like discussing these kind of questions with you. And so my question is mostly about, um, you know, I I, from my understanding at least of the electoral college is that the intent is, or at least originally to ensure that the, um, state itself is, um, that the power of the state is reflected in the college rather than looking at the individuals and the individuals within the state. That this is a, this is the way, uh, in which it was framed so that a small state like Utah with six electoral votes would be able to use those as a block essentially to matter more …
H.B. 92 Presidential Electors Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
MacPherson asks whether states that split their electoral votes receive more campaign attention.
▶ Watch at 2:03:19Read what they said
Is it fair to say though that the, um, the, the two states that do divvy up their, um, their electoral votes, they don't necessarily get any extra screen time, uh, because of that?
H.B. 396 Public Project Subcontractor Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks the sponsor to clarify whether the bill prohibits paying employees in cash, and whether it applies only to public projects.
▶ Watch at 2:19:23Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And if I, could I ask one follow up question based on the public comment from the bill sponsor? Go ahead. Just to, You may ask me anything. Steve, go Ahead. Just to clarify, I, because I heard a couple of comments here that th this, there's nothing in this bill that precludes you from paying employees in cash. This is about making sure that you're paying payroll taxes, social security, unemployment, workers' compensation, that you're following those. But as far as I didn't say anything, and I just wanna clarify.
H.B. 396 Public Project Subcontractor Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Thanks the sponsor for the clarification and says he will allow another member to make the motion.
▶ Watch at 2:20:18Read what they said
Thank you. And since I refute, I neglected to reserve the right, I, uh, guess I will allow someone else to make the motion.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Presents HB 392, describing changes to the bill that would let the legislature, governor, or Attorney General remove certain constitutional challenges to a three-judge panel, with judges chosen at random and the Judicial Council setting rules.
▶ Watch at 1:41:59Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Um, so this, um, what this bill does essentially, um, is broken down. Um, and if it's okay, I'm just gonna step through some of the portions of this, because it has changed, um, fairly significantly from its first version in its first public hearing, um, to now where it stands today. Um, this, uh, this bill, what it does today is it establishes that when a civil action is brought against, um, uh, a, uh, the legislature or the governor or the Attorney General, or they are a party to these, uh, cases, um, and there is a, um, or if they, um, these entities could join these cases intervene …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Explains that the only requirement is that the Judicial Council make at least 50% of each district's judges eligible, with random selection and one judge from each of three districts.
▶ Watch at 1:45:43Read what they said
So the only qualification requirements right now is that the, the coun, the judicial council will go through the eight district courts and they have to identify there, there may be some judges that, for example, if they're brand new or if there's, uh, some sort of circumstance requirements, they may want to not be eligible for any reason. But we are, the only requirement in here is that they have to at least, uh, make eligible at least 50% of all judges in each district court. But then beyond that, the selection process is truly random and they have to come, each of the three judges have to come from a separate judicial district.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Explains the state's interest in defending its laws and that the legislature and governor can intervene, with the attorney general included for speed.
▶ Watch at 1:46:31Read what they said
So the intention behind this is to look at a couple of different, um, scenarios. First, that the state has an interest in defending and by the state, I'm, I'm referring mostly to the legislature and the governor in cases where he is signed, um, laws, if they're seeking to enjoin a state law, that, that, that these entities have, um, uh, have an interest in defending those laws in court. And the ag being, uh, typically the attorney representing those agencies. Um, but we also have, with the legislature and with the governor, a ability to intervene by right in these particular cases. So even if we're not a party to them, we can intervene in those cases in …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Says the fiscal note reflects the original bill, that the updated version provides three clerks and a coordinator, and that dedicated staff ensure consistency.
▶ Watch at 1:48:09Read what they said
I appreciate that. And, and that fiscal note is based on the original bill. The updated fiscal note has not yet come out, but the updated fiscal note is just gonna reflect three clerks and a coordinator and not an additional, we do want some consistency since there will be a randomness of the panels. So the dedicated clerks for these panel courts provide that consistency. Also, the, um, the district court judges right now only get half a clerk each, and they're pretty well loaded right now. And so as they empanel, um, they, they, they really will be resource a little bit more resource intensive here. And so we, we wanted provide dedicated resources without increasing 'cause we've …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Says clerks are expected to stay dedicated to the panels for now, may need rule changes to float, and must report annually to appropriations on workload.
▶ Watch at 1:49:34Read what they said
So I, I don't believe so. Right now, I believe they are dedicated to this court, but whether or not that can be, uh, or, or I shouldn't say to this court, but two panels, but whether they can work outside of that, I may have to discuss with the courts whether that's allowable by rule. But I will say that they are also instructed under this bill to report to appropriations every year to indicate the cost, the expenditures, how this is affecting them. So it's an opportunity for them to indicate if the workload is too low or if it's growing. If we're utilizing these way more, then there may be an opportunity for us then to either …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Says the primary concern was that district judges and clerks have heavy workloads, so the bill adds dedicated resources instead of assigning panel work to them.
▶ Watch at 1:52:01Read what they said
I, I think the primary concern was is that, um, depending on the district, uh, some of these judges, um, are, are seeing pretty heavy workloads right now, and their clerks even more so. And so the, the desire was not to necessarily burden them with additional work by impanding them, but to actually, um, for the purposes of these cases to provide extra resources. Because the intention is to, uh, try to prioritize these, um, as they have statewide significance and, and they're important for the entire state.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Says the dedicated clerk provision was requested by the courts and included at their request.
▶ Watch at 1:52:59Read what they said
If I, if I may, um, so this, this actually, this recommendation for the dedicated, uh, clerks came from the courts and we incorporated it into the bill at Their request. Okay.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Explains that the bill has no automatic trigger; the state can move to remove a case to a panel within a short window, without changing jurisdiction otherwise.
▶ Watch at 2:25:22Read what they said
For the question. And Mr. Chair, if I may, um, so currently under this, it, it doesn't, there's no requirement trigger. This is a removal. Um, power essentially focuses on the, again, this is, this is, this is intended to focus less on the parties involved and more on the matter at hand. And so if the matter is deemed to be, um, something where we're looking at an enjoyment of a law, then there is the opportunity within a short time window for the, uh, party to, but the party being the legislature, the, the ag or the governor to make that motion or, or notification, I should say, uh, of removal to a panel. Um, but there's not, …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Responds about a constitutional claim arising during a property tax appeal. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:26:38Read what they said
for example. Yeah. Well This, this is just something that makes that claim while they're doing a, a property tax appeal.
H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Says he appreciates the substitute, still has some concerns, and considers it a broad improvement.
▶ Watch at 1:17:00Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate you, uh, bringing this, and I apologize that I missed the entire, uh, discussion and question session. I'm not going to take up any committee time on that, but just to say I appreciate the substitute, I've only had a chance to kind of review it since you and I spoke, uh, about it. Um, I, I still think that I may have some concerns as far as, uh, buttoning up a few pieces, but generally I think this is a, a broad improvement. So thank you. Thank You.
H.B. 312 School Curriculum and Standards Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Asks what work has been done with USBE on how the bill would integrate into the current learning platform.
▶ Watch at 1:28:28Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I've got a couple of questions, but, um, really looking at the, um, the bill, uh, substitute, um, I'm just curious, what, uh, have you been able to work with USBE on this? On how it would be, um, I guess integrated into the, uh, the current learning sort of
H.B. 312 School Curriculum and Standards Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Asks for confirmation that the bill requires a structure while the details of implementation remain to be determined.
▶ Watch at 1:29:27Read what they said
Uh, okay. And thank you for that. And if I can ask a follow up on that. Yes, go ahead. The, uh, I, I, I guess, uh, even though the delayed implementation is still is A LEA shall, so I just want to ensure that we're, we're creating a structure that's required, but we're not unsu what that's gonna look like yet. Is that fair to say that, that that's the expectation of where this is?
H.B. 312 School Curriculum and Standards Modifications · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Says holding is a difficult choice, notes other elementary civics bills, and speaks in favor of a quick hold to coordinate them.
▶ Watch at 1:44:33Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I don't normally, um, I don't, this is a difficult, uh, decision because this is a very heavily loaded, uh, committee. Um, and I agree with the sponsor that, uh, if we're gonna move a bill, we should, and if we're not, we shouldn't. Uh, holding is a little trickier in a committee like this, but I will also say that, um, I'm aware that we have at least three more, maybe even four more, um, elementary school civics bills, um, out there. And I think it might make sense if, uh, we can hear those a little bit closer together to understand how they're gonna work, uh, together. I know that there could be …
H.B. 317 Social Health in Public Education Curriculum · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Asked whether lines 137-140 of the substitute mandate K-6 instruction on the full section, including trafficking and sex abuse topics.
▶ Watch at 2:15:15Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Looking at the substitute bill. Looks like that. Yeah, we do have a definition here, but if I'm reading correctly, going down to line 1 37 through one 40, we're also mandating the instruction in kindergarten through grade six on the entirety of the section two, including trafficking, sex abuse, um, uh, the success sequence, physiology, human development, um, uh, including the social health. Um, and uh, I'm just curious if that was the intent and why, where
H.B. 317 Social Health in Public Education Curriculum · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Asked whether it is existing language despite being shown as new.
▶ Watch at 2:16:08Read what they said
So this, you're saying that this is existing language, even though it's listed as a red line? It
H.B. 317 Social Health in Public Education Curriculum · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Read the section requiring K-6 and grades 7-12 instruction and asked again whether it is existing language.
▶ Watch at 2:16:39Read what they said
And I apologize Mr. Chair because of time, please ahead. But this is, this is critical to me to understand. 'cause as I read that section that an lea a shall ensure that a student receives in kindergarten grade through six, the age appropriate instruction described in subsection two, A, BEHI and all of the instruction described in subsection two on at least two occasions between grade seven and through seven and 12. And I just wanna make sure that I'm understanding you're saying that that is existing language even though it's listed here? Yeah. Redland as new language.
H.B. 317 Social Health in Public Education Curriculum · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Pressed that the bill adds portions to K-6.
▶ Watch at 2:17:29Read what they said
But to be clear, you're adding it to K through six as well, the portions of that. Yeah,
H.B. 317 Social Health in Public Education Curriculum · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Said he may need to check with the drafter.
▶ Watch at 2:18:02Read what they said
Um, perhaps I, I may have to reach out to the drafter just to be sure. Okay.
H.B. 298 School Design Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Asked whether the state school board can already do this without a statute, and said he appreciates the effort to address cost differences between school buildings.
▶ Watch at 2:43:49Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I guess my question is, um, the, the goal of this is obviously to save money. Do we, are we able to do this? Like have we looked at whether or not this, the, the state board discuss whether or not they, they can do this? Uh, is this necessary to be done in the statute? I, I guess just Asking. They can do it. They haven't done it. This is, you know, I would be happy if they said, here's the plan and we're gonna do it. I wouldn't need the bill. This is just to kind of motivate things to happen. And I've tried to leave it very open so that I'm …
H.B. 298 School Design Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Asked whether the amendment is meant to reduce the fiscal note or the long-term cost to districts.
▶ Watch at 2:54:12Read what they said
motion to adopt the amendment? Yeah, if I, If I could just briefly, um, uh, the sponsor had mentioned that the amendment was seeking to reduce costs. Is this supposed to reduce the fiscal note or just the cost of the amendment in particular, or to reduce the cost to LEAs over time? That's what I was trying to figure out. Uh, it should reduce the cost of the, uh, fiscal note a lot because it's not requiring them to go buy every plan. It's just saying if you can get the plans put in the library. Okay. Thank you. Alright, thank you.
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Presents HR 4, a proposed house rule asking legislators to disclose when a bill is materially requested by or originates from an executive branch agency or official, with no enforcement or penalty.
▶ Watch at 10:14Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, here. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Um, so yeah, the, a pretty simple proposal, uh, for rule, uh, change with no, um, uh, with no requirements or penalty associated with just a, uh, a request that we suggest. One of the concerns that comes up, uh, we hear a lot both from, uh, house and Senate leadership and from the governor's office, is the intense number of bills that come through the legislature every year. But one thing that is sometimes a little frustrating, uh, to some of us is, is the number of bills that the, um, executive branch sometimes asks us to run. And so, one of the …
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Says the proposal has no enforcement mechanism and is meant as a best practice that lets colleagues know when a bill comes from the executive branch.
▶ Watch at 12:29Read what they said
Yeah, I appreciate that, and that's why this has, again, no enforcement mechanism, no penalty associated. I simply was hoping that this could be more of a best practice, is that we essentially are informing under rule that, look, if this bill is originating from, in any way, shape, or form from an agency or from the executive branch, just let your colleagues know. Just, it would help us to, to understand where that's coming from, leaving it to the discretion. I know it's written in here as a shall and it's under rule, but again, without any of the, uh, penalizing or any of the, uh, requirements that would come along with it, this is, uh, in intentionally in …
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Says he is asking only for disclosure and that the specific method of disclosure is not listed in the proposal.
▶ Watch at 14:44Read what they said
Mm-hmm. With, uh, just asking for it to just simply be disclosed the manner and the method and the, the specific type of disclosure is not listed here.
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Says the proposal is not meant to require disclosing the source of a bill idea and could allow members to keep that confidential.
▶ Watch at 15:30Read what they said
I would, I would certainly hope not. And I'd be willing to even include that, uh, that we have, we, we are allowed to keep our, our, um, genesis, so to speak, confidential. And I don't think this is intended to breach that, even if you're just saying, you know, this came from, uh, an executive branch agency, um, which I'm pursuing that, that I think they would prefer for all of us to be aware of. And if it didn't, then simply keeping that confidential, I think is in the best interest potentially of, uh, many of the parties involved, because then you sometimes worry about the individuals where these came from rather than the policy.
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Says he intends a best practice that asks legislators to let colleagues know if a bill is materially generated by an executive branch agency, and is open to other approaches.
▶ Watch at 21:19Read what they said
My, my assumption again, in, in leading back to the earlier question was, is that I would like this to be in the, in the conscience of the legislator to just say, if you believe this bill or the major components of it is materially, uh, um, generated by an executive branch agency, just let your colleagues know. But, um, uh, if there's a way to do that more broadly, that doesn't, I'm not trying to define it too tightly. I don't want it to be, again, I, I'm not looking for a hard, fast rule. I, I'm just looking for a best practice and I'm open to the chair of the rules house rules committee to help me identify …
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Agrees with the suggestion to ask at the time of the bill request, says reporting could be helpful, and says he is most interested in how many bills come from agencies.
▶ Watch at 22:48Read what they said
Absolutely. And the reporting piece actually may be even more helpful in that regard. Um, so absolutely. I think that would be, I'm, I guess the, um, and, and I'm not worried about those little minor changes. If, if, if you've got a substitute or if you've got, you know, a stakeholder that's asking for input that changes maybe some portion of the bill. I'm, I'm really looking at, um, and again, trying to get to the underlying argument that we have a lot of bills, where are they coming from? Um, if, if we're solving problems in our individual communities, that's one thing. If we're solving, uh, problems for our different agencies, and that ends up being the bulk …
H.R. 4 House Rules Resolution - Legislation Disclosure · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Says he is willing to look at a different process, such as including the disclosure in the bill release, and will bring back a revised version.
▶ Watch at 26:38Read what they said
Thank you. And I appreciate that. Uh, I'm more than willing actually, and I, I like the discussion. I'm happy to actually look at, uh, perhaps whether we can do this, uh, through a different process. I actually really like the idea of perhaps, uh, including it in our bill, um, uh, release, uh, portion. Um, perhaps it would give us some better tracking anyway. So I, I would actually appreciate, take the time to go look at that and see if I can turn it around maybe potentially quickly. And, uh, so if it, uh, does not go to the floor where I can adjust it there, then I'm happy to try to do it and bring it back …
H.R. 5 House Rules Resolution - House Standing Committees · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Presented HR 5 and its substitute, which would create a new Family and Social Services committee to take family-related bills from heavily loaded committees and coordinate them.
▶ Watch at 28:17Read what they said
That's right. And, and this is a very tiny bill, the substitute. Um, so initially I was, uh, looking particularly at the education committee and a lot, several other committees that are bogged down quite a bit during the session with, um, tremendous numbers of bills. Um, and, uh, with some policy discussions also on our committee layout altogether. And I'm trying to identify if there's a way to kind of break up the workload somewhat. And one of those opportunities would be to identify a new committee that could be established that might be able to absorb perhaps bills that fall under education call that fall under maybe government operations that might fall under Health and Human services or …
H.R. 5 House Rules Resolution - House Standing Committees · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Explained the substitute does not split a committee but creates a Family and Social Services committee to collect and coordinate bills that could fall under education or other heavily loaded committees.
▶ Watch at 30:14Read what they said
Um, so this would not be a split of, so the, the, the underlying bill did split education into higher ed and, and, and public ed. But the substitute is actually not looking at splitting the committee. It would actually just simply establish the new committee of Family and social services to try to collect, um, bills that, that would potentially fall under education, whether public or higher or under other committees that tend to be very heavily loaded. Um, and then can help coordinate those bills in a, uh, fashion that the house can kind of clarify that if, if this is a policy consideration, if this is one of our priorities, um, then we can, uh, get them …
H.R. 5 House Rules Resolution - House Standing Committees · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Responded that the goal is to reduce committee workload so bills get more time for questions and public comment, and acknowledged the proposal may be problematic and is open to other ideas.
▶ Watch at 33:45Read what they said
Yeah. And I appreciate this, and this is actually the number one consideration here is actually trying to solve that issue. Um, and, and I'm sure we've all seen too, is when you're in a committee, when there is sometimes 11 representatives in a committee, it, it actually, I, I think it actually in some ways plays against us, excuse me, against us the most, um, the most focused and and involved members in a committee tend to be the chairs and the vice chairs. Um, they're running the committee. They tend to have to have that. And the more members we tend to have in the committee, it seems like the easier it is to, to not have to …
H.R. 5 House Rules Resolution - House Standing Committees · House Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Said the bills were meant to start discussion and offered to help move forward or study the idea.
▶ Watch at 41:24Read what they said
Uh, yeah, I'm, I, I'm, again, I'm happy to have the conversation. I, I intended to bring these both here to just start trying to shake up the thinking on some of these and have these discussions. And I appreciate the work that you're already doing and if there's a way to, to, uh, move forward or to study this, I'm, I'm more than willing to help along as well.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Said the second substitute reflects many changes requested by the courts during recent meetings and is intended as a workable middle ground.
▶ Watch at 7:36Read what they said
Uh, yeah. So, um, and I'll, I'll go over this in my presentation, but this reflects, uh, many of the changes that were requested from us from the courts in our meetings with them over the last couple of days. And I believe brings us to a good place right now between, um, between us and them, uh, on being able to proceed forward in a way that could be, uh, potentially seen as, uh, beneficial to both parties.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Presented the second substitute, describing a panel court of three randomly selected judges from different districts, a party requirement, removal of the statewide concern provision, and added clerk and coordinator resources.
▶ Watch at 8:25Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, to colleagues, this is, uh, a bill that I've been working on for some time. We've discussed it before. Um, the second substitute, which is really what I want to go over, is a, uh, drastically different position when this bill went through the committee, um, after discussion with the courts, and I wanna walk through some of the major changes here. Um, and first, you'll, you'll see at the very beginning of this bill, it's a much shorter bill at the very beginning, it just simply states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in appeal, in appeals, um, that come from a, um, panel court. Um, and that's necessary so that they can have …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Answered that the rule could let some pending cases move to a panel, but earlier court rulings and decisions would remain part of those cases.
▶ Watch at 26:11Read what they said
So the way that this is written under immediate effect, it would require the judicial council to write the rule, but then yes, there would be some, um, qualifications there. It would allow potentially some cases that have been filed whether recently or not to move to a panel case. But it's important to note that the courts have made it very clear and we understand very clearly as well that this doesn't constitute a do over, so to speak, that those motions and those, uh, decisions that were made, those are still part of the case and, uh, have to be viewed that way.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
In closing, said checks and balances are healthy, that the bill aims to restore public trust, and that it was developed with the courts and would be refined as it moves forward.
▶ Watch at 27:23Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just be very brief. I think there's been a lot of good discussion here and I, I do wanna, I don't wanna undercut anything that's been said, but I will point out that it, it's actually quite normal. It's healthy and in fact it's part of the design of our beautiful country that, um, that we don't, we don't trust the other branches. And, and I think that that's important and it is a, a key to how our system works. And we have these checks and balances that exist for a reason, and that distrust is supposed to be at a healthy level. Maybe we're at an unhealthy level now. I think a …
H.B. 82 Judgment Information Amendments · House floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Presents the bill, which changes the judgment lien filing requirement from the full Social Security number to the last four digits, to match current practice after lawyers challenged liens.
▶ Watch at 4:55Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this is a, a very simple bill. Um, currently when a judgment is filed, uh, against an individual and there is a lien placed on their property, um, there is a process under statute that they have to follow in order to file that lien. That process requires that they provide personal information of the debtor to identify them, and that includes their entire Social security number. Now, this information is not redacted when it's placed online. And so in practice, what the recorders and what the lien companies have been doing is they've been using just the last four digits of the social security number. But then lawyers got involved and have started suing, …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Rep. MacPherson said the substitute reflects circulated draft language, replacing a separate court with an ad hoc panel of judges selected randomly across judicial districts, adding three law clerks and a coordinator, and aiming for faster case hearings.
▶ Watch at 15:33Read what they said
Uh, just really briefly, this, uh, represents the, um, the draft of the language that I've been, um, circulating and speaking with many of you about. Essentially this would, uh, seek to, instead of establishing a separate court to, uh, focus on more of a, uh, ad hoc panel that would be established by the courts, um, that would be required in rule. That, uh, is gonna be a statutory requirement through a companion, uh, resolution that's coming out as well. And will allow, uh, the selection of judges to be randomly across multiple different, uh, judicial districts, uh, in the state. And, uh, we'll provide some additional resources to these, uh, courts in the, um, form of three additional …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Explains the substitute: it replaces a separate court with an ad hoc panel set up by the courts, with judges selected randomly across judicial districts, three additional law clerks and a coordinator, and changes made after working with the courts and stakeholders.
▶ Watch at 15:33Read what they said
Uh, just really briefly, this, uh, represents the, um, the draft of the language that I've been, um, circulating and speaking with many of you about. Essentially this would, uh, seek to, instead of establishing a separate court to, uh, focus on more of a, uh, ad hoc panel that would be established by the courts, um, that would be required in rule. That, uh, is gonna be a statutory requirement through a companion, uh, resolution that's coming out as well. And will allow, uh, the selection of judges to be randomly across multiple different, uh, judicial districts, uh, in the state. And, uh, we'll provide some additional resources to these, uh, courts in the, um, form of three additional …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Rep. MacPherson moved to circle the bill so members have time to review the changes.
▶ Watch at 17:28Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to circle That motion is in order. We'd like to, uh, speak to him. Just wanna give the body an opportunity to review all the changes and some time to digest.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Moves to circle the bill so members have time to review the changes and digest them.
▶ Watch at 17:28Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to circle That motion is in order. We'd like to, uh, speak to him. Just wanna give the body an opportunity to review all the changes and some time to digest.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Says a substitute for the bill has been in progress and is not yet ready to share, and asks that the bill be circled so it can be returned to before floor time ends.
▶ Watch at 48:26Read what they said
Yeah, just briefly. We, we've been working for some time on a substitute for this bill. It should be out. It was supposed to be out before the end of floor time today. I was hoping to get it for everyone to view, but it looks like it may not be in place. So I just hope that we can circle it for now and hopefully get back to it before, uh, before the floor time ends.
H.B. 310 School Reintegration Plan Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asks whether the bill's wording on creating a unique reintegration plan would allow it to bypass the required checklist items.
▶ Watch at 36:22Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, and I apologize. My question is actually very, very similar because I do wanna walk through that exact section there on starting at line 45 through 56, because it states that the school district may de deny admission to a student until the school completes the reintegration plan under the subsection two. And that the reintegration plan under subsection two shall address. And then it lists these items, a behavioral intervention for the student, a short-term mental health or counseling service for the student, an academic intervention for the student. And if the serious offense was directed to school, employer or another student within the school notification of the reintegration plan that the school employer …
H.B. 310 School Reintegration Plan Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Says the policy intent is clear and accepts the proposed clarifying amendment as friendly.
▶ Watch at 39:56Read what they said
Thank you. And I think that's all I was just looking at was, 'cause it sounds like the intention is there. I just wanted to make sure the language is matching the policy intent. Thanks. I take that as a friendly amendment when that amendment's drafted.
H.B. 241 Charter School Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asks whether charters and municipalities have equal opportunity under the second substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:03:32Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. And I'm so sorry I missed your entire presentation. I'm not gonna ask you to do it again, but your Questions are now nevermind. Yeah, oh yeah, just like last time. Um, uh, but I am a curious, uh, I, I understand that you're speaking to the second substitute, second sub, yeah, the second sub uhhuh. And, and this, uh, from what I re recall, I may maybe you mentioned is just to clarify that the charters and the munis have equal opportunity.
H.B. 241 Charter School Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Speaks in favor of the motion, saying keeping existing school buildings as schools lowers education costs, and that he would have preferred cities stay in first position.
▶ Watch at 1:19:53Read what they said
Representative MacPherson. Thank You, Mr. Chair. And just say that, speaking in favor of this, uh, motion as well. Um, you know, as, uh, vice chair of Public Head appropriations, we look at these, um, uh, education dollars very closely as a state and not based on districts, not based on charters, but as the public education total framework. Um, these buildings are already schools. If there's a chance that we can keep them as schools, it keeps the cost of schools lower. Um, overall this is a good, um, item. I, I actually would prefer if they stayed in first position personally, but I'm still happy with the negotiations you've made because of this. So I support this motion. …
H.B. 150 School-based Speech-language Pathologist Funding Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked whether the bill's eligibility expansion excludes other categories of school staff.
▶ Watch at 1:32:56Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. And, and thank you for bringing this. I do have a couple of quick questions though. Um, this expands the eligibility section. Um, right now it's just designated to teachers and it adds licensed education professional including a speech language pathologist or speech language technician. Are there other categories of educational folk in the school districts that are also not covered? That this is not expanding to?
H.B. 150 School-based Speech-language Pathologist Funding Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Raised concern about the bill's over one million dollar ongoing fiscal note and said he may not support it because of the funding situation.
▶ Watch at 1:33:41Read what they said
And I bring that up because it does have an ongoing fiscal note of over a million dollars. I am aware of that. And my concern is, is obviously, uh, not from a policy perspective. If we could apply this to everybody in every category, that would be great. Um, but with a reduced, um, revenue and potential cuts in a lot of areas, I'm concerned that, um, these types of policies may be seen as picking and choosing who gets potentially additional revenue based on legislative priorities rather than educational priorities. So I I may be simply stating that I might not be able to support this bill simply because of the funding situation. But I appreciate you answering …
H.B. 150 School-based Speech-language Pathologist Funding Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Said he supports the policy but questioned the fiscal note, stating there is no ongoing funding and he will vote no.
▶ Watch at 1:49:46Read what they said
You, Mr. Chair. And I, I do wanna just clarify, I completely and totally support this policy. Um, absolutely. But I am, uh, also quite confident that we don't have a million dollars in ongoing funding for this. Um, and if we pass this into, uh, law, then we are gonna be leaving that, uh, on the state board, on the LEAs to fund without any additional money from the legislature. And I don't think that that's an appropriate way to put this through. Um, and so I'm just, again, stating for the record, completely support this, but I will be No thanks.
H.B. 177 ROTC Resident Student Status · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked whether cadets must be under contract with ROTC or only enrolled in ROTC to qualify.
▶ Watch at 2:00:02Read what they said
Thank you. And, and my question is actually pretty similar on the contracted status. So they, they just need to enroll in ROTC, they don't have to actually be in a contracted status with ROTC that, that they're going to enlist in a, in a branch of the military. They, they just need to enroll in ROTC to qualify?
H.B. 177 ROTC Resident Student Status · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Said he would discuss the enrollment clarification with Rep. Peterson separately.
▶ Watch at 2:01:07Read what they said
I, I guess, and maybe I can talk to Representative Peterson about this clarification on the side. Maybe I'll do that right now. Okay, thanks.
H.B. 177 ROTC Resident Student Status · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Reserved the right to make a motion and asked the overall goal of the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:04:50Read what they said
I'd like to reserve the right to make a motion. Alright. Can I, can I ask a, another follow up question? You may. Um, just that I understand the goal, what is the goal overall of this bill? Can you just, like, what is the desired outcome we're seeking here?
H.B. 177 ROTC Resident Student Status · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked how the sponsor would feel about changing the enrollment language to contracted status to close a possible loophole, noting it could affect recruitment.
▶ Watch at 2:05:43Read what they said
And if I may ask last follow up, I promise you may. Um, how would you feel about, and, and perhaps this is a discussion that needs to continue forward with adjusting the enrollment language to contract contracted language simply because there is a potential loophole here. You can enroll for two years of RO two C and, and then just walk away, but still get in-state tuition. Whereas once you're contracted, they're already gonna be paying for that, um, education piece. So I realized that that would impact the, the, um, the goal of increasing recruitment, possibly in a negative way, but also possibly close a loophole. But it depends on where the priority goals are, is. If it's …
H.B. 234 Education Testing Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Says his main questions were answered.
▶ Watch at 2:27:37Read what they said
So two Representative MacPherson That, uh, and thank you. I, I'll just say that cleared up most of my questions, so thanks.
H.B. 351 School Vision Screening Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked whether the bill would allow for-profit vendors to send advertising or coupons to families through the screening notice.
▶ Watch at 3:27:35Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. And, uh, I will try to be brief though. I will, uh, point out I did not agendize this, uh, the massive list of bills today. You know, fair criticism, I'll, I'll accept responsibility for all eight bills. Thank you On the agenda. Thank you. Uh, a question line, uh, 1 21 through 1 25 on the nonprofit entities or, uh, that are contracts or that volunteer and the information that's sent out. I just want to make sure that we're very clear here. We're not, we're not allowing necessarily o other vendors that provide vision services for profit to send like a coupon or some sort of advertisement home to these parents through this process. …
H.B. 351 School Vision Screening Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Noted that an amendment was available to clarify the nonprofit contract language and said it addresses his question; moved to adopt Amendment 1 as a friendly amendment.
▶ Watch at 3:31:46Read what they said
I'll just note there is an amendment online for this bill. The amendment was there in case, uh, we need to clarify, um, clarify, further clarify the, um, the nonprofit that contracts, that's only if, if the committee feels like we need to move that amendment. Um, as I look at this amendment, I think that does clarify what my question was. And so if you would be, uh, open to this as a friendly amendment, I would move it. I would be. Thank you. Um, then I do move amendment one and represented wind's name.
H.B. 351 School Vision Screening Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Said the amendment clarifies the concern in his earlier question.
▶ Watch at 3:32:28Read what they said
Uh, I think this just clarifies that, that little concern that I asked in my question. So thank you for being proactive about it.
H.B. 351 School Vision Screening Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend HB 351 as amended.
▶ Watch at 3:33:02Read what they said
Yes, please. I move that we favorably recommend HB 3 51 school vision screening amendments as amended. Alright.
H.B. 314 Firearm Purchase Amendments · House Public Utilities and Energy Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Introduces HB 314 and describes it as removing a duplicative firearm transaction form that dealers send to BCI, and says he is bringing up Clark Aposhian to explain details.
▶ Watch at 56:02Read what they said
HB three 14 firearm purchase amendments present. Thank you Chair members of the committee. I think we're okay Now. Thank you. I'm going to start off very, very briefly here and just say, um, so what this bill essentially does is, uh, make, uh, background checks for buying a firearm no longer required in the state of Utah. Just kidding. I wanted to see some of my colleagues' faces, but So you, you got, you got no reaction. I, I was gonna say, they just probably thought that would be typical coming from me on this side. Were happy. So no, with this bill is actually pretty simple and I've brought, uh, Clark Cap potion up here to, uh, go …
H.B. 288 Voting Registration Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Asks whether the amendment has been explained and what it specifically does.
▶ Watch at 1:21:37Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just quick question, there's an amendment on here. Does that need to be? Yes, we, uh, talked that at the very beginning and, and you, you suggested that you were going to speak to the amendment. Did you cover that Representative Lee? Yes. And that was specifically what?
H.B. 288 Voting Registration Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Asks about the amendment's added lines on where questions can be directed.
▶ Watch at 1:22:23Read what they said
Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. And, and further it adds lines 55 through 57 talking about, uh, questions can be directed.
H.B. 288 Voting Registration Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Moves that H.B. 288 be passed out favorably from the committee as amended.
▶ Watch at 1:26:02Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. I move that we pass out favorably from this committee. HB 2 88 voting registration amendments as amended.
H.B. 311 Elections Study · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend HB 311 out of committee.
▶ Watch at 1:57:09Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to make a motion that we favorably recommend HB three 11, uh, out of this committee with a favorable recommendation.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Presents HB 392 to create a three-judge constitutional court for statewide challenges to state laws and explains its selection, retention, and funding.
▶ Watch at 1:00:28Read what they said
Constitutional Court Amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I thought I had one more in front of me. You Did, but she's not here. Um, Lacey or did someone get, uh, my slides? Oh, you got 'em. Okay. And thank you members of the committee and Mr. Chair for the opportunity to present this. Um, so this bill, um, is something that we've been working on for some time now, all through, um, well, me and several other individuals who've been working on this, uh, through interim and, uh, into this year. And there's been some good discussion over how can we improve the, um, resources that we have available to the courts so we can get to some of …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Says appeals would follow the current process used for other trial courts.
▶ Watch at 1:10:31Read what they said
She is actually, I'll have her come Up because this is something that we've, we've talked about before and I just wanna make sure that we've got the current version. Yes, It'll follow the current appeals process for other court, for other trial courts. So this is like, just funny,
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Explains the court's workload would mostly be district cases through temporary assignments and that added judges might not resolve the backlog.
▶ Watch at 1:11:33Read what they said
Yeah, I appreciate the question. I think it's important too because the, um, there's a, I guess a couple of policy considerations on that question. And, and one is, is that the workload of this ca of this court will actually be pretty low. And the bill outlines that they're gonna function, um, day to day primarily as district court judges. And that'll come through the temporary assignment, um, process that the court can establish right now. So they can be assigned a temporary workload of district court cases pretty much year round. And then their, but their, their primary and ultimate goal is to work on the constitutional cases when they come up and there may be some calendar …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Says a rotating panel was considered but the Utah Constitution limits the legislature's ability to organize courts that way.
▶ Watch at 1:13:33Read what they said
Yeah. Um, couldn't there be something like this where we fund additional district court judges and then you have certain people handling the constitutional cases, so a rotating panel? Yeah, I appreciate that. Um, question and so this is actually one of the crux of the issues. So my initial version of this was to try to match more of the North Carolina model, for example, that would try to establish this more in, uh, like a panel that could be assembled. And we really ran into, uh, again, the constitutional issues is uh, is what, what limitations are placed on the legislature, on how we organize courts. So we actually have no authority to organize courts, whereas North Carolina, …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Stresses that funding for a full court with judges and staff is needed and calls the policy the right decision.
▶ Watch at 1:15:17Read what they said
Oh, absolutely. But, and Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, go ahead. I, the money is actually a significant portion of this, and I actually hope that when we discuss this issue, there is a funding mechanism of this or there, there is a fiscal note on here that reflects the idea of adding a full court with judges and staff. And this is, this is something that is desperately needed right now for our courts. So I, I I wanna emphasize that this is a huge boon, um, to our judicial system. Even though there may be concerns over how this policy may play out or what may be some optics might be. The bottom line is from a …
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Responds to public comments on the fiscal note, the surprise timing, trust between branches, and forum shopping.
▶ Watch at 2:26:27Read what they said
Okay. Um, and I appreciate the, the, the various comments and feedback we've received. Um, and I try to keep some notes and try to categorize the ca the issues that were out there because I think there is, obviously this bill did come out yesterday and it is difficult when it's a long bill to get through it. There might be a lot of misconceptions and perhaps some, um, uh, some unintended sort of, uh, thinking about how this may play out. So I wanted to address maybe a couple of the, the quick little issues, just a high level. Um, and, uh, and also I, I agree with the chair that there's gotta be a joke there somewhere …
H.B. 106 School Attendance Changes · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked whether the bill's reporting requirements are too prescriptive and whether the State Board needs more flexibility.
▶ Watch at 1:15:48Read what they said
Chair. And thank you for bringing this again. Um, I did have a question about the, um, board report, um, at the end of this. So it looks like that after they collect this data there to analyze it root cause come up with suggested solutions, is there any concern that some of the requirements listed here in the reporting collection and reporting back to the state is too prescriptive and doesn't give the state board enough flexibility on actually determining maybe all the options of maybe available?
H.B. 106 School Attendance Changes · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Said the committee should avoid burdening school districts and the State Board with overly specific reports and suggested a looser recommendation could be preferable.
▶ Watch at 1:16:38Read what they said
Just as we're, uh, considering obviously with, uh, several different, um, committees and bills that to try to reduce the burden of reporting requirements on our LEAs and on the state board, I just wanna make sure that we're not saddling them down with additional requirements where perhaps, uh, just making a a loose recommendation might be a little bit more appropriate than a hyper specialized sort of report. And if that's the direction the committee wants to go, I'm fine with that. Thank you. Thank you.
H.B. 106 School Attendance Changes · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked whether the sponsor would consider removing the ongoing reporting requirements and their fiscal cost while keeping the state board's standardized structures.
▶ Watch at 1:25:39Read what they said
Didn't he already talk? Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to take a second bite at this Apple. Um, so based Questions, So, uh, based on the conversation I've heard and what we were discussing earlier, I guess, uh, my question is, looking at your fiscal note and looking at the impact on here, I'm wondering if how you would feel about stripping the reporting requirements, um, and the ongoing costs that's related to this. Still allow the state board to establish the, um, the mechanisms to, uh, you know, the, the standardized reporting for the LEAs, putting those, those structures in place, but take out the requirements for the reporting aspect that may cut down on that fiscal …
H.B. 163 Grow Your Own Educator Pipeline Program Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asks whether data exists on how the expansion would affect eligibility for existing grants and the program's funding.
▶ Watch at 1:42:34Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, quick question. I, I know there's not a fiscal note on this. We're not expanding the funding for the program. No, just the, the footprint as far as What can do with the funding. We can Go. So I, I guess the question is just really do we, do we have stats right now on how this will, I don't wanna use the term dilute, but right now, you know, how how many teachers are, are, um, are eligible versus those grants that are giving out that we, we, we do give out and do we know how this will affect that overall? Again, it's a, it's a matter of policy, but I'm just curious
H.B. 227 Student Journalist Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asks why the bill does not reference state law, state code, or state board rules alongside First Amendment protections.
▶ Watch at 2:05:04Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I do have a number of questions as well, so I apologize in advance. I'll try to be quick here. But walking through the language of this bill, I've got a number of questions, some concerns as well. So if you would look at, starting at line 89, a student media advisor may not be dismissed. A suspended, disciplined, reassigned transferred subject determination, non-renewal, otherwise retaliated, rated, retaliated against for, and then it lists out refusing to infringe upon conduct that is protected under the First Amendment or acting protect a student journalist engaged in conduct authorized under subsection five or the First Amendment. So I'm, I guess what I'm asking here, this, this seems …
H.B. 227 Student Journalist Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Describes a recent case in which a student's op-ed was heavily edited before publication and asks how the bill would change that situation.
▶ Watch at 2:07:33Read what they said
Thank you. And, and, um, and if I could just, I wanna bring up, uh, an exact scenario that happened recently, and I wanted to know how this may apply in that scenario. My middle daughter was in a journalism class in her senior year, a high school. And in that class, um, one of the previous, uh, newspapers that went out to the school had an article from a student that was describing some legislation that had come out from the legislature, and that was supported by Governor Cox, um, restricting bathroom use to, uh, birth, sex designations. And there was some discussion in this op-ed article from the student that specifically in the quote was that there was …
H.B. 227 Student Journalist Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Expresses concern that the bill adds protections for advisors and schools rather than for student speech.
▶ Watch at 2:09:20Read what they said
But this bill seems to state more protections for the media advisors and for the employees, the LEAs, uh, for not, um mm-hmm. Interfering, but no protections for the actual speech that's intended to be protected here. That's my concern, is that this bill seems to be written specifically to protect the organization, the lea a over how it were to conduct itself, rather than going specifically looking at, uh, what is, what are we talking about when it comes to journalism and free speech when it comes to students access? Are we putting the protections in the wrong places here? That's, I guess, where, where my fundamental concern with this bill and the direction of it right now.
H.B. 227 Student Journalist Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Thanks the presenters and says his concern is that the bill's protections are going the wrong way.
▶ Watch at 2:11:20Read what they said
Thank you, and I appreciate this explanation. Again, my concern is fundamental to the direction of this right now, that protections are going the wrong way, les towards the journalistic approach of speech and regulating that and more protection of the status quo or the environment in which that it happens. So I don't know how to fix that right now, but I have some concerns over that overall. But thank you.
H.B. 227 Student Journalist Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Makes a substitute motion to table the bill and says it needs to be reworked from the ground up.
▶ Watch at 2:19:32Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a substitute motion That is an order. Um, I'd like to make a motion to table this bill, and I want to explain why, if that's all right. Go Ahead. I, I, I actually just fundamentally think that this bill needs to be re reworked from the ground up. I, I, I just don't think that it's in a position where, at this point in the session, that we can make adjustments that are needed to satisfy the requirements of it. While I'm supportive overall with the goals you're trying to accomplish, I, I don't think that current vehicles in a position do so, and I think putting it back on our …
H.B. 227 Student Journalist Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Restates the substitute motion and says most problems could be solved through policy or board rule rather than statute.
▶ Watch at 2:23:43Read what they said
Thank you. I'll just restate it briefly. I think that we could probably solve most of these problems in policy or board rule. We don't need to make a statewide statutory requirement.
H.B. 279 Higher Education Code Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked what specific new requirements the bill would place on private institutions.
▶ Watch at 2:28:32Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, representative, I'm just curious, uh, how does this impact, when we were talking about additional regulatory burden on private institutions, is there, can you give any specifics of what, what, what actually is going to be falling upon the private institutions that weren't beforehand? I guess if there are any?
H.B. 279 Higher Education Code Amendments · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked whether some provisions carry regulatory impact beyond access and collaboration.
▶ Watch at 2:29:29Read what they said
Okay. So you, but none of this is, um, some of this will have some regulatory impact as well, right? Other than just the access and collaboration.
H.B. 299 School Response to Sexual Offense · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked whether the bill affects 18-year-old students still in high school and whether current policy already requires school districts to report these offenses.
▶ Watch at 2:35:25Read what they said
Thank you, Madam Chair. And just quickly on the arrest, uh, code section that's listed here, uh, for students 18 years of older, does that affect in any way the change it was made to the law when it comes to these sexual type crimes with students that are 18 but still in high school versus those that are graduated, so to speak? Are you familiar with that code section? You'll Have to forgive me because this is not my area of expertise. Um, but from my understanding and my inter interpretation in working with the attorney, um, that students that are 18 years old, technically adults, but still in high school are, are still subject to this code, um, …
H.B. 299 School Response to Sexual Offense · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked whether using charged or arrested instead of committed raises concerns given the scope of disclosure and the presumption of innocence.
▶ Watch at 2:37:26Read what they said
Yep. Thank you. Um, so is this a, a change then from committed, which is obviously maybe not as clear, but by including charged or arrested, is there any concern that we're, um, you know, like right now we don't release mugshots for people that are arrested for crimes anymore?
H.B. 299 School Response to Sexual Offense · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked whether the bill goes beyond the original scope of reporting or disclosure requirements for cases not yet adjudicated.
▶ Watch at 2:37:51Read what they said
Is there any concerns that this goes beyond the original scope of, um, reporting or disclosure requirements when it comes to, uh, you know, cases that haven't been adjudicated?
H.B. 299 School Response to Sexual Offense · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Said he had not pressed his microphone button and was having trouble with his mic. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:40:57Read what they said
I actually have not touched my button. I don't know what's going on with my mic. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to, okay.
H.B. 299 School Response to Sexual Offense · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend HB 299, with no substitute or amendment, while noting lingering concerns about whether state board rules already provide protections in both cases.
▶ Watch at 2:41:57Read what they said
Uh, yeah, I, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to favorably recommend HB 2 99. Um, I don't think we have a substitute or amendment here. No, no. Um, and if I can just speak very briefly mm-hmm. Um, I may have some lingering concerns that I would love to talk to you about. I think generally speaking, this is in the right place, but, um, and I don't know if it needs adjustment. I just wanna make sure that the state board already has rules adopted in place for protections in both cases. And, um, perhaps we can go over that. But otherwise I, I, I, I do think that, that this is something that should …
H.B. 299 School Response to Sexual Offense · House Education Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked for a conversation before floor time to examine the bill in more depth.
▶ Watch at 2:43:47Read what they said
Perfect. Um, plan to have a conversation with me really quick so we can, um, look at this more in depth. Thank you.
H.B. 242 Initiative and Referendum Signature Gathering and Removal Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Asks Rep. Peterson to respond to the public comments.
▶ Watch at 52:05Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair. Can I, can I ask, uh, for Representative Peterson to answer those questions by chance from the previous, uh, comment?
H.B. 242 Initiative and Referendum Signature Gathering and Removal Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Says a related signature verification bill requires training for signature gatherers and proposes requiring paid signature removers to take that training too; asks whether the sponsor agrees.
▶ Watch at 54:04Read what they said
Think my light's on, but Hang on. Flash. Is this discussion to the motion? I, I'd be happy to just, uh, speak in favor of the motion and also, I, I want to Wait a minute. There you go. I didn't do that. I wanted to speak, But I understand the chair's pro. This machine silencing me. It's not me. Probably Feels good to silence me. I know. Go ahead. My Wife wishes she had one of those buttons. Yeah, Yeah. Uh, my understanding, and I I love the sponsor to clarify is currently we, we have another, uh, signature verification committee bill that requires training for signature gatherers. And in discussing with the, uh, sponsor, if someone is paid …
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Presented H.B. 148, which would add a school meals debt fund to the tax return donation options, administered through the State Board of Education, and would close if it collected less than $30,000 over two tax years.
▶ Watch at 58:56Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee. This is a pretty simple bill. Um, the substitute is a very, very minor change, but, but because we had to change the language of the effective date, it does require a substitute according to our rules now. So that's the purpose of the, uh, of the sub itself. Um, but the bill itself, again, pretty simple. If you notice, when you fill out your state tax return at the very end of the tax return, there's a couple of sections where you can make some donations if you'd like to, a couple of different locations. Um, this would just simply add as a separate, uh, field a fund for the school, …
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Said that if the fund ended, the money would stay in the fund for school meal debt only, and that adjustments might be needed later to prevent misuse.
▶ Watch at 1:02:43Read what they said
So currently it just sits in the fund, the State Board of Education that can maintain that fund. There is not a, um, an expectation that the fund would be taken care of through this, but if that were to happen right now, it would be a fund that would be used only for school debt, uh, meals, I should say debt. Um, so there may need to be some adjustments if that were to ever happen so that the fund could potentially be utilized in some other way, um, or to ensure that there wouldn't be any abuses of the system moving forward. But for now, this is intended to try to pick, make a dent into what is …
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Said the tax commission would establish the fund and the State Board of Education would manage it, though he was not certain.
▶ Watch at 1:03:25Read what they said
So currently the fund is established and created. I, um, I may have to double. Would That, would that be under the treasurer's Review? I think the tax commission establishes the fund, and then the, the state board manages it, is what I believe I recall.
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Said he would be willing to run a new bill to address a future payoff of the debt.
▶ Watch at 1:04:37Read what they said
Mm-hmm. I'd be happy to run a new bill to correct that. Um, if we had some sort of slush fund there to access, uh, for, uh, education meals, that'd be great. Perfect.
H.B. 148 Tax Return Donation Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Said the bill offers a simple way for taxpayers to help with a problem, with no state tax impact because donations are not tax deductible, and said he is open to adjusting the language if the debt is solved.
▶ Watch at 1:06:19Read what they said
Um, thank you committee. And I'll just be really brief. I, I also agree that this is a really simple way that we could perhaps provide an avenue for taxpayers in the state to try to help tackle a, a problem. And it would allow pretty much anyone to make, uh, a dent into this in any amount, small or large, in a mechanism that's already established and has operated successfully in a lot of other ways. So there's no impact to the state on tax. 'cause again, this is not a tax deductible donation. It's just simply to facilitate the process, make it easier. And I'm open to suggestions if you, if we feel like that there's a strong …
H.B. 160 Statewide Initiative Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor supports removing the legislative initiative process, saying he is not sure why it is used.
▶ Watch at 1:39:59Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so I also think this is funny, but question on this. Um, do you think you made a, a statement you're not sure why we even use these legislative initiatives? I kind of agree. And so I'm curious, do you support, uh, then perhaps removing the legislative initiative process?
H.B. 160 Statewide Initiative Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Asks why initiatives should exist at all if residents can contact their legislators about legislation.
▶ Watch at 1:40:44Read what they said
Yeah, so I guess, uh, my, my question is, you said that you know that if you, if you have a desire for legislation, you contact your legislator. So why, why would you suppose we should have initiatives at all?
H.B. 160 Statewide Initiative Modifications · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Notes the sponsor's statement that the legislative route may never have been used, and says he is trying to understand the logic.
▶ Watch at 1:41:25Read what they said
Be you said that you're not sure if this has ever actually occurred. Correct. Okay. That's all. I was just trying to make sure I understood the whole logic and thought process. Thank you.
H.B. 132 Military Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Asks whether the bill would allow the Adjutant General to receive gifts of land.
▶ Watch at 1:55:36Read what they said
Thank you Madam Chair. Um, representative, quick question. I notice in line 1 31, and this is existing code that they're authorized to receive gifts, contribution donations of all kind, including tangible objects and real property. Does, does that actually include property like land? Can they receive under these adjustments physical land as a gift?
H.B. 132 Military Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Asks whether the bill could change land footprints or affect city ordinances if land were donated.
▶ Watch at 1:56:46Read what they said
I guess my question revolves around, we do have obviously some, some statutory code, um, that allows certain, uh, range of activities and, and on these military locations we have security considerations. We have a lot of things that, that impact the geographic footprint of these military facilities. I'm just wondering if some organization, government, individual or otherwise were to make a donation of land to, um, to one of these under this new code. Would that materially change? Do you see foreseeing any potential, you know, unintended consequences of extending now that footprint and how that, uh, code may affect different ordinances of cities or neighborhoods or anything like that? Just trying to think ahead.
H.B. 132 Military Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Restates his understanding that the code does not appear to allow donations of large land parcels, and asks whether other code sections prevent it.
▶ Watch at 1:59:33Read what they said
So, but it, it seems as though, based on what you've described, that my potential, you know, uh, rare consideration or concern, this code doesn't necessarily, uh, allow for the donation of large scale land plots of anything. Even though the, the, the plain language may indicate it could, there could be other sections of code that that prevent, that Any land transfer is covered by the code that covers the armory board.
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House floor debate (day 7) · Jan 26, 2026
Says voter rolls are purged so the audit could not review past ballots cast by people no longer on the rolls, and says he supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 45:39Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, uh, I just wanted to, um, maybe mention briefly to my colleagues and I spoke to the election office about their audit briefly. And in Utah, our voter registrations are constantly purged. When people, uh, die, when they move, those voter registrations are removed from the database. So when we do an audit, we're looking at current registrations and we're determining based on current Regi registrations, how they voted in the past. But if somebody registered to vote in any prior year, voted and then left the state or died, then that registration record would not be available to audit. And there's no way to look at that. So I would say that it is …
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House floor debate (day 7) · Jan 26, 2026
Says he spoke with the election office about the audit, explains that purged voter registrations limit what the audit can review, and supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 45:39Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, uh, I just wanted to, um, maybe mention briefly to my colleagues and I spoke to the election office about their audit briefly. And in Utah, our voter registrations are constantly purged. When people, uh, die, when they move, those voter registrations are removed from the database. So when we do an audit, we're looking at current registrations and we're determining based on current Regi registrations, how they voted in the past. But if somebody registered to vote in any prior year, voted and then left the state or died, then that registration record would not be available to audit. And there's no way to look at that. So I would say that it is …
H.B. 82 Judgment Information Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Presented HB 82, which would have county recorders record only the last four digits of a social security number on judgment liens, matching current practice after disputes over the existing statute.
▶ Watch at 9:57Read what they said
Thank you Madam Chair, members of the committee. I promise I will be very quick with this one. This is a, uh, pretty simple bill. We ran it, uh, last year. It, uh, passed unanimously. It was on consent and it just didn't get over the finish line in time, uh, as, uh, last time I think this was a five or 600 numbered bill. Um, but what this does is, uh, in currently in code, when there is a judgment lien, um, that's placed on an individual in a, um, uh, in a real property case against a person, currently the code states that part of that process is, is you have to send to the counter recorder the …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Presented HB 136, which raises driving without ever having a license from an infraction to a class C misdemeanor, adds it to the vehicle impound list with exemptions, raises impound fees, sets a minimum fine for lending a vehicle to an unlicensed driver, and allows a no-record rapid fingerprint scan to identify drivers, citing crash and warrant data.
▶ Watch at 1:10:16Read what they said
That's pretty good. You could, uh, roll the R and get a little more Scottish in it. Mc, McPherson, I'll give you a little bit. Um, Mr. Chair, would, would it be okay if I had my intern pass around a, um, a little bit of information to the committee members? That'd be great. Thank you. And thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee for the opportunity to present, uh, this bill again. Um, So currently in our code, we have a number of, uh, ways that you can drive on Utah roads. And, uh, this bill doesn't actually change any of that. Um, if you are, uh, learning to drive, you can get a permit. Um, if you …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Explained that Amendment 2 allows fingerprint databases other than AFIS to be used and restores the infraction-to-class C change that was missed in drafting.
▶ Watch at 1:24:22Read what they said
Two, right? Yes. And the amendment covers the fingerprint, uh, piece. We're just making it clear that the APHIS database isn't the only database that is sometimes used. Um, that was a request from DPS 'cause it currently said APHIS was the, the database where fingerprints were scanned to check, but that's not technically true. There may be, uh, other databases that do get involved. So we're just trying to clear it up that it may, it, it could be afis, it could be some other national database that is already connected to law enforcement. Also in the future, if they adopt other databases or technologies, they don't want us to have to go back and change the law every …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said wanted felons can avoid detection by claiming to have no credentials, and the rapid scan lets officers know whether the person in front of them is a threat.
▶ Watch at 1:25:32Read what they said
So the easiest example would be if you have a wanted felon, even in the most extreme case, it could be, for example, someone that's wanted for murder, that someone that had killed a police officer at a, at a, uh, at a traffic stop. Um, that individual could and has in some cases avoided law enforcement detection by simply claiming that they are, um, they, they have no credentials, they have no information. Um, they may in some cases actually claim they're from another country or they're visiting. And in most of these circumstances, unless they've been pulled over for some, uh, reason other than a, um, than speeding or, or an equipment malfunction, something that's just listed as …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said the exemptions cover safety and technology concerns, such as busy freeways or icy roads, and leave the decision to officer discretion.
▶ Watch at 1:27:19Read what they said
Then they don't have to take the fingerprints. We, we, we try to create a, um, there, there, there's a couple of pieces in there when it comes to the exemption. You're right. One is the safety concern and one is the technology concern. Um, we're trying to loop a lot of, um, let's just say we, we don't wanna be too prescriptive at telling law enforcement how they have to do things all the time. Um, but at the same time, give them enough leeway to say in circumstances where it may be dangerous. So for example, if you're doing a fingerprint scan on the side of a busy freeway, um, that might be a safety concern. Perhaps you …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Asked Department of Public Safety staff to answer the database question.
▶ Watch at 1:28:34Read what they said
Um, if I could, uh, phone a friend. Do we have any of our DPS guys here that might be able to Answer that coming up? Bless your, uh,
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Asked a police officer in the room to explain the process.
▶ Watch at 1:30:23Read what they said
Well, I'm not a police officer, so why don't I ask, uh, maybe one of our police officers, uh, in the room that might know that process better than me trying to, uh, under explain my understanding of that. I can I ask, uh, any of your guys that come up? Thank you. Put you on the spot. Yeah, I'm so sorry.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Asked her to clarify whether she meant issuing tickets to people with no license.
▶ Watch at 1:32:16Read what they said
So I guess, lemme make sure I understand your question. So you're saying in circumstances when they don't have a license of any kind, you're asking why we're not issuing a ticket,
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said officers have broad discretion, but a ticket cannot be issued without verifiable identity, and false names lead to bench warrants for people who do not exist, so the bill provides a way to create a record.
▶ Watch at 1:32:48Read what they said
All of the above. Like on, like on many of these, I think we only have a few mandatory arrest laws in Utah. But, but yeah, law enforcement has job broad discretion in many of these cases. Um, but when it comes to, um, this particular instance, this is actually why in fact this is necessary, is that's exactly the problem. When you have to issue a ticket, there's a couple of bits of information that law enforcement needs in order to give, uh, issue a ticket, you have to have some sort of record to attach that to the court has to know who that record attaches to. And if you haven't provided any identification of any kind, no …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said he did not know about most police cars.
▶ Watch at 1:35:21Read what they said
vehicle they're driving? I don't Their lease. I know about most, I don't know the answer to that, but I can tell you that because
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said vehicle registration and insurance often do not match the driver, so identifying the driver remains a gap.
▶ Watch at 1:35:28Read what they said
The vehicle Yeah. And the vehicle registration. And, um, it doesn't always have to match the driver. In many cases it doesn't. And even the, even the insurance information in many times doesn't match, match the driver's license, the driver. So it, it, uh, this is a, this is an issue that's just, it's kind of a hole. We, we just need to fill the hole somehow so that law enforcement could just identify who's in front of them if they're, especially if they're driving on our roads.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said state law already requires impound for road rage, DUI, racing, uninsured crashes, and suspended licenses, and the bill makes this offense consistent for safety reasons.
▶ Watch at 1:36:14Read what they said
I appreciate that question and that's a good one too, because I do love my constitution, uh, very much. Um, I will just refer, if you look at that first page of our, um, analysis here, we already have a number of situations where a mandatory impound is in law. Um, road rage, for example, is an automatic impound. Um, driving without insurance if the vehicle's involved in an accident is an automatic impound. Uh, DUI, automatic impound speed, uh, specifically racing. So there's a, there's a, a statute there that describes this is an automatic impound driving on a suspended, revoked, disqualified driving credential, um, for certain offenses, automatic impound. And not on this list, even though I believe …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Acknowledged data collection problems, said the bill fixes one specific problem affecting many types of drivers, and welcomed separate legislation to expand driving credentials.
▶ Watch at 1:39:21Read what they said
And I appreciate that. And I, and I would, I would, I would say too is that, yeah, some of this is a data issue because we do have collection problems and it is difficult to track. Um, also there are varying degrees, you know, some, some departments have this in very, very large numbers. Some, and, and when you compare it to a percentage of issues, they're very small. Um, but I, I, but I would go on to say that this is a fixable problem where we can't always fix all the issues out there. There's a lot of issues that, you know, I think some believe that we can fix all the problems of the world with …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said any future expansion of credential categories would automatically apply under the bill, but drivers still need to show they understand road rules for safety.
▶ Watch at 1:42:51Read what they said
I, I appreciate that. And it, and you know, my bill has a section in here that talks about what credentials being driver credentials mean, and they are categories. Yeah. And so if any of those categories get expanded on in future legislation, then they're automatically captured in here. Yeah. So that there is an opportunity under this for, for those to get, um, expanded coverage in that way. And, and I know that law enforcement would appreciate that as well. Um, I guess my only, not only counter and maybe argument against that is we, we still have laws and we still want individuals driving on our roads to verify that they have understood the road signs, the road …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said he would like to hear from the Driver License Division about the barriers and would work on legislative fixes if needed.
▶ Watch at 1:44:31Read what they said
I'd be interested to see what, um, what the driver's license division has to say about what are the, the, the, uh, barriers when it comes to the individuals you're describing getting on there. Because it does, you're right in code. It seems very straightforward. And if those barriers need to be solved legislatively, then absolutely. Let's talk and figure it out.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Suggested a new bill might be the best way to solve that issue.
▶ Watch at 1:44:57Read what they said
Yeah. So it may be, may be best to open a new bill to, to solve it,
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said in most cases the driver gets a ticket or possibly a warning.
▶ Watch at 1:45:40Read what they said
In most cases, you're gonna get a ticket. You're gonna get a ticket then, or, Or you might be discretionary just given a warning, especially in a traffic violation.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said the penalty ranges up to 90 days or could be just a fine, depending on the judge.
▶ Watch at 1:46:05Read what they said
Probably, there's a process. It's up to 90 days if you get mm-hmm. Right. So it could be zero, could be mm-hmm. Could be just a fine. Depends on the judge.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said the bill gives officers a broad list of reasons not to impound, including when someone with a valid license can pick up the car or the officer is busy.
▶ Watch at 1:47:54Read what they said
We, we've given a very broad discretionary list for law enforcement when it comes to situations in which they don't have to impound the vehicle. We're actually trying to make it as easy as possible to not impound vehicles, including up to just, if they can just contact anybody who can pick up the vehicle with a valid license, then it doesn't have to be impounded. An officer doesn't wanna stick around waiting for a tow truck either. There's usually a lot to do. Um, and so even if they're just busy, they don't have to, they don't have to impound it. There's a lot of situations we're trying to make it so that the impound is gonna be, uh, …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · House Transportation Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Closed by saying the bill was developed over 18 months with many stakeholders, weighs possible financial hardship against public safety, treats unlicensed driving like other offenses, and invited further changes or companion bills.
▶ Watch at 1:56:02Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the very long discussion and all the considerations here. This is a tough bill that we've been working on for 18 months now. We've involved nearly every stakeholder in the state. We've involved cities, we've involved, um, sheriffs, we've involved, um, uh, law enforcement at all levels. Um, we've, uh, engaged with, uh, immigrant communities, communities and dreamers. We've engaged with, uh, individuals across the state that have interest in this, including victim, uh, advocate groups. And while I do agree that there are some, um, penalties here, and it might cause some financial hardship we're talking about, on one hand, we're always weighing things. There's never a policy that is a win-win, …
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asked whether criminal penalties under the bill would apply to a candidate or campaign when a sign is defaced, or only to the individual responsible.
▶ Watch at 40:47Read what they said
Go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, um, thank you Representative Teuscher for this. Again, I'm very happy to see this bill again. Uh, but I do have a quick question on the criminal penalty aspect of this. So, um, I'm just curious, uh, if the, the, the penalty is assigned obviously to the individual that deface this, uh, directly. Um, so there wouldn't, there's no, there's no indication here that somehow, for example, a candidate or a campaign would face some sort of criminal penalties because a sign was found to be defaced or a certain group of people?
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asked whether the bill applies to disputes where one sign is covered by another and then the first is covered in response.
▶ Watch at 41:55Read what they said
And, and thank you for that. And my, and my second question was along the same lines kind of is, um, so in circumstances where there's kind of a, for lack of a better term, he said, she said on, let's say a sign was placed in one location and uh, someone else removed that sign and put up someone else's sign in that location, and then someone were to claim, well, they covered up my sign, or they, they took my spot, so to speak, and they cut down their sign and put their sign up because, you know, potentially would this apply in this section by saying, well, you, you materially covered my sign with your sign, so …
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asked whether a sign that was zip-tied, cut down, and flipped over a fence could be removed and replaced under the bill.
▶ Watch at 44:10Read what they said
And so to give a a real world example, so for example, if I had a sign that was on, let's say the side of a road and it was attached via, um, uh, zip ties in the four corners, and then I came back one day and the two bottom corners had been cut, and then the sign had been flipped up and over the vent, uh, fence so that it was no longer visible and then someone else's sign was put in that place. Would this, uh, would this be a situation where, for example, under this language, would I, would I be a able to remove that sign and replace my sign? Or would this not change …
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend HB 33 to the House floor.
▶ Watch at 50:55Read what they said
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we favorably recommend HB 33 to the, uh, house floor.
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Using his daughter's example of having only a state ID, asks whether providing ID on site would be enough to establish status at election time.
▶ Watch at 1:03:14Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I got a, a a couple of questions because I'm thinking of a, this particular scenario, I've got a daughter, for example, she's 22, she doesn't have a driver's license. Um, and, uh, one thing she noticed, there was a couple of things that she wanted to do. She wanted to rent an apartment, she wanted to open a bank account and, uh, hard to do so she got a state ID instead. Um, 'cause she noticed that there was a lot of things you just physically cannot do. She couldn't fly on a plane, she couldn't do a lot of things without, um, an ID of any kind. And so I guess I, I, …
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks whether verification can be done at the time of voting.
▶ Watch at 1:05:05Read what they said
Great. And, and Juab to verify that can be done at the time of voting as well, as far as providing that ID or does that have to be done?
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks whether someone can register and vote at the same location and time.
▶ Watch at 1:05:17Read what they said
Okay. So, but if they wanna register to vote at a location and vote at the same time, they can do that?
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Says he has a couple more brief questions.
▶ Watch at 1:05:29Read what they said
Yeah. Okay. Um, are they nodding? Okay. And Mr. Chair, I do have a couple of, uh, questions. I'll be brief of that. All right. I am, I am not surprised.
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Notes election dates are well known so voters should have ample lead time to meet requirements.
▶ Watch at 1:05:44Read what they said
I'm just kidding. I love all these guys over Here. There was some question about the lag time on, on individuals and, and, and just to establish, like, our elections are pretty clear as far as when they occur. Mm-hmm. So an average person that's interested in voting should have plenty of at lead time as far as knowing when that timeframe is, as far as what needs to be done. Yeah,
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Describes Utah's three license types and asks whether anything in the bill could confuse election officials distinguishing them.
▶ Watch at 1:06:46Read what they said
Thank you. And one last question, and this has to do with driver's licenses because I've been working in that space for a little bit. So it appears that in Utah, that there's, there's, there's three different types of driver's license or privilege type, uh, cards. You can get one as the privilege card, which, uh, is typically for those that aren't in the country, legally, there is a temporary driver's license that's offered to individuals that are not legal US citizens, but they are in the country legally. And then there's a driver's license, which requires you to be a US citizen to get in the state of Utah. Um, and I believe that there are very clear markings …
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks to confirm the term-limited status is printed on the license.
▶ Watch at 1:09:34Read what they said
Okay. So just to clarify then, that, that term limited, that temporary one that expires when their Visa status expires, that is clearly printed on the license itself? Yeah,
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Confirms the bill does not differentiate between those license types.
▶ Watch at 1:09:53Read what they said
And this, but this bill doesn't necessarily differentiate that specific delineation between the two? No. No. Okay. Thank you.
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Says on-site election officials would need training to recognize term-limited licenses, which is not in the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:11:14Read what they said
But to be clear, an election official on site registering someone to vote and they mark that box and they provide a driver's license, there's, they would need some sort of training specifically to say that if it says term limited, that this does not qualify. Correct. And that's not necessarily outlined in this bill is just, that's just a training issue. Is that fair to say?
H.B. 29 Unfair and Deceptive Pricing Amendments · House floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Asks whether the intent is only transparency or also to lower costs.
▶ Watch at 1:17:00Read what they said
I think there was some debate there internally. Um, just, um, couple of quick, uh, questions. The, uh, so the intent of this is to get at those junk fees into, I assume, is this just for transparency or is, is there some intent that somehow that this would perhaps also lower costs?
H.B. 29 Unfair and Deceptive Pricing Amendments · House floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Asks about administrative and civil penalties and expresses concern they could raise costs that are passed on to consumers.
▶ Watch at 1:18:35Read what they said
And, and I guess to, um, maybe clarify then as well, so there are some administrative penalties, there's some civil liability sort of penalties. There's some court, uh, uh, requirements here that, uh, as far as, uh, attorney's fees and such, um, as well as the, um, obviously the, the elimination of certain fees, I think it's reasonable to say too that in many circumstances that these are, um, not necessarily all going to be looking at evil, uh, slumlords that are trying to hide their fees, that there may be businesses that are looking for ways to cover their costs and, uh, perhaps are doing things in an improper way. And my concern is, is that this may, uh, …
H.B. 29 Unfair and Deceptive Pricing Amendments · House floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Asks whether the bill would effectively double the penalties vendors face under state and federal law.
▶ Watch at 1:21:38Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I guess, uh, to follow up on that, then, does that mean that this would, uh, double the potential penalties that a, uh, a vendor may face then, both at the state and, uh, in addition now to the federal penalties?
From the official recordings' automatic captions, with speakers and summaries identified by AI. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.