receive the bill request until very late in the process. Mr. Smith explained that the Open and
Public Meetings law applies to special sessions in Utah. The law exempts emergency meetings
from the 24-hour notice if the best notice practicable is given. He noted there are times when
that issue could be challenged. It may be more effective to exempt special sessions from the
Open and Public Meetings law.
Mr. Smith indicated that the number of session days in Utah is very low nationally. The
lack of time in general session may affect the time in special session, especially as government
issues have become more complex. There is a 1971 publication called "The Sometimes
Government: A Critical Study of the 50 American Legislatures" which has stated that a
legislature "should have the power to determine what the public work load is and how much time
it needs in official session to handle that work load." The study recommends that Utah amend
the constitution to permit the legislature to convene special sessions either by petition of a
majority of the members of both houses or the call of the presiding officer of each house. Other
recommendations made by the publication were to remove constitutional restrictions on session
and interim time and to amend the constitution to permit the legislature to broaden the subject
matter of a governor's call of a special session by a majority vote in each house.
Rep. Davis stated he would like to see the governor be required to provide the proposed
legislation when he presents the call and that the call be done no less than ten days before the
beginning of the session. He said he would like to see all bills have a public hearing, which
would require them to be prepared at least 24 hours before committee meetings. No new items
should be added to the call within the 24 hours before the session is to begin.
Rep. Olsen expressed concern that there is not enough input from the general public on
the proposed legislation during special sessions; however, special interests have a great deal of
impact.
Rep. Harward stated if the Legislature determines to do things without public hearings,
which has been done, the constitution should be amended to limit what the Legislature can do.
He stated it would put a tremendous amount of political pressure on individual legislators if the
Legislature could call itself into session.
Mr. Fellows explained that changes relating to how a special session is called and who
sets the agenda for the session would have to be made by a constitutional amendment. He
recommended changes to internal processes and procedures be done by rule rather than statute.
Chairman Blackham commented that since there is procedure by rule, the rule is
suspended constantly to accomplish the task in a short amount of time. In order to implement
guidelines that the Legislature cannot avoid, it would have to be done by statute.
Rep. Davis suggested that the rule on suspension of the rules could be strengthened and
made more stringent.
Rep. Harward pointed out that the committee may want to consider the concept of
carrying bills over from one session to the next during a term. He also noted that the statute
dealing with campaign contributions is oddly written and suggested the committee review it to
determine if the language can be clarified. Another issue the committee should consider is the
calendar day termination. Without the Legislature's ability to call itself back into session, the
termination date forces a great deal of work to be done towards the end of the session. However,
if the Legislature could extend the session or call itself back into session to continue on a number
of issues, it would be harder to obtain resolution on certain issues.
Sen. Evans stated he was supportive of the executive branch controlling the agenda of the
special sessions and initiating whatever is to be placed on the agenda.
Mr. Fellows indicated that historically there has not always been the close relationship
between the governor and the Legislature that is currently in place. One of the legal principles
that the Supreme Court decided and that legislative counsel defends, is the Legislature's right to
establish whatever means it chooses in dealing with the issue the governor puts on the call.
MOTION: Rep. Harward moved to allow legislators to add additional emergency issues to the call with a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. The motion passed unanimously. Rep. Davis was
absent during the vote.
MOTION: Rep. Harward moved to require a seven calendar-day notice for a special session, unless there is a natural disaster. The motion passed unanimously. Rep. Davis was
absent during the vote.
The committee discussed the issue of sponsorship of the items placed on the call.
Members expressed concern that whatever is being considered, the legislators should have time
to read and ponder it as well as the public.
MOTION: Rep. Harward moved that legislation from special sessions be subject to a public legislative hearing and that the legislation should be available 24 hours before the public
hearing. There would also have to be an exception for a natural disaster.
The committee discussed the motion at length.
The members voted on the motion which passed unanimously. Rep. Davis was absent
during the vote.
Rep. Harward proposed that the change be done in statute.
Ms. Cassie Dippo, Utah Common Cause, indicated she would favor the idea of putting it
in statute with emergency exemptions. She said it is very easy to suspend the rules, therefore, it
would better serve the public to have it in statute.
Mr. Fellows reviewed the action taken by the committee. He indicated he would draft
legislation implementing those actions.
MOTION: Rep. Harward moved to direct staff to prepare a new chapter in statute, not in the Open and Public Meetings Act, that outlines two ways to enforce the statute. The immediate
action would be only by a legislator. If a bill is passed without going through the required
procedures, they could challenge the validity of the statute. The motion passed unanimously.
Rep. Davis was absent during the vote.
Rep. Olsen suggested that these issues be brought up with the Constitutional Revision
Commission for their discussion.
3. Legislative Ethics - Mr. Fellows distributed briefing papers on the Lobbyist Disclosure and Regulation Act and the Proposed Salt Lake City Ordinance Governing Gifts and Conflicts of
Interest. Mr. Fellows said there are four main sources of law that govern legislative ethics: 1)
legislative rules; 2) Public Officers and Employees Ethics Act; 3) criminal provisions relating to
administration of government; and 4) lobbyist disclosure and regulation. Mr. Fellows began by
reviewing the briefing paper on Legislative Rules Governing Ethics, particularly on the
requirements of the Code of Official Conduct contained in JR-16.03. The committee discussed
conflicts of interests and remuneration received by a legislator during the session. He stated that
if a legislator receives remuneration from any person other than the person who provides the
legislator's primary source of income to compensate the legislator for loss of income while the
Legislature is in session, the legislator must file a statement disclosing the name of the person
who provides the remuneration.
Rep. Davis pointed out that the entire issue is very subjective.
Mr. Fellows said philosophically the reason for the Code of Official Conduct in
legislative rule is that it relates to the constitutional right that the Legislature has to judge the
election and qualification of its members. Ethics complaints have to be signed by at least three
members of the legislator's chamber and filed with the presiding officer. An ethics committee
investigates the complaint and may either dismiss the complaint or make recommendations for
disciplinary action to the chamber.
Mr. Fellows discussed the briefing paper on the Public Officers and Employees Ethics
Act. That act did not, in the past, govern legislators. However, within the last few years the
Legislature has begun to apply more provisions of the Ethics Act to itself and its staff. The
Ethics Act, in all cases, governs public officers, which are all elected and appointed state and
political subdivision officers except legislators who hold policymaking posts; and public
employees, who are not public officers and who are employed full time, part time, or under
contract with the state or its political subdivisions, but not certain legislative employees. The
Ethics Act also prohibits legislators, public officers, and public employees from using their
official position to further their personal economic interest or to secure special privileges for
themselves or others. He discussed how the Ethics Act governs the issue of receiving or
soliciting gifts, loans, and compensation. These cannot be accepted by a person who recently has
been, is now, or in the near future may be involved in any governmental action directly affecting
the donor or lender unless the gift, loan, or compensation is disclosed to the attorney general, the
person's agency head, and the head of the agency with which the transaction is being conducted.
He pointed out that this provision is relatively new and, as of last session, applies to legislators.
If a reasonable person determines that it would have influenced them, the legislator could be
convicted of a violation of that act. The gift, loan, and compensation restriction requirements do
not apply to occasional nonpecuniary gifts of $50 or less; publicly presented awards; bona fide
loans made in the ordinary course of business; and political campaign contributions. Mr.
Fellows noted that by passing statutes making the Legislature subject to these criminal
provisions, the Legislature has indicated it should be held accountable when the statutes are
violated.
Sen. Blackham stated that disclosure is very effective. One legislator does not determine
law or policy. He noted that Rep. Jordan Tanner would like the $50 limit to apply to the
intangible as well as the tangible gift.
Mr. Fellows said there are several different laws that affect ethics. Rep. Tanner has
focused on the Lobbyist Disclosure Act. There was a specific exemption written for tangible
personal property, but it does not include the admission price for events, meals, recreation,
outings, or functions. Legislators need to recognize that they may not accept those things if it
would tend to improperly influence a reasonable person in the discharge of his duties or unless it
was disclosed. Mr. Fellows said when the Public Officers and Employees Ethics Act was
amended to include legislators, the penalty provision was not amended. The penalty provision
states that public officers and employees convicted of violating the ethics act shall be removed
from office or dismissed from employment and be punished as a second or third degree felony.
The definition of public officer and employee excludes legislators. Therefore, the statute is
silent on the penalty for legislators if they violate the provisions.
Rep. Harward stated the Legislature should be operating so that reasonable people know
that they are not being influenced. He supported Rep. Tanner's position.
The committee discussed having to vote on issues which impact them personally.
Legislators in that position who would be impacted more favorably by the decision would have
to declare a conflict of interest.
Chairman Blackham requested staff to research whether all expenditures over $50 should
be disclosed.
Rep. Goodfellow raised the issue of fundraisers. For example, the price of a fundraiser
could be $100 but the meal was worth approximately $3.00. However, it is reported that the
legislator received a $100 meal. He stated this issue should be addressed as well.
Chairman Blackham stated discussion of the issue would be continued at the next
meeting.
4. Compensation - Sen. Blackham suggested the committee review the issue of demands and duties of legislators and which of these demands and duties should be compensated. The
committee should discuss whether there is adequate time available to the legislators to
accomplish their duties and responsibilities. After those issues have been resolved, the
committee could set the framework for what is reasonable compensation for what has been
defined as legislators' duties and responsibilities.
Rep. Harward pointed out that Speaker Brown is very concerned about this issue. He
said he would like to contact the speaker to make sure he will be at the meeting when the topic is
discussed.
5.
Adjournment -
MOTION: Rep. Davis moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 a.m. The motion passed unanimously.