UtahH.B. 1942026 General SessionHouseWALLET

Utah State Board of Education Ethics Amendments

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

7 provisions identified: 1 benefits, 0 costs, 6 mixed.

Independent commission reviews education board ethics

The law creates a five-member independent commission to review ethics complaints against Utah education board members. The board appoints Utah registered voters by majority vote from board leadership's nominations. Members include two former judges, two former board members out of office for at least four years, and one former superintendent or charter director out of that role for at least two years. Members serve staggered four-year terms, with a two-full-term limit, and cannot hold specified public offices, agency leadership or lobbying roles during service. Members receive no salary or benefits but may receive daily allowances and expense reimbursement; temporary members can replace members with conflicts.

Cleared education board members get legal reimbursement

People filing ethics complaints must pay their own attorney fees and costs. Respondent education board members generally pay their own legal costs too. The board must pay a respondent's reasonable fees and costs if the commission recommends no allegation for board review. It must also pay if the board finds none of the recommended allegations proved. The law sets no fixed reimbursement amount.

Education board complaints face filing limits

Complaints against current Utah education board members require at least two board-member filers with supporting evidence or sworn testimony, or two Utah registered voters living in the state. Voter filers must include someone with personal knowledge of each claim, and complaints need signatures, sworn statements, supporting materials and proposed witnesses. Conduct complaints have a two-year deadline measured from the conduct or when a reasonable person would have discovered it; crime complaints have two years from the plea or conviction. Filing is barred during the 60 calendar days before a regular primary or general election involving the respondent, unless unopposed; an exception covers moral-turpitude crimes supported by a conviction, guilty or no-contest plea, or plea in abeyance. Previously reviewed claims can return only after one commission dismissal without board referral and with new material facts; complaints must be dismissed if the member resigns.

Education ethics complaints stay largely private

People handling education board ethics complaints generally cannot disclose their existence, contents or related allegations during review. Exceptions cover public referrals, possible crimes reported to law enforcement, defense needs, necessary commission work and a respondent's disclosure that no claims were proved. Recipients of specified permitted disclosures must be told about secrecy duties, and violations can lead to legislative contempt. If a filer's or respondent's identity becomes public during commission review, the complaint must be dismissed without barring a later filing. Commissioners generally cannot discuss complaints with outsiders unless procedures allow it or written messages reach all commissioners and a staff member together; internal talks cannot compromise independent review.

Education ethics hearings require evidence safeguards

Respondents have 30 days after delivery to submit a sworn response with defenses, supporting facts, documents and witness details; motions to disqualify commissioners generally have 20-day deadlines. After accepting a complaint, the chair must schedule a meeting within 10 days, hold it within 60 days, and limit review to the filed claims. Hearings and deliberations are closed, generally follow Utah evidence rules, and allow testimony and cross-examination; the commission can compel evidence and must subpoena listed witnesses unless identification, location or service prevents it. Witnesses testify under oath, and refusing required answers or evidence can bring contempt; participating attorneys must follow professional rules and hearing directions or face contempt or state bar enforcement. Four of five commissioners must find a claim more likely true than not: unproved claims are dismissed and related records stay private, while proved claims trigger a public recommendation, redacted complaint and response, specified supporting documents, and a 10-day window to update evidence and witness lists.

Utah education board faces ethics rules

Beginning May 6, 2026, Utah State Board of Education members must follow new ethics rules and complete key training exercises annually. The rules ban misuse of office, confidential information or board resources; student-privacy violations; discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and paid lobbying or consulting on board matters, with a federal-lobbying exception. Members retain speech and constituent-representation rights and may accept small gifts that do not influence duties. The board must post conflict-disclosure links and public online training; members must announce known, undisclosed conflicts before or during related votes, with statements recorded in minutes, but may still vote. Members cannot contact judges about specific cases before a final decision or order, except through private work without using board status for undue influence; practical questions go to court staff.

Utah education board gains discipline powers

Board leadership must schedule review within five calendar days of receiving a commission recommendation and hold it within 30 days. Review covers only commission-proved claims, and a public roll-call majority must find clear and convincing evidence before imposing discipline. For each proved claim, the board must act through public censure, written reprimand, removal from leadership, or limits on related nonconstitutional powers it controls; it can also refer matters to enforcement authorities. Impeachment referral requires a two-thirds vote finding high crimes, misdemeanors or malfeasance warranting removal; the board cannot itself remove an elected member from office. During impeachment, the board must assist lawmakers while protecting private records and may suspend leadership duties, but cannot bar attendance, debate or voting without a court order; doubts about removal powers require legal guidance.

Sponsors & Cosponsors

Sponsor

Sahara Hayes
Democratic • House

Cosponsors

John D. Johnson
Republican • Senate

Roll Call Votes

All Roll Calls

Yes: 177 • No: 5

House vote • 3/6/2026

House/ concurs with Senate amendment

Yes: 63 • No: 1

Senate vote • 3/6/2026

Senate/ passed 2nd & 3rd readings/ suspension

Yes: 25 • No: 0

Senate vote • 2/25/2026

Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation

Yes: 4 • No: 0

Senate vote • 2/25/2026

Senate Comm - Amendment Recommendation

Yes: 4 • No: 0

House vote • 2/18/2026

House/ passed 3rd reading

Yes: 61 • No: 2

House vote • 2/9/2026

House Comm - Amendment Recommendation

Yes: 11 • No: 0