63A-15-301. Authority to review complaint -- Grounds for complaint -- Limitations on filings.
(1) Subject to the requirements of this chapter and Sectionor, the commission is authorized to review an ethics complaint against a political subdivision officer or employee if the complaint alleges: 10-3-1311 17-70-511 if the applicable political subdivision is a municipality, an ethics violation ofby: Title 10, Chapter 3, Part 13, Municipal Officers' and Employees' Ethics Act a city manager or non-elected chief executive; or an elected officer, as defined in Section; 10-3-1303 if the applicable political subdivision is a county, an ethics violation of Title, Disclosure Duties Applicable to All County Officers by: 17, Chapter 70, Part 5 an appointed officer, as defined in Section; 17-70-501 an elected officer, as defined in Section; or 17-70-501 an employee subject to Title, Disclosure Duties Applicable to All County Officers; or 17, Chapter 70, Part 5 for a political subdivision officer or employee other than a municipal officer or employee described in Subsectionor a county officer or employee described in Subsection, an ethics violation of. (1)(a) (1)(b) Title 67, Chapter 16, Utah Public Officers' and Employees' Ethics Act
(2) A complaint described in Subsectionshall be filed in accordance with the time limit provisions, if any, of the applicable part or chapter. (1)
(3) A complaint may not contain an allegation if that allegation and the general facts and circumstances supporting that allegation have been previously reviewed by a municipal ethics commission established under Section, a county ethics commission established under Section, or a local political subdivision ethics commission established under Section, as applicable, or the commission unless: 10-3-1311 17-70-511 63A-15-103 the allegation was previously reviewed and dismissed by the commission under Sectionor; 63A-15-602 63A-15-701 the allegation is accompanied by material facts or circumstances supporting the allegation that were not raised or pled to the commission; and the allegation and the general facts and circumstances supporting that allegation have only been reviewed by the commission in accordance with Sectionon one previous occasion. 63A-15-701 The commission may not review a complaint that is currently before: a municipal ethics commission established under Section; 10-3-1311 a county ethics commission established under Section; or 17-70-511 a local political subdivision ethics commission established under Section. 63A-15-103 If an allegation in the complaint does not comply with the requirements of Subsectionor, the allegation shall be summarily dismissed with prejudice by: (3)(a) (b) the chair when reviewing the complaint under Section; or 63A-15-601 the commission, when reviewing the complaint under Sectionor. 63A-15-602 63A-15-701
(4) A complaint against a political subdivision officer or employee may not allege a violation by the political subdivision officer or employee for an act by an individual under the authority of the political subdivision officer or employee, unless the complaint evidences that the political subdivision officer or employee: encouraged, condoned, or ordered the act; before the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual was likely to engage in the act; and failed to take appropriate action to prevent the act; while the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual was engaging in the act; and failed to take appropriate action to stop the act; or after the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual engaged in the act; and failed to take appropriate action in response to the act.
(5) A complaint against a political subdivision officer or employee may not allege a violation by the political subdivision officer or employee for an individual under the authority of the political subdivision officer or employee failing to act, unless the complaint evidences that the political subdivision officer or employee: encouraged, condoned, or ordered the failure to act; before the individual failed to act, knew or should have known that the individual was likely to fail to act; and failed to take appropriate action to prevent the failure to act; while the individual was failing to act, knew or should have known that the individual was failing to act; and failed to take appropriate action to prevent the failure to act; or after the individual failed to act, knew or should have known that the individual failed to act; and failed to take appropriate action in response to the failure to act.