Administrative Rules Review Committee

about the claim gives the impression that the individual is already assumed guilty.

    Ms. Cooney explained that once an investigation is completed and the division makes a finding, a letter is sent to the individual indicating that it is a substantiated finding and lists the options the individual has to challenge. She distributed a copy of the most recent draft of the letter.

    Sen. Buhler felt the term "substantiated" should be defined in the letter. Members of the committee offered possible language to soften the tone of the letter.

    Ms. Carole Verdoia, Office of the Attorney General, mentioned one of the difficulties with the issue is that the Child Welfare Reform Act uses the terms substantiated and substantiation in several places. It is not just in SB 168.

    Sen. Dmitrich stated he thought the letter made it clear that those who had done nothing wrong would have the opportunity to clear the record.

    Ms. Cooney said the letters concerning cases from1988-1993 have been mailed. The next batch of letters will cover cases from 1994 through June, 1997. She could not say for sure whether every alleged perpetrator was interviewed, however, each allegation was investigated. At the close of the investigation a determination needed to be made. The only ones who will receive the next batch of letters are the cases involving substantiated findings that are consistent with the allegations listed in SB 168. Since 1994, at the time an allegation was received, an investigation took place and a file was created. The piece that was missing was the notification to the perpetrator at the close of the investigation.

    Rep. Ure pointed out that the committee was informed last year that the names were put into a computer list and that no investigation had been conducted whatsoever.

    Rep. Swallow expressed concern that, under the current system, a person remains a criminal even though he has been found not guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction.

    Sen. Dmitrich noted that if the rule is in accordance with statute, the statute should be changed. Sen. Buhler and Rep. Swallow expressed concern with some of the language in the proposed rule.

    Ms. Saunders said the division will review the proposed rule and the draft letter, taking into consideration the comments made by the committee and the statutory requirement.

     MOTION: Rep. Ure moved to take R512-25 off the list of rules to be sunsetted by the

committee. The motion passed unanimously with Sen. Peterson absent for the vote.

3.    Agency Implementation of State Law and Federal Regulation Requiring Disclosure of Social Security Numbers on Drivers Licenses - Rep. Ure stated there are many workers in Utah who are not U.S. citizens and are unable to obtain driver licenses without a Social Security Number (SSN). They can't obtain SSN's without producing two forms of ID. For the hispanic population, a Mexican driver's license or birth certificate will not qualify as forms of ID.

    Mr. J. Francis Valerga, Special Counsel, Department of Public Safety, said it is his understanding that by statute a SSN is required to obtain a driver license. He said he was not sure whether or not an ID card could be substituted.

    Ms. Shelley Weiss, legal immigrant advocate, stated Park City has a very large Latino population. Naturalization and Immigration is moving extremely slow in processing these people. In the meantime they are working in the state and paying taxes using a PIN number. Ms. Weiss said it is hard for people to be law abiding if they can't obtain a SSN. She indicated there are many rules and regulations to pass through the process to get a resident alien card.

    Sen. Buhler said the issue may be better dealt with in another committee since it does not involve an administrative rule.

    Rep. Stephens indicated Rep. Ure may want to have staff further research the issue and if it is something that the committee can deal with, it could be brought back in a future meeting.

4.    August 1 Utah State Bulletin Report: Agency Compliance with New Fiscal Input Reporting Requirements - Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst - Rep. Stephens commented that due to committee concern about the lack of accurate fiscal information on rules being promulgated, the Office of the Fiscal Analyst was asked to review the August Bulletin.

    Mr. John Massey, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, distributed a copy of their report on fiscal notes in the August Bulletin. He said they reviewed 24 new or amended rules. Nineteen of them appeared to be accurate in terms of fiscal impact. Three others were considered accurate, although there was some concern. There were only two rules in which they did not agree with the fiscal analysis given. Mr. Massey stated they have noted significant improvement in the last year in the efforts being made by agencies to provide a more detailed report of the fiscal impact of the rules being implemented. His office will contact the agencies affected by the analysis.

    Rep. Stephens said it would be helpful if Mr. Massey's office prepared a similar analysis twice each year.

    Mr. Ken Hansen, Division of Administrative Rules, stated they are in the process of preparing a newsletter that will report on the results of the findings of the Office of Legislative Fiscal Analyst. He also pointed out that Mr. Bishop works with agencies as issues arise.

5.    Staff Research Update - Ms. Chelsea-McCarty stated the committee requested she look into whether or not there were any requirements in the statute that would allow for criminal penalties assessed from violation of a rule. Although she has not completed her research, to date she has found at least 27 statutes that allow for the assessment of a criminal penalty based upon a rule violation. There are also statutes that indicate it is questionable as to whether or not a criminal penalty could be based upon a rule.

    Mr. Hunsaker reported on the State Office of Education's authority to determine class size. The Legislature appropriates money to the State Office of Education, however, there is no specific language in statute that states that the office shall determine class size. The concern still remains with class size figures contained in the 70 percent utilization discussed in the August 17 meeting. For example, once schools start using those numbers to admit or deny enrollment under school choice, it is an through class sizes have been set. That is where the concerns begin.

    Mr. Hunsaker stated another issue was raised regarding how a company obtains exclusive access to the state employee mailing list and whether the state was being compensated for the use of the list. It appears there are three agencies involved in the process - the Department of Human Resource Management, the Division of Purchasing, and the Division of Finance.

    Mr. Hunsaker reviewed the issue of the use of the state seal. He indicated that the statute is written broadly enough that determining an illegal use of the seal is difficult.

6.    Committee Business - Sen. Dmitrich stated that there is a state rule that requires a sign be posted at a medical facility if there is no obstetrician. He requested the committee review the rule in question.

    Rep. Ure discussed R595-1-9, Information Resolution of Complaints, from the September 1, 1998, Page 39. He asked that Mr. Steven Stewart, Executive Director, Judicial Conduct Commission, be contacted to meet with the committee to discuss the rule.
                                
    Sen. Stephenson requested staff agendize its research issues for future meetings.

    Meetings were scheduled for September 29 and October 23 at 9:00 a.m.

     MOTION: Sen. Peterson moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 a.m. The motion passed unanimously.