Administrative Rules Review Committee

Because of the lack of a quorum, motions on the issue will be voted on at the next meeting.

    Rep. Harward said his concern is not so much the contracts but the policy. If the sole source process can be used to get around the process that is set up for severance there is potential for a problem. He does not see anything wrong with the contracts but sees an accounting system that does not work well. Rep. Harward indicated that if there is a situation where the employer negotiates the equivalent of a severance package, it should be reported to the Legislature. The statutes do not work in terms of trying to segregate these two functions to have severance be controlled by this policy and sole source contracts controlled by another.

3.     Unemployment Compensation -- Update of "Fraud" issue from July 9, 1997 meeting
    (Rep. Harward) _ Mr. Jim Finch, Unemployment Insurance Director, Department of Workforce Services, distributed a handout from which he gave his presentation. He introduced Mr. Robert Harwood, the department's tax rate specialist. Mr. Finch said at the previous meeting it was determined that even though we were discussing the issue of fraud, we were really talking about a tax issue. Because Mr. Randy Russon's experiences were caused by a single claimant filing for unemployment insurance benefits, the committee had concerns about how a single claim could affect a person's tax rate. Mr. Finch explained the computation process and discussed provisions of the Law in the Utah Code §35A-4-303,§35A-4-202, and §58-59-102. He then highlighted a tax and benefit summary of Mr. Russon's account and background information starting at the genesis of Mr. Russon's situation.
    
    Mr. Finch then explained how the appeals process works. He stated when there is an allegation of fraud, the department does a full investigation. If, at the end of an investigation, there is no fraud charged, there is nothing for either the employer or claimant to appeal. Mr. Finch indicated that the reason the department is continuing the investigation is because the Administrative Law Judge referred it to the department's fraud unit. Based on the testimony of the employer, the judge requested the department to further investigate the possibility of fraud. The appeal that the employer has is through the tax rate.

    Rep. Harward asked legal staff to do research on what the process is at the time there is an allegation made by an employer of fraud by a benefit recipient. What are the employer's appeal rights if it is determined that no fraud was committed? What are the appeal rights of an individual if there is a determination of fraud?
    
    Mr. Finch indicated he is quite sure that there are no appeal rights to a party that accuses another party of fraud.

4.     R307-20-2 Section 1, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rep. Ure) _ Rep. Ure introduced this issue.

    Ms. Jan Miller, Rules Coordinator, Division of Air Quality and Ms. Ursula Trueman, Division Director, addressed the committee. Referring to the Bulletin, Ms. Miller explained that when the division is incorporating material it enters the date of when the rule became effective in the Federal System which is required under law (R307-16). When post dating (R307-20-2), where the division is incorporating by reference a plan which is required by the Federal Government, the Plan is not in effect until the Board finally adopts it. The date that is put in for the effective date of the State Implementation Plan is the date on which the Board is expected to adopt it. Ms. Trueman indicated that if there is a substantive change, then the division does make sure that the people are aware of the change. The July 1 Bulletin reflects that the division published changes in both the Landfill Plan (R307-20) and in (R307-21) which is the rule that enforces the Plan.

    Ms. Shelly Cordon-Teuscher, Petroleum Association, indicated that this Plan is frequently just a blueprint for rulemaking. She said she did not disagree that there may be a need to publicize the Plan further.
    
    Mr. Hunsaker expressed his concern about filing a rule change and not having appropriate language published so people can see what changes were made.

    Mr. David McNiel, Manager, Division of Air Quality, explained the Federal Ruling Process and indicated that it is published in the Federal Register.

    Ms. Teuscher suggested that the Board develop a rule that binds the division as to how it does public notices.

    Mr. Ken Hansen, Division of Administrative Rules, said there could be changes made to the Rulemaking Act regarding incorporation by reference to improve clarity.

    Chair Stephenson asked Mr. Hansen to work with staff on incorporation by reference language.

5.    Committee Business - Date of Next Meetings _

    September 15 and September 30

    Rep. Arrington requested putting the issue of child care on the agenda for the next meeting.
    
6.    Adjourn - The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.



F:\USERS\ADMRULES\WPFILES\8-27-97.MIN