Senate committee reviews amendment to delay enforcement authority of State Ethics Commission amid staffing, separation-of-powers concerns

Michael O'Grady, a Lehi council member, and counsel walked the Senate Committee on Government Operations through draft 1.1 of H.1 on April 22, describing an amendment that would postpone—rather than repeal—some enforcement powers the Legislature granted the State Ethics Commission last year.

The amendment would delay the commission’s authority to conduct investigations and hold hearings for two years, change the referral language so the commission provides a recommended action when it refers complaints to the executive, legislative or judicial branches, and make advice provided at the time of referral confidential. The measure’s backers say the delay is intended to allow time to staff the commission and to address unresolved questions about appeals and confidentiality.

Why it matters: committee members and witnesses told the panel that the commission lacks the attorneys and staff needed to exercise full enforcement authority beginning September 2025 under prior law, prompting the proposed two-year postponement and a chance to revisit structural and procedural questions before enforcement takes effect.

O'Grady said the amendment “postpones. It doesn't remove, it doesn't repeal. It postpones that authority for 2 years,” framing the change as temporary until the commission can be staffed. He said the draft also changes required “consultation” with the three branches to a required “recommendation” and makes the commission’s advice at referral confidential.

Supporters and witnesses described several concerns the amendment attempts to address: (1) the commission was granted powers last year—investigations, hearings, reprimands—yet it has no staff or funding in current appropriations to carry out that work; (2) the statute as passed did not create an explicit statutory right of appeal from commission actions; and (3) the mechanics of confidentiality and public records for consultation reports could make sensitive referrals public, including consultations that touch on personnel or criminal matters.

Ben Kinzle, who identified himself as the executive director of "Campaign for Volant" in his testimony, told the committee the state has built the ethics framework incrementally since 2017 and said H.1, as introduced in the House, “really feels like a step backwards in the progress that we've made over the last decade or so.” Kinzle said the Commission’s independence is important and that a meaningful enforcement mechanism should be paired with adequate staffing.

Committee members pressed for clarity about effective dates. Committee counsel and the sponsor walked the panel through the bill’s effective-date provisions: some referral and consultation changes would take effect Sept. 1, 2025, while enforcement provisions would be extended to take effect later (the amendment would postpone enforcement until the Commission has staff and the redirected enforcement effective dates in statute). Committee counsel also pointed to specific statutory cross-references in Act 171 and to provisions that would supersede or amend earlier language where necessary.

Questions to watch: senators raised separation-of-powers issues. Several committee members, legislative staff and the judiciary have signaled concern that requiring written consultation could alter constitutional prerogatives of the legislative and judicial branches. The draft attempts to treat all three branches the same—making referrals accompanied by the commission’s recommendation to executive, legislative and judicial entities—rather than singling out branches for different treatment.

Committee members repeatedly noted that postponing enforcement without a commitment to staff the commission risks leaving the commission under-resourced indefinitely. Senator Clarkson said she fears the commission will remain understaffed and that treating the executive like the judiciary or legislature is not "apples to apples" because the executive branch employs thousands of state workers.

What the bill does not do: the draft does not repeal the commission’s powers permanently, does not eliminate the commission’s ability to provide input at referral, and—according to counsel—keeps in place the commission’s role to specify how the State Code of Ethics applies to allegations except for municipal complaints. The bill does not change appeal routes beyond the issues the committee identified as unclear; committee counsel said statutory appeal mechanisms were not added in the earlier enactment and may rely on general appellate procedure unless the Legislature acts.

Next steps: committee members asked staff for more detail and told witnesses they would likely need to return with refined language addressing staffing, confidentiality, and the separation-of-powers concerns. No formal motion or vote on H.1 was recorded during the session.

Ending: the committee moved on to other agenda items after hearing multiple witnesses and committee counsel’s walk-through of the effective-date structure; senators asked for additional information about staffing and for clearer drafting on confidentiality and appellate rights before advancing the measure.