Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prosecutorial Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County delays vote on proposed Prosecutorial Review Board after hours of public testimony
Summary
After hours of public comment from legal advocates, victims' advocates and county prosecutors, the Utah County Commission voted 3–0 to continue consideration of a resolution to create a Prosecutorial Review Board for one week so commissioners can refine language on membership, subpoena powers and protections for sensitive material.
The Utah County Commission on Tuesday heard extensive public testimony for and against a proposed Prosecutorial Review Board and voted to continue the item for one week to allow staff and commissioners to refine the resolution’s language.
Supporters, led by Connor Boyack of the Libertas Institute, urged the commission to adopt a narrowly tailored review board to provide independent fact‑finding and oversight of prosecutorial conduct. "This does not step on anyone's toes," Boyack said, describing the panel as an informational body that would help the commission evaluate allegations without imposing monetary damages.
Opponents included county prosecutor Ryan McBride and Provo resident Diane Christiansen. McBride described the emotional and professional strain of prosecutorial work and warned that the resolution "feels like a vote of no confidence," noting existing oversight from employers, the courts and the state bar. Christiansen raised constitutional concerns and cautioned that subpoenas and evidence review by a lay committee could harm victims and expose sensitive materials to public disclosure.
Commissioners debated several substantive edits during the meeting, including how the board would be constituted, whether seats should be fixed for certain backgrounds (judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, civil‑liberties representatives), how to protect sensitive investigative materials and the proper time frame for after‑the‑fact reviews. One commissioner argued for fixed member slots with a mechanism to permit temporary flexibility if a required category could not be filled; another warned that placing the review and any subsequent remedies inside the legislative body could raise separation‑of‑powers issues.
After the discussion the commission voted 3–0 to continue the matter for one week to allow drafting of amendments addressing selection procedures, data protections and the board’s scope. The chair said staff will return with revised language and anticipated additional public input before a final vote.
