Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts conference substitute for HB 380, adds independent accounting review for suspected unlawful county payments
Summary
The House adopted the conference committee report for first substitute HB 380 on March 3, 1999; the substitute leaves statute 17-5-206 intact but requires a county attorney who suspects an unlawful payment to request an accounting attorney from another county to investigate before determining whether to sue; final passage was 73-0.
The Utah House on March 3 adopted the conference committee report and passed first substitute House Bill 380, a county-government amendment that modifies the process county attorneys must follow when they suspect unlawful payments or warrants.
Representative Curtis, floor sponsor of the conference report, told members the conference substitute preserves statute 17-5-206 but changes the investigatory procedure: "What we've done in the conference committee report in substituting house bill 380... is left in 17-5-206, but we've required the county attorney, if he believes there's been an unlawful payment or a warrant drawn, to request an accounting attorney from another county to investigate an unauthorized payment or warrant... and then make a determination as whether or not to bring suit, but it would not be the county attorney that was advising the commission that authorized the payment or warrant." The change is intended to create an independent review when allegations involve the county attorney's own office or commission advisements.
The motion to adopt the conference committee report was put and carried. On final passage the House recorded 73 yes votes and 0 no votes; the bill was transmitted to the Senate for the president's signature.
Why it matters: the amendment preserves the statutory obligations of county attorneys under the cited statute but adds a procedural safeguard intended to reduce conflicts of interest when alleged unlawful payments implicate the commissioning authority that the county attorney advised. The transcript explicitly cites statute 17-5-206 as the retained legal base for the substitute.
What happens next: the bill was referred to the Senate for signature; implementation details including department-level follow-up were not specified on the floor and would be handled by the affected county attorneys and any assigned oversight offices.
