Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate narrows, then approves bill expanding Industrial Commission authority after hours-long debate
Summary
After extended floor debate and a committee-of-the-whole hearing, the Utah Senate approved Senate Bill 187 with an amendment to address concerns about agency power to interpret law. Supporters cited judicial deference to agency expertise; opponents warned the change would cede judicial review.
Senate Bill 187, which would broaden the Industrial Commission's authority to make factual determinations and to interpret and apply law, passed the Utah Senate after extended debate and amendment on Feb. 18, 1994.
The bill was introduced on the floor by Senator David Steele and drew immediate concern from industry groups. James Lee, appearing for the Utah Mining Association and the Utah Manufacturers Association, told senators: "What this bill does is give the Industrial Commission broader power than any other administrative agency in state government" and warned the language would let the commission "interpret the law," a power he said historically has been tightly circumscribed.
Commissioner Steve Hadley, who spoke in favor, urged the body to read the bill with judicial precedent in mind, citing King v. Industrial Commission and saying the change simply lets the commission "determine the facts," and "interpret, construe, and apply the law," arguing courts have often afforded deference to agency expertise. Hadley framed the amendment as necessary to let administrative law judges and commission counsel use their expertise to resolve complex fact-and-law questions.
Senators questioned whether nonlawyer commissioners should be empowered to make legal determinations and whether the words "interpret and construe" should be bracketed so the commission would be limited to "determine the facts and apply the law." After a committee of the whole hearing in which both opponents and commission representatives were heard, a motion to place the bill atop the third-reading calendar for amendment passed and the Senate proceeded to a final vote.
The clerk announced the roll call result as read on the floor and the bill passed as announced.
Why it matters: The bill alters the balance between administrative agencies and courts by changing statutory language about agency authority. Supporters said it clarifies and codifies deference long given by courts; opponents argued it risks insulating agency legal interpretations from full judicial review.
Next steps: The bill passed the Senate and, as announced, will be sent according to regular legislative procedure for the next steps in the process.
