Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Nepotism topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate advances nepotism-clarifying bill after amendment to grandfather employees

Utah Senate · February 22, 2001
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Utah Senate on Feb. 22 advanced first substitute Senate Bill 251 — a narrowly drawn clarification of state nepotism law focused on counties of the first class and elected officials — after adopting amendments that grandfather existing employees and exempt temporary hires; the bill passed to third reading 15–12 with two absent.

Senator Hilliard, sponsor of first substitute Senate Bill 251, said the bill narrows a prior draft to focus on a county-of-the-first-class issue and to remove unintended effects on rural school districts. “Probably the most dangerous bills I’ve handled up here in the legislature have been dealing with nepotism,” Hilliard said, arguing the measure makes statutory lines clearer in cases where city managers, elected mayors and councils interpret supervision differently.

The Senate adopted two targeted amendments that, according to Hilliard, “provide[] first that if that employee is already employed when you are elected, then at that point in time that is grandfathered in” and exempt temporary workers. Senator Wadipes and others questioned whether local hiring policies could solve the problem, but Hilliard and backers said conflicting legal opinions in one Salt Lake City prompted a statewide clarification.

Opponents warned the change reaches more broadly than necessary and may intrude on local hiring practices. Senator Jenkins argued that subdivisions should resolve hiring issues through local hiring-practice ordinances. Senators also asked whether the measure would affect elected sheriffs and other officials who supervise large staffs; proponents said the law is intended to apply where elected officials have supervisory power.

After floor debate the Senate voted to advance the measure to third reading; the clerk announced the tally as 15 ayes, 12 nays and 2 absent.