Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb125 Confidentiality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate circles bill on drug-test confidentiality after debate over scope of disclosures
Summary
Senate Bill 125, which would reconcile conflicting statutes on employer drug-test confidentiality and licensing disclosures, failed to pass an amendment to add the Department of Health and was circled for clarification after senators questioned whether the language would broaden disclosure beyond EMS-certified personnel.
SALT LAKE CITY — Debate over Senate Bill 125 on Jan. 30, 2004, centered on whether employer drug- and alcohol-test results can be disclosed to licensing and public-health authorities. The sponsor, Senator Julander, told colleagues the bill sought to resolve a conflict between two statutes by allowing certain disclosures to the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) and the Department of Health.
“Senate bill 125 eliminates the conflict in these two statutes by amending section 34-38-13 to also mandate the disclosure of test related information to the division of occupational and professional licensing,” Senator Julander said, explaining that the change was prompted by the division’s need for test results during licensing investigations.
Senators pressed the sponsor on the amendment’s scope. Senator Andrew Valentine asked whether the proposed language would apply only to EMS-certified personnel under Title 26 or expand to “all employees under Title 58,” potentially broadening disclosure beyond the sponsor’s stated intent.
“Are you going to now allow that to be a broader scope so that it's all drug testing for, anybody who's dealing with employment of any source?” Valentine asked, requesting clearer limits on who would be affected by disclosure provisions.
Julander and others clarified the sponsor’s intent was to limit the disclosure to personnel certified under the EMS provisions in Title 26, but multiple senators said the amendment’s line references made the language unclear. After the amendment was put before the body and debate continued, the amendment failed to pass. Rather than move the bill forward, the Senate voted to circle it — a procedural hold that allows the sponsor to clarify language and return the bill later.
The transcript records senators asking the sponsor to restate the amendment and to meet with affected agencies for precise language before attempting third-reading consideration. A clerk's announcement and subsequent floor motions show the body preferred to defer action until the lines and statute references were corrected.
What’s next: The sponsor committed to clarifying which sections and categories of personnel are covered and to refile or reintroduce the amendment with precise line references prior to reconsideration on the calendar.
