Members of the Financial Operations committee received an overview of the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission (UPAK) investigative standard operating procedure and questioned how UPAK decides when to open an investigation.

Ben Rasmussen, director of law and professional practices, told the committee staff uploaded the SOP, an example investigative report and an educator's guide to the civic clerk backup materials. "We put as backup for the committee's information," he said, noting the SOP was drafted in December 2024 and final approval occurred January 31, 2025.

Ashley Carter, a UPAK attorney, described UPAK's approach to investigations as grounded in the board rule and centered on independence and objectivity. "The most important thing to us as investigators is that we are independent and objective," she said, describing a process that begins with notifying the educator, collecting documents and evidence, interviewing witnesses and the educator, and giving the educator the chance to respond before a hearing.

Committee members pressed staff about the operational meaning of the rule phrase "known facts and circumstances" used when deciding whether to open a case. Rasmussen said UPAK provides members a shared folder containing all materials received with a complaint and that members review those materials before meeting. He described the screening decision as a judgment about "whether there is sufficient evidence that we should follow up," rather than applying a written numeric threshold. "We don't have a set standard of review for opening a case," he said.

The chair expressed concern that without a uniform written standard similarly situated educators could be treated differently. Carter clarified that the formal burden of proof—used later when issuing a complaint after investigation—is a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), but she and Rasmussen said that the initial screening is not a credibility determination and is based on whether the presented materials, taken together, suggest a potential violation.

The committee also asked how referrals from the internal audit hotline are handled. Rasmussen said staff receive multiple referral emails daily and that, when possible, they request evidence from the educator's local education agency (LEA). He added anonymous complaints are not pursued directly but the LEA is consulted when contact information exists.

Rasmussen described practical safeguards used by UPAK members, including looking for consistency with similar past cases. "If they see something that's similar to another case we've had, they look at consistency and try very hard to be consistent with how they've handled past cases," he said.

The meeting concluded with a final motion that passed unanimously; the motion text is not specified in the transcript excerpt provided.

Next steps: committee members pressed staff for clearer documentation of the screening standard and recordkeeping about referrals and outcomes; staff said they would follow up on procedure-related questions and available data.