Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables proposed data privacy ordinance (Ordinance 22,503) to refine language on software review and titles
Summary
Commissioners discussed Ordinance 22,503 (county data privacy program) and debated wording that would require CAO/CPO review of software that collects private data and whether titles should read 'County Administrator' to comply with statute. The commission voted to table the ordinance and privacy policy for further wordsmithing and scheduled a work session to finalize changes.
The San Juan County Commission paused consideration of Ordinance 22,503, which would establish a county data privacy program to comply with the Utah Government Data Privacy Act, and asked staff to rework specific language before returning for final approval.
Mac (county staff) presented the ordinance and explained two substantive additions: sections that require the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and a Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) to watch and review any software that collects private data and to bring concerning contracts to the commission so the public can weigh in. The presentation cited examples including license-plate-scanning software, drone footage and cloud storage to illustrate why contract language should clarify data ownership and retention.
Commissioners raised two points for revision. First, they asked that Section 8 be revised so it does not read as a blanket gate on department purchases: the suggested wording would limit review to "approved software purchases that collect private data," i.e., purchases already authorized through the budget process. Second, commissioners emphasized statutory title consistency: the public-facing privacy policy should refer to the County Administrator (the title required by statute for the county—s form of government) rather than creating new officer titles that could conflict with state law.
Commissioner Mon moved to table the ordinance and the privacy policy, add a pre-meeting work session to wordsmith the language, and return the final drafts at the next regular meeting. Commissioner Harvey seconded the motion; the commission approved the motion. The group agreed to meet for a short in-person session (proposed Friday at 10 a.m.) to finalize the language with staff and counsel present.
What—s next: Staff will revise the ordinance text to (1) limit the software-review requirement to software that collects private data and to purchases already approved in the budgeting process, and (2) ensure titles in the public privacy policy match statutory roles; the commission will review revised drafts at the next meeting after the scheduled wordsmithing session.
