Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Due Process Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witnesses urge more transparency and due‑process safeguards as board sometimes departs from UPAC recommendations
Summary
Current and former UPAC members and attorneys told the licensing committee that transparency gaps—particularly when the board changes UPAC recommendations—can harm educators’ due process; speakers proposed recording investigative interviews, better explanations when the board departs from UPAC, and confidential reporting options for educators.
Multiple invited speakers told the Utah State Board of Education licensing committee they are concerned about transparency at the stage when UPAC recommendations reach the board and when the board issues a different discipline outcome.
Cass Harshadt and other witnesses said UPAC panels deliberate at length, often reviewing investigative files closely, while board-level decisions can be brief and sometimes increase discipline beyond UPAC’s recommendation. Harshadt said that is "very disorienting to the educator" and may raise due‑process concerns if board members consider information not in the UPAC investigative file.
UPAC members who testified described robust internal deliberation and the protective role of the matrix, but they also urged that when the board reaches a different conclusion it should either apply the same procedural safeguards or remand the case to UPAC with explicit instructions. Terry Francis called for ensuring the final board step used comparable due‑process reasoning or remand.
Several panelists suggested recording investigative interviews or otherwise improving the documentary record so respondents and their counsel can better compare investigative findings with final decisions. Panelists also recommended clearer conflict‑of‑interest and privacy policies for UPAC and measures to allow confidential reporting by educators who fear retaliation.
Committee members asked staff about whistleblower protections; Director Rasmussen said he had not reviewed statutes in depth and could follow up. The meeting closed without board action on the proposals; the committee requested staff data and follow‑up analysis.
