Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immunization Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board sends draft immunization policy back to committee after members flag legal gaps
Summary
Board members voted to approve draft 6.08 on second reading but directed it back to committee for substantive legal and drafting revisions after members and lawmakers identified compliance issues around exclusions during outbreaks and conditional enrollment.
The Utah State Board of Education voted on March 26 to approve draft 6.08 of the board’s immunization policy for second reading and to send the draft back to committee for additional work after several members said the draft contained substantive inconsistencies with state law.
Member Boggas, who introduced a substitute motion to return the draft to committee for further editing, said specific sections "need to be reframed and reformatted" to comply with Utah statute and cited concerns about how the draft addresses exclusion during outbreaks, conditional enrollment and required definitions. "Number 10, exclusions during outbreaks. That all needs reframed and reformatted ... because it's not in compliance with the code," Boggas said.
Nut graf: Board members and staff agreed the existing policy was out of date—the previous approved policy dated to 2005—and that tighter legal review and coordination with agency attorneys and the health department were necessary before final adoption.
Dr. Tanner and other USDB staff said they operate under the existing (2005) policy while the new language is refined. Deputy staff and agency counsel indicated the revision will involve attorneys from both the Utah State Board and USDB and that health department clarification may be required because of questions raised about outbreak authority.
After debate and an amendment that combined an approval with a referral to committee for revision, the board approved the amended substitute motion by a vote of 8 in favor and 4 opposed. Members who objected said the draft could expose USDB to legal risk if implemented as written; supporters said it brings the policy closer to current law than the 2005 version and that returning it to committee would allow targeted legal fixes.
Next steps: The board directed staff to work with the USDB attorneys and the Office of the Attorney General to reconcile the draft with statute and the health department’s current guidance, and to bring a revised draft back to committee on an expedited schedule so the board can consider legal fixes before final adoption.
