63A-14-604. Process for making a decision — Deliberations.
(1)
Terms Used In Utah Code 63A-14-604
Allegation: something that someone says happened.
Commission: means the Independent Executive Branch Ethics Commission, created in Section 63A-14-202. See Utah Code 63A-14-102
Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
After each party presents a closing argument, the commission shall, at the direction of the chair, begin private deliberations.
(b)
The deliberations described in Subsection (1)(a) may be held:
(i)
immediately after conclusion of the closing arguments; or
(ii)
at a future meeting of the commission, on a date and time determined by a majority of the members of the commission.
(2)
(a)
The chair shall conduct the deliberations.
(b)
Upon a motion made by a commission member, the commission may exclude commission staff from all or a portion of the deliberations by a majority vote of the commission.
(3)
(a)
During deliberations, for each allegation reviewed by the commission, each member shall determine and cast a vote stating whether the allegation is:
(i)
proved, by clear and convincing evidence, to have merit; or
(ii)
not proved to have merit.
(b)
A verbal roll call vote shall be taken on each allegation and each member’s vote shall be recorded.
(4)
(a)
An allegation is determined to not have merit unless four of the five members of the commission vote that the allegation has merit.
(b)
An allegation that is not determined to have merit is dismissed.
(5)
(a)
Before issuing an order or a finding under Section 63A-14-605, the commission may, upon a majority vote, reconsider and hold a new vote on an allegation.
(b)
A motion to reconsider a vote may only be made by a member of the commission who voted in favor of the vote to be reconsidered.
(6)
At the conclusion of deliberations, the commission shall prepare an order or a finding in accordance with Section 63A-14-605.
(7)
The commission may not find that an allegation has merit if the allegation is based on an act by an individual under the authority of the executive branch elected official, unless the commission finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the executive branch elected official:
(a)
encouraged, condoned, or ordered the act;
(b)
(i)
before the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual was likely to engage in the act; and
(ii)
failed to take appropriate action to prevent the act;
(c)
(i)
while the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual was engaging in the act; and
(ii)
failed to take appropriate action to stop the act; or
(d)
(i)
after the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual engaged in the act; and
(ii)
failed to take appropriate action in response to the act.
(8)
The commission may not find that an allegation has merit if the allegation is based on the failure of an individual under the authority of the executive branch elected official to act, unless the commission finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the executive branch elected official:
(a)
encouraged, condoned, or ordered the failure to act;
(b)
(i)
before the individual failed to act, knew or should have known that the individual was likely to fail to act; and
(ii)
failed to take appropriate action to prevent the failure to act;
(c)
(i)
while the individual was failing to act, knew or should have known that the individual was failing to act; and
(ii)
failed to take appropriate action to prevent the failure to act; or
(d)
(i)
after the individual failed to act, knew or should have known that the individual failed to act; and
(ii)
failed to take appropriate action in response to the failure to act.
