Utah Code 63A-15-301. Authority to review complaint — Grounds for complaint — Limitations on filings
Current as of: 2024 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
(1) Subject to the requirements of this chapter and Section 10-3-1311 or 17-16a-11, the commission is authorized to review an ethics complaint against a political subdivision officer or employee if the complaint alleges:
Terms Used In Utah Code 63A-15-301
- Allegation: something that someone says happened.
- City: includes , depending on population, a metro township as defined in Section
10-3c-102 . See Utah Code 68-3-12.5 - Complaint: A written statement by the plaintiff stating the wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant.
(1)(a) if the applicable political subdivision is a municipality, an ethics violation of Title 10, Chapter 3, Part 13, Municipal Officers’ and Employees’ Ethics Act by:
(1)(a)(i) a city manager or non-elected chief executive; or
(1)(a)(ii) an elected officer, as defined in Section 10-3-1303;
(1)(b) if the applicable political subdivision is a county, an ethics violation of Title 17, Chapter 16a, County Officers and Employees Disclosure Act by:
(1)(b)(i) an appointed officer, as defined in Section 17-16a-3;
(1)(b)(ii) an elected officer, as defined in Section 17-16a-3; or
(1)(b)(iii) an employee subject to Title 17, Chapter 16a, County Officers and Employees Disclosure Act; or
(1)(c) for a political subdivision officer or employee other than a municipal officer or employee described in Subsection (1)(a) or a county officer or employee described in Subsection (1)(b), an ethics violation of Title 67, Chapter 16, Utah Public Officers’ and Employees’ Ethics Act.
(2) A complaint described in Subsection (1) shall be filed in accordance with the time limit provisions, if any, of the applicable part or chapter.
(3)
(3)(a) A complaint may not contain an allegation if that allegation and the general facts and circumstances supporting that allegation have been previously reviewed by a municipal ethics commission established under Section 10-3-1311, a county ethics commission established under Section 17-16a-11, or a local political subdivision ethics commission established under Section 63A-15-103, as applicable, or the commission unless:
(3)(a)(i) the allegation was previously reviewed and dismissed by the commission under Section 63A-15-602 or 63A-15-701;
(3)(a)(ii) the allegation is accompanied by material facts or circumstances supporting the allegation that were not raised or pled to the commission; and
(3)(a)(iii) the allegation and the general facts and circumstances supporting that allegation have only been reviewed by the commission in accordance with Section 63A-15-701 on one previous occasion.
(3)(b) The commission may not review a complaint that is currently before:
(3)(b)(i) a municipal ethics commission established under Section 10-3-1311;
(3)(b)(ii) a county ethics commission established under Section 17-16a-11; or
(3)(b)(iii) a local political subdivision ethics commission established under Section 63A-15-103.
(3)(c) If an allegation in the complaint does not comply with the requirements of Subsection (3)(a) or (b), the allegation shall be summarily dismissed with prejudice by:
(3)(c)(i) the chair when reviewing the complaint under Section 63A-15-601; or
(3)(c)(ii) the commission, when reviewing the complaint under Section 63A-15-602 or 63A-15-701.
(4) A complaint against a political subdivision officer or employee may not allege a violation by the political subdivision officer or employee for an act by an individual under the authority of the political subdivision officer or employee, unless the complaint evidences that the political subdivision officer or employee:
(4)(a) encouraged, condoned, or ordered the act;
(4)(b)
(4)(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
(4)(b)(ii) failed to take appropriate action to prevent the act;
(4)(c)
(4)(c)(i) while the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual was engaging in the act; and
(4)(c)(ii) failed to take appropriate action to stop the act; or
(4)(d)
(4)(d)(i) after the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual engaged in the act; and
(4)(d)(ii) failed to take appropriate action in response to the act.
(5) A complaint against a political subdivision officer or employee may not allege a violation by the political subdivision officer or employee for an individual under the authority of the political subdivision officer or employee failing to act, unless the complaint evidences that the political subdivision officer or employee:
(5)(a) encouraged, condoned, or ordered the failure to act;
(5)(b)
(5)(b)(i) before the individual failed to act, knew or should have known that the individual was likely to fail to act; and
(5)(b)(ii) failed to take appropriate action to prevent the failure to act;
(5)(c)
(5)(c)(i) while the individual was failing to act, knew or should have known that the individual was failing to act; and
(5)(c)(ii) failed to take appropriate action to prevent the failure to act; or
(5)(d)
(5)(d)(i) after the individual failed to act, knew or should have known that the individual failed to act; and
(5)(d)(ii) failed to take appropriate action in response to the failure to act.