04-16-2025 Council Meeting Audio Transcript
[Speaker 1]
Okay, we are ready to get started. For those in the room, just a reminder, the mics are, we only have one mic, but it's pretty sensitive, so it can pick up sidebar conversations, so just be mindful of that.
[Speaker 2]
Let's get going, Bob, new council members.
[Speaker 1]
Oh yeah, actually, can we do a roll call for Marilyn? Just go around the room. Start with Stephen.
[Speaker 4]
Stephen Foote, Duchesne County
Stewart Williams, Clearfield City
Ron Weight, UPC
Marilyn Lawson, UPC
Emily Johnson, UPC
Tyson Skeen, UPC
Ed Montgomery, South Jordan City
Bob Church, UPC
Eric Clarke, Washington County
Brett Robinson, Salt Lake County
Jeff Stott, Kane County Attorney
Stu Young, AG's Office
Jeff Buhman, SWAP
[Speaker 1]
Stephen And then we've got David Cole online who's here for Troy Rollins. And Chad Dotson from Meijer County. So okay, so thank you Ed.
So a new Council member. Uh, as you all know Rob Van Dyke was appointed to the bench, and he was representing Region 3 of the county attorneys. And they met via email, and nominated Chad Dodson to be their representative.
And so, as a council, then you need to vote whether to accept Chad into your ranks or not. So, we need to vote, and we've got a quorum. Those in favor?
Aye. Aye.
[Speaker 4]
Any opposed?
[Speaker 1]
Chad, welcome. You're the newest council member. Excellent, and I'm excited.
[Speaker 2]
Appreciate it. Minutes from the previous meeting. Anybody want to move to adopt?
I move to adopt. I'll second.
[Speaker 4]
Take a vote. Opposed? In favor of?
Aye. There we go. Okay.
[Speaker 1]
All right. Welcome, Randall. Thanks.
Okay. There he is. Yeah, so we're in good shape on the budget.
I don't have really anything to report on other than MI has taken over largely the duties of learning QuickBooks and entering in the data and has been doing a pretty good job. We're going to have a healthy carryover again. I'm working to try to whittle that down so we don't have as much of a carryover each year, but as I was telling Ed the other day, I always budget really conservatively so that we have enough of a carryover, but depending upon what that's going to be, we'll dictate what we're able to do with those funds in the coming year, but we appreciate Emma taking care of our QuickBooks for me.
In June, we will actually do the closeout budget for those of you that are new or that haven't been through a budget cycle yet. The end of the fiscal year is June 30th, but because I don't get final numbers from finance until probably, and I don't get what our carryover is until mid-August, I will present a proposed budget in June for you all to consider, but then in our September meeting is when I will give the final budget, and it doesn't really change a whole lot other than maybe what that carryover is, so that's really all I have on the budget, so unless there's any questions.
Anything we should be looking forward to in the future? Nothing out of the ordinary. I was hoping with Emma coming on that we might be able to do some more conferences.
Emma helped out with Tyson's DUI boot camp, and that took some pressure off Marilyn, and she is hoping to help Trent with some of the other smaller conferences that he might do, and so we might be able to add in some additional training that we'll, not that we want to waste money, we never want to do that, but that we might be able to do that in the coming year. Okay.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so that's going to be in St. George in October, let me get to that. So it's under tab D in your handout, the planning committee, when we got together, they wanted to have an underlying facts scenario for this case. Hey Jeff.
And so they decided on doing a sexual assault case study, and so we will start bright and early Wednesday morning on October 22nd, and we're going to go through, as we have talked in the past, we felt like we could almost repackage our basic prosecutor course, and so we're sort of doing that, but not really, but you can see what we've got, we've got Trish Crump is our SANE nurse, she trains for Trent at the sexual assault course and she's phenomenal, so she's going to come in and give a presentation on what SANE nurses do and how they can best be used at trial, after which, after her presentation, we're going to have a faculty member, as yet to be determined, actually go through a direct examination of what a SANE nurse and what that would look like, so that our students can get some real practical guidance on that. We're bringing in Rebecca Kay from the state crime lab, who also teaches at our sex assault course, she's going to talk about DNA, specifically in sex assault cases, and then we will repeat that as we will have a direct examination of our DNA experts, so that we're giving just a really basic foundation for our prosecutors on that, so that will be the first day. The second day, we will do cross-examination fundamentals, and Stu has agreed, he's able to come down and help us out with that, for those that don't know what Stu's background is, you know, he's mostly federal, but he taught at the NAC, and so we're looking forward to Stu helping us out with that.
We're then going to get into the cross-examination of expert witnesses, and the faculty or the committee felt that that was really important, because we have a lot of retired detectives, maybe even some SANE nurses, others that for years testified on behalf of the prosecution, and have now switched sides and are testifying for the defense, and so we're going to go through how you would prep and cross-examine a defense expert witness, and then we will have them practice that, and then Stu's also going to talk about common obstacles that we face with witnesses, we know that we have victims that aren't able to participate for a variety of reasons, and so Stu has agreed to talk about that and give our prosecutors some tips and tactics and advice on how best to deal with those types of witnesses and to be able to proceed with a successful case, and then we'll end up the day, Shane Klang from Iron County is going to talk about child sex crime considerations, he's had some case experience with that.
The last day, we're kind of doing this in, not really reverse, but we'll do opening statements and they'll practice that, and then closing, and so as we said, it's sort of like basic, but with a sex crimes twist, and so we're excited, we haven't done an advanced, so I started in April, 11 years ago, and we did an advanced that fall, that summer, and we haven't had one since, so it's been almost 11 years since we've done an advanced trial skills course, and this one is very different than what we did back then, the one we did 11 years ago was mostly just lecture, whereas this one, we're making it skills-based, and so we need to let your folks know that they're going to come and there's going to be homework, they're going to have to prep at night, but the feedback we have been getting is that's what our folks are wanting, is to work on some of those skills, and so we listened and put something together and we're excited, we still have a couple more spots on our faculty, we haven't necessarily wanted to bring back our basic faculty just because we use them so extensively, hate to keep taking them away from offices, so we're still looking for some faculty, but we're really excited and confident on the agenda.
[Speaker 1]
Less. Less prosecutors? Yeah, just because offices are still trying to hire, I mean, you're down, what, two?
And you just hired one. You just hired one. Well, he's graduating this year, so...
Why don't they get him to basic in August? I wouldn't say less, though, because even if offices are down, they've all expanded in that time. Well, that's true, that's true.
Your office has more slots than it did ten years ago, your office definitely has more slots than it did ten years ago. But you're not at full capacity, though. We're pretty close.
For vacancies, we have six applicants right now. Okay. Okay, so thank you.
I guess Tyson's correct. I'm just thinking of the offices that are having trouble hiring, and I know that's just been problematic. What's the AG's like?
Because I know that there's, what, four or five openings, at least?
[Speaker 2]
Well, we've got... I mean, the population is growing, certainly. And I'm assuming with the growing population, a certain amount of those new people are committed crimes.
Right. They're all law abiding. Right.
Do a good job screening. So if we have more prosecutors, that's more people trained.
[Speaker 1]
Right, right. But we haven't seen a huge increase. So Brett, I don't know if you're aware, Chad...
Paul Fuller, in your office, he and I are personal friends. We serve in the Guard together, and he's friends with Trent. And we've met with him, and he's putting the bug in Sim's ear about trying to get Salt Lake to send some more of your folks to BASIC.
So just be mindful of that. You can kind of help. I'll join in with that.
[Speaker 2]
Yeah, exactly.
[Speaker 1]
And that's... If Salt Lake, in the past, we've had... So the last time that Salt Lake sent, we had, what, maybe 10 of our students from Salt Lake.
But since then, we still have maintained about 18, anywhere from 15 to 20 students at BASIC every year. So we haven't seen a drop in terms of that. What do we have registered for Spring Conference, Marilyn?
[Speaker 3]
We've got... There's 165 in-person, and about 162 online.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so that's about the same.
[Speaker 3]
We're back there.
[Speaker 1]
So we're not feeling the pinch. And on the courses where we try to cap the number of students, like, for example, with Tyson's DUI boot camp in January, how many students did you have, Tyson? 18 to 20?
We were right about 20, and that's where we capped it. Right, and we didn't have anybody, like, on a waiting list, did we? I don't know the answer to that.
Yeah, and I don't think we have. So we haven't, we're not...
[Speaker 3]
It was a give and take. We were overbooked, per se, and then some had to drop out. And then, you know, it just, it kind of evened out.
I think we had 21.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so we're not feeling overburdened yet. Okay.
[Speaker 3]
But the visual trial skills, those numbers are picking up. So we have a full, a full class for May. July is already starting to fill up.
And I haven't looked at November's, but those classes are filling up.
04-16-2025-CouncilAudio2
[Speaker 9]
Anything else?
[Speaker 1]
I just wanted to, I forgot to put this in the minutes, is I just wanted to report that Tyson and I in February were invited by our counterpart in Florida to go out and help with their inaugural train-the-trainer course. Garrett Berman is his name. We invited Garrett to join us last year to come out and observe.
Jeff, I think you were in that course. I don't remember Garrett from Florida and really liked what we were doing and so Tyson and I were able to go out and we had a great experience, had some good feedback. There, I don't know that Garrett fully realized what the course was intended to do.
He basically followed our model. In fact, what he did is he took our outline, our materials, and he just put his name on it, which is fine because that's what we do is we share materials like that and so we kind of had to guide the students. This is what it's about, but I think we had a good experience.
[Speaker 4]
It was good and you know I'm always here to pump up what UPC does, but the reason why we were there is because he came and saw what we did and he's like I want it to look exactly like what you guys did. So that's why Bob and I were invited and used our agenda, our process of doing things and while he was the course leader, he was really looking to Bob a lot of times like what are we doing here, right?
[Speaker 1]
So yeah, so anyway, I just want to report on that and Washington, my counterpart from Washington was there and they're looking at doing the same thing. So we're getting our brand out there. So where did we get training from?
Is that you guys? It's been around longer than I was.
[Speaker 3]
Well NDAA, NAPC, so you know Jared Olson.
[Speaker 4]
It was created by TSRP. Yeah.
[Speaker 3]
Okay, it was created by TSRP, so Jared Olson, TSRP.
[Speaker 4]
So my counterparts nationally in conjunction with NHTSA and other people on a national level created a curriculum, but we've taken it and modified that curriculum a little bit just to meet our needs of what we want to do here and that's what we do.
[Speaker 1]
That's why if you, when you, those who've been through it, if you've looked at it, there's a lot of DUI examples of, you know, what to train on and that's why, because it reflects where that genesis from NHTSA and TSRPs. So, but as Tyson said, what they have put out, we looked at it and we wanted to modify it a little bit for what our needs were. So, let me think, anything else on conferences?
Everybody knows Professor Mangroom is going to be here on Friday. We're excited. So if you've got a copy of Mangroom on evidence and you want to get it autographed, bring it and he'll, I'm sure he will be happy to sign it.
I think he's got a bigger copy. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, from your office.
For fall, we've got a couple of things still that we need to finalize. I'm glad, Jeff, I'm glad you're here. Owen, we, one of the topics that we wanted to do was on jury trials.
And that one is, we go back and forth all the time on doing a presentation on jury trials, because it's so different. You know, how you choose a jury in Washington County is different, you know, from Iron County, from Duchesne County, because it's going to depend on your judge. But people have been asking for something on jury trials for a long time.
Or jury selection, thank you. Chad recommended Owen Stewart from your office. I mean, can you tell us anything about him?
[Speaker 8]
He's, he's great. I mean, you can probably tell him more because we stole him from the DA's office.
[Speaker 1]
That's right.
[Speaker 8]
He's in our SPU, so we haven't had a lot of experience. He's only been there less than six months. Okay, okay.
Yeah, Brett, I mean.
[Speaker 6]
Yeah, he's great. I think he would do a fantastic job. He grows quickly through our ranks in Salt Lake County as well.
He had experience before coming to us. And generally, I think he'd do a good job.
[Speaker 2]
Okay, okay. So we may go back to. Can I talk about jury selection for a minute?
Yeah, please. Is anybody else aware of the, there's a committee that the Administrative Office of the Courts has put together talking about jury selection. And they're talking seriously about amending and, and in SWOT, I didn't get this on the SWOT, but Jim, but we're gonna, we need to recommend a prosecutor on it.
The former prosecutor who was on this is a judge now. And he reached out to me. But they are seriously considering some different ideas because they are concerned about the implicit bias that comes into play for your last few striking your, your non-cause, I'm blanking.
[Speaker 4]
Perpetrators.
[Speaker 2]
Perpetrators. That, that people are, are discriminating against protected classes unintentionally. They don't have the data to support that.
But you have people bringing bats and challenges, right?
[Speaker 8]
Yeah, I mean, we have a process.
[Speaker 2]
So they're, they're, and I'm, my reaction was the same, right? And that's why he was like, you guys really need to get a prosecutor on this committee. But their concern is that bats and challenges are, the standard is too high because the judge basically has to say, hey, prosecutor, you're being racist.
And judges don't wanna do that. So they're seriously considering lowering the standard for bats and challenges. And, and I, and, and they were like, well, and if we lower that standard, then prosecutors can use this as much as defense attorneys.
I don't know why only defense attorneys do it. I said, well, because defense attorneys are jerks and prosecutors aren't.
[Speaker 8]
But what's their evidence?
[Speaker 2]
They don't have any. Anecdotal.
[Speaker 8]
Yeah.
[Speaker 2]
Imaginary. It, but, but this is something that other states have done. And it's just, and, and he told me that the, the judge from the court of appeals who's driving this is not gonna back off.
[Speaker 2]
Who is the judge?
[Speaker 8]
Who is it?
[Speaker 2]
I, I'm not gonna remember the name. The, the guy that I talked to was a judge from the Salt Lake County DA's office, who's been on the bench about a year. Steve?
Or Stroma? I don't know. He was.
Who is it?
[Speaker 6]
My primary office is now there. I don't know. And.
Is it a court of appeals judge?
[Speaker 2]
So, so the one I was talking to was the prosecutor's spot, and now he's just on there as a district court judge. But it's being, this is being driven by a court of appeals judge. I didn't even write down names as I was talking to him.
Ryan Harris? But, but the other idea that they're kicking around, so Arizona has done away with peremptories, period. That, that's preferable.
That's what I got.
[Speaker 8]
Quite frankly.
[Speaker 2]
That's what I got to add too. But, but I don't want to, I don't want to take, take that position on a heart, but I think that is preferable.
[Speaker 9]
Yes.
[Speaker 2]
To lowering the standard.
[Speaker 9]
So on, on that topic, Margaret has put on the swap agenda an issue she's having in the third district where there, there's a, a district rule that you can only do them by, by wanting by WebEx. And so there is absolutely, and correct me if I'm wrong, no in-person lawdeer on any case.
[Speaker 6]
There isn't. It's a standing rule by Judge Scott, presiding judge. If there is going to be an exception to that, it's her decision and it has to be for exceptional circumstances.
Like I've done it before in one of my cases where the judge wanted an in-person jury selection, prosecution wanted it, defense wanted it, we all stipulated and it still got denied. I think that's where Margaret is too.
[Speaker 9]
Yeah.
[Speaker 6]
I think an ag murder or at least an aggravated felony is, right?
[Speaker 9]
So we're not able to get...
[Speaker 4]
The question is what she talked about, what she said in the materials was a Salt Lake case being tried.
[Speaker 2]
So I'm going to, I'm going to pull us back from that. Cause I didn't mean to steal the media. But as we're talking about training on this, just know that there might be some stuff coming down the pipeline that would, that would change the training, but make it more timely.
[Speaker 7]
Like if this goes even further, I wrote the, I wrote the chapter for DOJ on bats and challenges and stuff. So I'd actually like, let's talk about all that kind of stuff.
[Speaker 1]
Okay. Let's see. Fall, we have, I have reached out, there's a professor from the U, Hawk is her name.
She's an adjunct. She's actually lives in St. George. And we've invited her to come and do a presentation on negotiation skills.
I'm just waiting to hear from her. And then our victim perspective presenter, she's had to withdraw. She's having a baby the week after.
And for some reason, she doesn't want to get on a plane and come out here and speak. So, you know, right. So we've got a couple of spots that we still need to, that we need to shore up for fall conference, but that should be a good one as well.
Marilyn and Karen, did you guys want to talk about UPAA at all?
[Speaker 11]
We've got a couple of things.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah. The conference is not your business yet.
[Speaker 11]
Yeah. Not yet.
[Speaker 1]
It's in June. We're just, we're just on the training committee agenda still. So your conference in June.
[Speaker 3]
It's in June in Canada. Yay. Go Canada.
As you know, our, our conference is one of the largest of UPCs. And so it was, it's been a challenge to get a hundred people. And so I've contracted with four different hotels to try and get people.
You just signed a thing on that. Yeah. But we're, we're going to be down there.
Agenda looks really good. Do you want to tell them what's?
[Speaker 10]
Um, we're going to have, what is she?
[Speaker 3]
Catherine Allen Weber. She's, she will be like the wellness. She's going to come and talk about creating um, wellness in your, in your office, um, how to avoid anxiety or what brings on anxiety talking about, you know, the, the ugliness, you know, that can come into the offices and how we deal with that, how you can deal with that.
So that's, that's what she's going to be talking about.
[Speaker 5]
We've got, uh, the Mueller Park case study we're going to do happened in Honolulu. I think it was like an Uber or they met on Tinder. I think they attacked somebody at the park there.
So we're going to have case study on that. We're going to have, um, somebody from Prevo come talk about gender introduction to generative AI. So just do like an intro to AI and teach you how to use it, sign up for an account, kind of walk you through the do's and don'ts, that kind of stuff.
[Speaker 11]
We'll have.
[Speaker 1]
Sorry on that to take really good notes because, you know, as prosecutors, you know, on our feedback, they're wanting AI.
[Speaker 5]
And so it's, he's our, um, IS, uh, director, division director. Um, they do courses for Prevo city employees at the end, but he's just going to, and he said he's done it for BYD students and he's just going to come do it for us at UTAA. So he's got an open plan to come do it for you guys.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I mean, we, we all know that you shouldn't use AI to write your Yeah. But I mean, you know, it is, that's another thing that we see a lot of requests on is, and even more is on AI.
So I'll just be curious to see how that presentation goes.
[Speaker 3]
We'll also have a presentation on the Venezuelan game task force and then Heisen and Trent will be coming down again.
[Speaker 7]
Yeah, we will.
[Speaker 3]
Yeah.
[Speaker 7]
Who's doing the Trent and Dare presentation?
[Speaker 3]
On who?
[Speaker 7]
Who's doing the one on the Venezuelan game?
[Speaker 3]
His name is Nathan. He is special agent, Homeland Security Investigations. So we're looking forward to that.
And we'll let people go on Thursday and have the day to go. Hi, I can see you. And Jeff will be opening them.
We'll be welcoming everyone.
[Speaker 1]
Are you aware of like any new caterers that are cropping up in Canaba? I would check out Brown Box. Brown Box.
[Speaker 3]
Do Box?
[Speaker 1]
Brown Box. The reason I ask is a couple of times we've been down there, Day's Market's kind of been the only, Honey's, yeah.
[Speaker 11]
Honey's.
[Speaker 1]
Honey's, sorry, yeah. And because we're being recorded, that's all I'll say. Is Houston's not doing anything?
They do. Houston's.
[Speaker 2]
Houston's is great. They do a bunch of forest fire, wildland fire catering stuff too.
[Speaker 3]
Okay.
[Speaker 1]
Oh, and speaking of catering is, so the joke has always been for Spring Conference, really we're having chicken fajitas again. Again, for those that are new is, we had chicken fajitas two years in a row and we seriously got people complaining on our evaluations that we were serving chicken fajitas again, despite the fact that you eat turkey, you know, once a year at Thanksgiving and other things.
[Speaker 8]
Well, you're getting chicken fajitas. Once a year. You're eating chicken fajitas again.
Yeah, well. One of you guys just own it. Just own it.
[Speaker 11]
Oh, we do.
[Speaker 4]
Yeah.
[Speaker 1]
It's just funny. The reason I bring it up is catering costs had just skyrocketed just like everything else is. Marilyn did a good job.
The only thing that was going to fit into our budget was a bean and cheese enchilada bar. And we said no. And so she was able to work with the Provo Marriott to get them to provide a chicken fajita bar for us.
So kudos to Marilyn. I like your chicken fajitas, Bob. I do, too.
They're good. I do, too.
[Speaker 7]
Is it both days?
[Speaker 1]
No, just on Friday. Yeah, when you and Derek will be there. Thursday and Friday, you will have breakfast.
[Speaker 3]
So if you want a hot breakfast, we will be serving an all-American breakfast.
[Speaker 7]
Yeah. I mean, you bring up the budget issue. Does it make sense to increase the cost for the training so that you guys can cut?
I mean, I'm just throwing that out there.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, no. We have to stay within state per diem is what it is. Yeah.
04-16-2025-CouncilAudio3
[Speaker 6]
...separated prices out in regions and areas, probably was a little higher, but even if it was lower, we'd still get the government rate. But, now that they've raised it, they'll get $2 more per person.
[Speaker 2]
Prosecutor? Yeah, Ron?
[Speaker 1]
Alright, we're rolling out e-filing, but it's a struggle. The courts just keep taking forever to just simply turn on the feature. They have to turn it on.
Every time we say we're going to e-file in this place or this place, it takes them two to three weeks to get it turned on. I don't understand how, what it is, but then we e-file, then Wachash County, I've got, Washington City's been doing it for a while, successfully, no problem. Wachash County, I've got started on starting, and then we had problems.
They were, the courts were given, signing it to Washington City instead of Wachash County. And so, we're trying to fix that. As soon as we get a few more worked out, the next we want to do, we're going to get Provo City, and Ed, you want your folks to get on?
Sure. So, we'll do those, and then probably we'll go to a couple of counties after that, probably Iron or King County, depending on if they're ready to try it out. It works pretty slick once the courts fix their end.
We had to do a couple of fixes on our end because the judges were coming over and pulling the wrong, if the judge's name was the same as a defendant's name, it's sometimes pull the wrong person's name and get the defendant as a judge, but anyway, we fixed that. So, it's going pretty smoothly, it's just the courts are proving to be difficult to work with to get them to do anything. They evidently have one person, we had to wait two weeks to get something done because there's one person was on vacation.
So, sorry, I don't mean to sound negative, but it's going slower than I expected, but it is ready. We're trying to roll it out as quickly as we can. We're just waiting for the courts to turn things on for, to be able to e-file from.
The problem is they don't accept General Technology as an e-filing provider until they turn it on at each court. Every single court has to be turned on, I don't understand what's involved in that. I don't know what's on their end, but so once we get that figured out, we may be able to go a little faster.
So, I'm going to start preemptively saying, okay, we want these four, we want these district courts, these justice courts turned on now, so when I get you started, do the training for you, they're already ready to go. So, that's what I'm going to start doing. I didn't think it'd be such a big deal, but we will be rolling out as quickly as I can get it done because it's pretty, pretty cool.
You can file an information, you can file a case on a citation that's been filed in court and the system knows to give them the information and you already have the case number, and if you don't, it gives you the court case number and assigns the judge automatically. And you can then file additional documents, motions, orders, affidavits, whatever you subpoena, summonses, whatever you need to file with the courts. It allows all of that.
And so, yeah, just a matter of working through a few bugs, interaction with the courts mostly, and once you do that, we'll get everybody going on it. So, it's just a matter of rolling it out. It's a lot easier, you just click on a thing, you click the drop-down list, you select your documents, click file, and it's done.
Nice. So, it's a lot nicer. So, we're moving that out.
Also, we're working on some grant issues. I guess we have to pay from the grant based on the grant cycle. We were doing it based on January through December, and that the grant cycle is, what, October through September.
So, we're trying to get that fixed out. General technology is a little slow at working through that. Do we have anything update on that?
[Speaker 2]
No. No, it's good. Yeah, and I'll follow up as soon as we're almost done.
[Speaker 1]
Okay, anyway, so we're just twitching that out. So, we'll be doing grant cycle, I mean payment, you know, cycles a little bit differently. If we have to add users, it'll be in October instead of January type of a thing, but right now we have plenty of user licenses available for everybody that's on board.
[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so we did get a grant, and by the way, Brooke has reached out from your office, and so we're, Ron's talking with her to answer.
[Speaker 3]
Yeah, we've already talked to the JTI representative.
[Speaker 2]
Oh, you actually got a hold of someone. Yeah. Congratulations.
[Speaker 3]
Well, that's because it's probably more business, so of course he wants to get a hold of us. So, we're hoping to have a presentation. Our concern, I mean, if there are e-filing problems, that's like a no-go for us.
Yeah. We use FileVine, which we have, I mean, it's slick as far as filing is concerned. I'm glad that's worked out for you.
Well, that's the only thing, that's about the only, I mean, we're pretty frustrated with them. I mean, they, for example, they decided to update in the middle of the week and closing down our whole case management system, and we got with them on that, and they're like, well, you're not going to dictate to us how we run our business. It's like, well, okay, well, that's nice to know.
Yeah. So, anyway. But, yeah, I want to talk to Ron afterwards.
See, I know there's a basic package. Right. We're probably going to want something beyond that.
[Speaker 5]
Right, because I think, ours has been up for some time, and it works well. Yeah.
[Speaker 2]
Does it? Okay. And are you going to raise e-filing?
Oh, yeah.
[Speaker 5]
Yeah.
[Speaker 2]
So, that's been the challenge is those that have individually contracted. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[Speaker 1]
Well, the issue is, is just simply making sure that the court that you're e-filing to knows that you're an accepted e-filer. I think once we work through this little issue that we're having right now, it'll go pretty smooth now, as long as the courts don't get stupid again. But when you've got one agency and you turn it on, it just works.
Oh, yeah. But the problem is, they've got a bunch of different courts, and evidently, they don't have it turned on for all those different courts. And so, anyway, I think that's going to work out pretty quickly once we get that to pass.
[Speaker 3]
Let's chat about it. Yeah, I have one quick question. So, would we have grant funds available, even if we went for, I mean, at least to a certain amount, even if we went for a more specialized product?
[Speaker 2]
No, because you're going to have to contract separately with the journal. Okay. All right.
We'll talk. Yeah.
[Speaker 5]
We can do all of our filing through e-prosecutor as well.
[Speaker 2]
What's that?
[Speaker 5]
We can do all of our filing through e-prosecutor.
[Speaker 2]
Yeah, and Salt Lake's got that different, again, a separate contract. And so, I don't think it's any secret, CCJJ would love to get everybody on the same system. And I think because the majority of the state is using e-prosecutor, that's what they're talking.
But we keep telling them that you're going to have to throw a bunch of money at it, and you're going to have to bring everybody on board. So, I don't know that that's going to happen in our lifetime. Oh, I think it's possible.
You think so?
[Speaker 4]
Yeah, we have a couple of legislators that are, Wilcox in particular, and who's in me that really want that data.
[Speaker 3]
Yeah, I think the data after the system. I mean, from my perspective, if they really want it, and we want more, they ought to at least allow us to have some, you know, that basic grant fund.
[Speaker 2]
I'm not sure that's them. I'm not sure that's the legislators. No, that's not the legislators.
That's just so we – and that's something, Jeff, that I guess maybe we could talk about is how we can – see, I'm not a contracts guy, and I don't pretend to be. I'd have to have somebody smarter than me work with me with journal that somehow that the contract either would allow that, or the payment could come. Because as CJJs, not that the sky's the limit on grant funding, but they're always saying, why don't you ask for more?
And so it may just be that we need to sit down, you know, outside of this meeting and figure out how we can do that.
[Speaker 5]
But our cost to e-prosecutor is really similar to what we were paying before for JustWare. And so the cost was the $200,000 we spent for the transition, but that was a one-time cost that I was able to go get, because we had to because our old system was going away. And e-prosecutor is fine.
Like, it's doing the job, and we refused to go live on it until the e-filing worked for us. And so we just don't have any more to do that.
[Speaker 4]
Can I ask a question? So we have some new statutes that are going to require different data to be pumped to CCJJ. Is there a conversation going yet, Ron, about how to pull that information from the prosecutor's office?
[Speaker 1]
I have no idea what it is. Once I know what those bills require, I'm going to have to look at are we collecting that or not. And if we're collecting it, we can certainly report it.
I'm already reporting a ton of data to CCJJ every quarter.
[Speaker 2]
And Ron and I have talked about, you know, because, again, I don't know the specifics, but just some of the general ideas. And some of those are either radio buttons that need to be turned on or that just can be generated. And so e-prosecutor can create the data entry points, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's going to come back on the offices that they're going to have to take the time to do that data entry.
[Speaker 4]
Absolutely, but we'd like to make it as painless as possible. Sure, sure.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I mean, if we can make it, we can make things required, and they can't save a case unless they enter a certain data, and if that's what we have to do. We try not to do that more, and we absolutely have to, because it's a burden on the offices to have to enter in data that they're not going to use.
[Speaker 4]
How can I help facilitate that? Do you want to just send an e-mail with a list of them? Yeah, that's, yeah.
[Speaker 1]
Maybe the statutes, and we can look at them and see what data they're going to ask for, because, I mean, there is... How much money do they need to charge extra to get that data to them?
[Speaker 7]
Okay.
[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but if you get that, you know, if there's a list of what they're going to ask for. Okay. So what Ron was saying is, and this doesn't affect any of y'all in here, but just so you know is, we're switching over yet again.
We're going to go the billing cycle from general technologies to the federal fiscal year, because we're having issues with our finance office. Can I, because the fiscal year and the calendar year were overlapping, and you know how funds are available and whatnot, so we're just trying to eliminate that hassle. So we'll all be on a federal fiscal year in terms of...
[Speaker 1]
Actually, that probably won't affect users at all. No.
[Speaker 2]
It's just something that we have to deal with. And frankly, I would love it if the legislature would take over e-prosecutor. I mean, you know, that's a big portion of what Ron does, but I don't hate managing it.
[Speaker 5]
How many, what percentage of offices are on e-prosecutor?
[Speaker 1]
I don't know percentage, but we have 45 agencies using e-prosecutor under UDC.
[Speaker 2]
But that doesn't include the big ones. Salt Lake has their own contract, Washington, Davis. Correct.
David, David Cole, you guys are on e-prosecutor, but your own contract? We should already be doing that, yes. Yes, we are.
Yeah, okay. Weber, I think, is on their own, Cash, so... And so you're not gathering the data for those big ones?
[Speaker 3]
No, no. To report? We're only getting the one system.
[Speaker 5]
So it wouldn't, if there were one system, which means the majority of the data wouldn't be, if you're not sending me, is it V.R.? Because that's your biggest, I mean, those are your biggest counties.
[Speaker 1]
Right. The other counties that are on e-prosecutor can report, I mean, it's the same system in the background, it's just configured a little differently. And there may be different fields, there's some things that we could put in that aren't in our system because we didn't need it or want it, but there's a lot of stuff in the background, the database behind it is the same for everybody.
So, I mean, we could make it exactly, we could make it the same data elements for everybody that's using it across the state, just have to know what those are and decide to do it.
[Speaker 2]
I mean, and that's the added service that we provide, is that Ron runs those reports, whereas all of you have to run them yourselves, so...
[Speaker 5]
Is our version of e-prosecutor the same as their version of e-prosecutor? Or do we even know?
[Speaker 1]
The back end is exactly the same. We've added a couple of additional fields for our configuration, but, yeah, it's easy to make them all, and if everybody was using, if for some reason everybody got on e-prosecutor and was using the same version, it could be, and everybody could have, you could actually have different screens for different people if you wanted to, so the way it looks could be adjusted, but...
[Speaker 3]
But they're gathering the same information?
[Speaker 1]
You can gather, it basically has the same information available to gather, whether everybody's inputting all that information. For example, profile information on a defendant for gender, ethnicity, married or not, you know, social security numbers, height, weight, all that's available, but most people aren't entering it in.
[Speaker 4]
There was also a statute passed this year that mandates that any, I don't remember the terminology, but basically law or criminal justice software system communicate with the state system, so it kind of makes sense, you know, to be on a system that already has that set up.
[Speaker 3]
So how far is my...
[Speaker 4]
Well, I'm not saying, if I file, I probably will because of the AG's on it, so I'm not sure that'd be a problem. AG's on it is a charitable statement.
[Speaker 3]
Did you guys, did the AG's office ever talk to Brooke? I know that you guys were kind of... I don't know, I mean, we have a committee that's working on it.
We've been live...
[Speaker 7]
We've been wanting to talk to her because she...
[Speaker 3]
We've been live on file.
[Speaker 6]
Okay, EPAA.
[Speaker 1]
This is our actual report. Okay. We've made a few changes.
Where do we want to start with? We met in January at our meeting and the board looked through the bylaws and they used some serious updates. The bylaws have never been really changed or anything since probably the inception in 1993.
So we did a lot of updating as you can see in our handouts. And these need to be approved by motion and then Karen needs to sign and so does Erin after the council meeting. But the bylaws are a little more extensive, well they're a lot more extensive.
They explain a lot more and so yeah, we did some updates to the bylaws and it's taken us about three months to do that. The board also decided that the certificates needed a facelift. So there's a copy of the updated facelift thanks to Emma.
Get her to work on that. That was awesome. Along with the board.
And then EPA decided they needed a logo. So we also instituted a logo there. Karen kind of generated that one.
And then we wanted to kind of mirror what the prosecutors are doing in terms of prosecutor of your ward. And the handout that you have, I just have the hard copy so sorry for you guys that are remote. You have in front of you the letter that we would be sending out.
And Karen kind of what's on here came through AI and then we had to like rewrite it. Like Bob says you really can't trust AI. But it gave us some good ideas.
It gave us a starting point. And so it turns out the criteria and everything for UPA of the year, we want to start doing that this year. So we'll send this letter out right after spring conference.
And then instead of them going online like the prosecutors do, our process will just be a little bit different. They'll just email or scan this copy back. And anybody can nominate your assistant.
So an assistant can go to Jeff and say he may not be aware of someone who's doing really good work based on kind of the criteria. So and so is doing a great job and we'd like to nominate her. It'd be nice if it were coming from the boss.
Because from the feedback that we got from last year's conference was there was an overwhelming feeling of not being appreciated from their bosses and attorneys that they were working for. So this is kind of a remedy to that. And then to present the award to them.
So they'll get kind of an award just like the prosecutors do. We'd like to have either their immediate supervisor or their county attorney or city attorney to come and present that to them at the conference in June. So it depends on who is nominated.
We'd like somebody from their office that is meaningful. That would come and recognize that particular nominee for a job well done. So that's we've been busy.
They've been busy. I have a great board. I have to tell you.
These women are amazing who work in your office and do what they do is they're amazing. And everyone on the board is fully contributing and I couldn't do it without them. Anything else Karen?
<[Speaker 3]
So when the nominations come out I just encourage you all as the bosses and or talk with your folks that are supervising really encourage them to really think about who in their office they can nominate because so often they do the lion's share of the work at least in the background and don't get a lot of recognition. So this will be a really good opportunity to recognize them.
[Speaker 1]
And to that end I just want to give you a recent example of the board's feedback not that they're not being appreciated but kind of give you an idea of what we go through every day. So the latest incident or development up north with some of the judges or a judge the calls that they get from the public that these women take or your assistants have to listen to of irate upset public who may or may not be informed but yet their only way of trying to be heard but they are the first line of having to listen to that and it's one of our board members said it's in between those calls of trying to reset you know to try and come back to a neutral natural calmness it's really hard to reset with something like that that happens or anything else you know someone who's upset calls your office for some reason it's your secretary it's your paralegals you know whoever is answering the phone they get the brunt of it so that's just part of what they have to deal with.
[Speaker 4]
This nomination it says April 21st so you're going to send this out okay got it I was going to ask for it electronically.
[Speaker 1]
But if you see anything on this letter that you feel you know that you would like edited out or anything you would like to add that's why I passed it out if you can see anything you'd like to add to it or take away I would sure welcome your comments.
[Speaker 6]
Anything else? The bylaws the amended bylaws who needs to move to approve those you guys?
[Speaker 1]
No you do.
[Speaker 6]
Are you ready to do that?
[Speaker 1]
Yeah I think you put them in the packet right? Yes the bylaws are in your packet and in your email as well so yeah we do need a motion on the bylaws and then we can have them signed.
[Speaker 5]
I'll do it. Move to approve the UPAA bylaws amended bylaws as attached to the packet.
[Speaker 6]
I'll second. In favor? Aye.
Opposed? None.
[Speaker 3]
Prosecutor Nier? Yeah so Chad Grunander out of Utah County was selected Jeff is going to on Friday during our luncheon we'll have just a few words to say about Chad I'll read the nomination well deserved just for this group is I've got to do a better job at maybe explaining what it is that we're looking for in terms of nominations because we got several but some of them were like three sentences or one was this person got fired because President Trump got elected I can't remember exactly what it said but that was kind of the gist of it you know that really doesn't tell us a whole lot so we've got to do a better job at getting that out as I said we only got one misdemeanor prosecutor that was nominated and so we need to do a better job as city folks you know getting our misdemeanor prosecutors nominated you know I put on there do we need to have a misdemeanor and a felony prosecutor of the year and when we only got one nomination I would say no because the person nominated was great but again we would have had to have asked for more in terms of a nomination
[Speaker 2]
I'm going to voice on that again I mean we had that discussion last year and I'm in favor of separating them and the reason I mean Chad Grunander he just finished a aggravated murder case and well deserving and now he's on another aggravated capital case and it's hard for prosecutors misdemeanor prosecutors to compete with some of those high profile cases and quite frankly you're probably getting less nominations for misdemeanor prosecutors because they're like how are they going to compete with this or that I don't know what the history is of misdemeanor prosecutors winning the award
[Speaker 3]
this is just our third year so
[Speaker 2]
my guess is that you're going to struggle and I was over the attorney general's quarterly awards and annual award program for a decade and separating these different divisions is you're going to have more recognition and I don't know I just think the misdemeanor prosecutors you're going to have few nominations and few even fewer winners because people look at the high profile stuff and that's what they look at so that's my two gets.
[Speaker 4]
I'm all for more awards and more categories I'm a recognition guy I like that kind of stuff so that would be I would agree with Chad.
[Speaker 5]
Here's one of the challenges with that is and I don't have any problem if we do a misdemeanor award that's no big deal but we got like six nominations total. Bob said we only got one misdemeanor nomination but we only got four or five felony nominations as well and so it's like people aren't it's hard for us to recognize if you and your offices aren't recognizing the good work that people are doing. I'm trying to change that culture.
[Speaker 2]
And again that takes effort with those that I mean again for a decade we have a very robust one at the agency office. Internal one absolutely. You have to go to those division directors and express how important it is you need to go to the agencies and express how important it is and follow through you know follow up with them and say you know because they all ought to be nominating at least one person every year from every agency quite frankly which makes a lot of work for the committee the more that you get but anyway it's doable and it happens so it's just a matter of effort to get folks to actually look this is important if you care about your employees you know I mean it comes down to whether or not you care about your employees and value them and you need to I know that we're busy but you need to put in that effort.
[Speaker 4]
You could do a kind of a big county prosecutor or a small county prosecutor or you know city attorney you know I mean like what I will say is you're going to see a lot more nominations from the AG's office you know because like now that I'm in charge I'm going to flood the zone but I mean I think it would be great you know like this is a thing that kind of matters you know and so I think we should be putting a little bit more time and effort into it.
[Speaker 5]
And I agree with all that but that's going to have to come from you all. Absolutely Bob can't go around all these offices and say I need you to nominate your prosecutor I need you to nominate I need you I need you.
[Speaker 2]
I mean I'll tell you I was in charge of it for 10 years you do have to do this.
[Speaker 5]
Well you were in charge of it at the AG's office not with 150 different prosecution agencies.
[Speaker 2]
True but I mean you've got an email list and it's a matter of some follow up.
[Speaker 3]
And I can certainly do a better job of that.
[Speaker 2]
But it takes that and I mean you do have the apathy I mean it takes time but in the end it's very valuable and I mean we are now doing the same thing that we did in the AG's office in the county attorney's office and it means something to employees it means something for them to be recognized.
[Speaker 4]
Honestly law enforcement is way better at this than we are you know I mean like I have five sheriff stars from UPD and got zero recognition from the U.S. attorney's office right so like I mean I think this is a thing that we should be a little bit more.
[Speaker 5]
It just makes it hard so if somebody reviewed all those people to pick from.
04-16-2025-CouncilAudio5
[Speaker 1]
Be careful. We'll start some healthy trash talk among the counties. Because these aren't, Jeff, you're exactly right.
These are important and it should be a big deal and Bob's tried to make it a big deal. He presents in the spring conference, he buys the award.
[Speaker 2]
Well, I wrote the entire section, but two out of the last three years.
[Speaker 3]
So, can we raise that issue? Because we got the other issue, and we can push this in our offices, but what about a rural office that's got two or three prosecutors, right? Like, who's gonna go around and be saying, hey, the Garfield County attorney had a heck of a case this year.
He's never gonna nominate himself. And that's a matter of checking with people that are not a part of the system to find a way to...
[Speaker 4]
Well, so my answer to that is, it kind of goes with UPAA, is you as bosses need to be nominating, you know, your support staff for that. Whereas, we probably can make a better effort, support staff can nominate their bosses or the attorneys on their own. We didn't get one this year from a support staff, did we?
Your support staff knows what the prosecutors are going through.
[Speaker 2]
And quite frankly, it doesn't... The nomination doesn't have to come from that office.
[Speaker 6]
Nope, no.
[Speaker 2]
So, if the AG's office is aware...
[Speaker 6]
If the AG's office can get more aware of everything that's going around on the state, I'm happy to put together kind of nominations for some of the rural counties. I just don't know how I get the information. Do you know what I mean?
So, like, and part of that's just communication, and we can... I can figure out a way to fix that.
[Speaker 1]
And it's important for everybody to know, as somebody who's on the committee, we're not just looking for some big popular case that was in the news. Yeah, yeah.
[Speaker 6]
Right?
[Speaker 1]
Body of work is also... Exactly. There's a lot of things that our committee would review that might trump one big giant case that was in the news for four years, right?
Like, there's a lot of good work our prosecutors do that don't involve just high-profile cases. And so, I... Community...
You know, we've talked about it. We wish more people... We went to our OOPA conference last year and begged a group of misdemeanor prosecutors to nominate people, and we got one.
[Speaker 2]
And I have three sentences. You should fill out the name to make a nomination every year, but the greater the participation, the better the program. Yep.
[Speaker 4]
Well, and I'm hoping that as years go by and people realize, you know, that it really is, you know, a big deal. We'll get more and more. But, Ed, you had a comment.
[Speaker 5]
A couple things. One, I'm sort of the exact opposite of you. I like awards, but I don't like giving awards for the sake of just doing it.
And the other thing, that every year when I get Bob's email, it's like, oh shoot, at spring conference I thought about this, and I haven't thought about it since. And kind of what you were saying. If we could keep that in the front of people's minds...
Do a better job of that. But I'm not quite sure how to do that.
[Speaker 2]
Even if it's an automatic email that comes, you know, like once a quarter or something to remind people of the deadlines and so forth, and please, you know, and make the process easy. We created the AG's office, whether we're still doing it or not, but it's a PDF fill-in form, and they complete that, and then it goes into what they call a portfolio, so it's really easy to read and go through. But the more you can automate it, that kind of thing, that's very, very helpful.
And I'd be willing to help you folks in doing that.
[Speaker 5]
You know, as far as the misdemeanor prosecutors go, I've reviewed these applications, you know, been around a little while, but I remember when Tyson was a prosecutor, I would have nominated him pretty much every year. I would have had a list of, you know, a bunch of things that he'd done. He was a boss.
[Speaker 1]
He was an avid steward. Just go read the performance evaluations he gave you and then just disregard what he said.
[Speaker 5]
But, you know, I think what Tyson does, what other misdemeanor prosecutors do, within their own sphere, equally, you know, can be compared equally to any other prosecutor.
[Speaker 2]
Well, absolutely, it's just as important. I'm telling you, the high-profile stuff tends to be noticed, and you're gonna, I mean, I think misdemeanor prosecutors ought to be recognized on an annual basis. So, anyway.
[Speaker 4]
So, the takeaway from this is, I don't think we need to make a decision right now. Is I can do a better job of getting the word out. We can talk, you know, to the OOMPA people, and then maybe in January, at our council meeting, we can, I like that idea, you know, sending out a reminder quarterly.
Just start keeping track of what folks are doing. Send it to the UPA list servant. So, maybe, you know, if that's something you guys can talk about at UPA in June, is, you know, for those in smaller offices, like, you know, Eric was pointing out, as support staff, we really want to recognize, you know, everybody.
So, I think we can do a better job than we would in January. We can decide, are we going to, you know, go for that route, do the misdemeanor, as opposed to just the generic prosecutor of the year.
[Speaker 9]
I mean, you could do a category with juvenile and misdemeanor, because juvenile attorneys get pretty much ignored as well.
[Speaker 5]
I guess, I don't like the tiered idea, saying, okay, we've got the big guys over here with the felonies, and then we've got another award for little guys, which are misdemeanors.
[Speaker 6]
It's not another, I mean, they're both getting, you don't have to say misdemeanor prosecutor, you can say prosecutor of the year, and, you know, it's misdemeanor, you know, like, you have two awards, two prosecutors of the year, and you just don't call it.
[Speaker 4]
And we actually talked about that last year, is, you know, we can have more than one, it's just this year, with the way that nominations came in, we didn't feel like we could choose more than one, but this is something that we can fine-tune.
[Speaker 8]
Maybe it's a years of experience, maybe it's one for someone with less than 20 years of experience, one for someone with more than 20 years, maybe you're finding out a way to differentiate what's not.
[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I mean, I just know, like, for example, we had employee and then attorney of the year at the AG's office. On the employee side, it is basically staff, so, which included investigators, your paralegals, your legal assistants. The investigators tended to dominate that, because they were working all these great cases, you know, and save, you know, the state all this money, or whatever, so you just run into that, and so I think those should be recognized as of the year, it's just, I think there ought to be different categories.
Okay, next up, resource prosecutor report.
[Speaker 1]
Aside from my report, which is in there, you can read all the statistics, everything. Last quarter, Bob's alluded to this, but we did DUI boot camp, was the first time UPC's ever done that in January, and that was a lot of work to put that together. We had to create a curriculum, we didn't go off of anything, we just kind of came up with what we wanted, and we put it together.
Marilyn and Emma were rock stars, getting everything arranged, and then being there to support. Bob and Trent came and helped present at that. Trent actually stayed the whole time, kind of helped me just be a second eyes and ears at the conference, making sure things went smoothly.
All of our reports are that it was really well received. We had prosecutors there that have been prosecutors more than 15 years saying, I have no idea about any of this, and not like the whole conference, obviously, but some of the aspects talked about, and we're going to change how they went about DUI prosecution because of that. The goal in this, from my perspective, was I wanted to eliminate as many barriers as I could of getting people there, and part of that is cost, right?
And so we were able to go get a grant, and we were able to fund everything for people to attend. They didn't have to pay a registration fee, we got the ones who needed to travel, we paid all their per diem, we were able to pay for their hotels, everything. And so we wanted to make it, for offices, the only thing you have to do is let us use somebody, put a warm butt in the seat for us, and it's not going to cost your offices anything.
And we were able to do that, and I think it was really, really successful. Candidly, it's probably not something I'm going to try and push that we do every single year, but maybe every other year, and I think it was really well received, and it's certainly worthwhile on these DUI cases. I know we just came out of a discussion on felony versus misdemeanor, but I often hear when I go around and train officers that I get cross-examined on a DUI case more vigorously than I do on my homicide cases that I've investigated.
And so I will often tell people, if you can prosecute and try a DUI case, you can try anything. There's not a case that is ever going to hit your docket, but if you can successfully try that case with the way that defense attorneys litigate DUIs, you can litigate any type of case, and I believe that. So I think it's certainly worthwhile.
It's something that we'll continue to do. I don't know that we'll continue to be able to make it completely free of charge in the future, but if we can, we will. Any questions on DUI boot camp?
It's probably always going to stay a smaller course. We could have done more this year. It could be bigger than what we had it.
We could cap it at a higher level, but being the first year, we just wanted to fill it out. But we're probably never going to have 100 people there, just with how it's going. Things we're doing now, Trent and I start the regional legislative updates next week, actually.
We kicked that off, so if you have not seen the schedule for that and you want to participate, maybe we'll have Bob send it out to all his contacts. I can post it on the forum. We're in the middle of the master offense table update right now, which is an immense project.
Every single year this year, Trent and Bob have taken some of that burden off of me. I've done that myself every year until this year, when I threw myself on the mercy of the court and said, I can't do this, so if you want it done, you have to tell me. It is a pain in the ask.
And I'm really actually happy that Bob's doing this this year, because he gets to appreciate what I've done for the last nine years, and nobody else besides Ron actually knew any of the process. It is it is a ton of work. I'm talking dozens and dozens of hours of essentially data entry, but we can't really turn it over to just like even a law clerk, because it's charging language.
We have to review the charging language, make sure it's legal and proper, and so it is it's a huge project. But we'll have that done and ready to go by May 7th, when all these bills go into effect. And Ron has a just a metric crap ton, which is a proper term of work to do once we're all done getting that in the prosecutor.
So team effort, but it will be done and ready to roll on May 7th when all that rolls out. Get them to enter people in for e-filing, and then maybe we'll have that conversation.
[Speaker 7]
So we do try to match up with the state's shared master offense table.
[Speaker 1]
In fact, we have to, because if we have something that's a different number than the state's, it will reject it and not let you file. And so it's been a rough process, but I think we're finally to the point where the court's following their own drafting rules on this, but yet to be determined, because I have not got their list this year. So maybe they'll come out and completely change it again, and then we'll have a whole bunch more work on our hands.
But no, things are moving along. We're busy, but that's how we like it to be.
[Speaker 4]
And by the way, Trent is in Provo doing a domestic violence training with Equitas, so he's excused.
[Speaker 5]
Let's take it off the menu item. You wanted to talk about some bar or CLE stuff.
[Speaker 3]
So I am the resident expert on this one because I got roped into signing off on a letter to the legislative session, and I used to move on to CLE for the Supreme Court. So Senator Wyler, as part of his compromising with us on one of his really good ideas, asked the AG's office and the county attorneys from the larger counties to send in a letter to the Supreme Court asking that it require an hour of ethical training specific to prosecutors. Like if you're in a prosecutorial role, you have to have a special hour of ethical training every year on...
I'm gonna read it.
[Speaker 2]
To make sure that we're ethical.
[Speaker 3]
On the duty to seek justice. So the MCLE people got this, and they looked at it, and they called me saying we have serious concerns about starting to require, they've never required specific CLE for a practice area, and they worry that that's a slippery slope. That anybody who's ticked off at their contract attorney could be like, hey I want all contract attorneys to do this.
And so they're not excited to go there.
[Speaker 2]
So, but I also don't want to not, I don't want to like undercut the letter here. So I'm trying to walk this line because I signed the letter, right? But I told the board that I suspected that the ethical CLE, there's the two kinds, the ethics and the professional, whatever, civics and ethics.
[Speaker 5]
Yeah.
[Speaker 2]
I suspect that we get what Weiler wanted us to get.
[Speaker 5]
Yeah, we are. Already. And we told him that.
[Speaker 9]
Yeah.
[Speaker 2]
And so a letter from UPC to the MCLE committee saying we've looked at this and we feel like we are doing this, but we'll make sure to continue to incorporate this into the training that we are statutorily required to provide the prosecutors around the state, would give them cover to not do it.
[Speaker 3]
Yeah.
[Speaker 2]
Yeah.
[Speaker 3]
I just want to say objection, asked and answered, repetitive, like what? Come, hey, Weiler, come to one of our conferences. If you're listening to our recording, come to spring conference and see if it meets it.
I'd be out of a job if they were logical. We'll find you something else. They were awarded.
We'll find you something else, Jeff.
[Speaker 2]
So, so I'm not, I don't want to like, I think that makes sense. I also don't want to undercut a letter that I agreed to sign on to, right? So like, we're just walking that line.
[Speaker 9]
I mean, you guys are already doing it. Right. Just a letter confirming to say we intend to continue.
We made a point to it.
[Speaker 5]
Did they change the language? Yeah, we did. Did they change the language and the requirements?
No. Okay, so that's not changed.
[Speaker 2]
It was a side deal.
[Speaker 5]
So we're still, okay, I just want to make sure that we're in compliance.
[Speaker 2]
Weiler would like them to change the language and the requirements. And I think my impression from them is that if they got something from us saying we're already meeting this, we don't need a specific requirement for it, then they're covered. Then they're, the court doesn't want to look like it's thumbing its nose at the legislature, right?
Like everybody's just trying to navigate all of that.
[Speaker 4]
Can I suggest, it would be nice if they inquired on UPC about that question. In other words, they sent an email to Bob. Are you doing this?
So it doesn't look like we're undercutting. There you go.
[Speaker 9]
Can you respond, yes, and we intend to continue.
[Speaker 2]
Okay, I'm gonna follow up with their staff later this afternoon. I think that's a good idea. So if everybody's okay with that, you'll get something like that that you can respond to.
You'll get a copy of Weiler's letter. Right, right, okay. Okay.
Okay.
[Speaker 1]
Career fairs? I've got, yeah, yeah, thanks. As you can see what I've got in there, I've already, I've been to two.
I've been to one at the Y, I've been down at SLCC just talking about the advantages of working in a prosecutor office. Saturday is when I'm flying to Denver to represent the state. Will Carlson from Salt Lake is coming over.
Somebody from Duchesne County is coming over. Ray and Charles will be there. Yeah, and so we've got students we've sent out to like five or six different law schools all over Colorado, Wyoming, and Arizona.
So hopefully we can generate some interest to come into work for Utah. Unless anybody has any questions, just because we're running out of time. Instead of awards.
Can we, because we may need to excuse, can we go to Nick's meeting and decide on a location? Yep. June, normally we take our meeting off the Los Angeles Front.
Not that we have to, we just have done that. And so in the past year, as you can see, we've been to Colville a couple times. Margaret has hosted us.
We've been up to Morgan County. We even went to Fillmore. This was before my time.
I don't remember going to Fillmore.
[Speaker 5]
We went to Fillmore at the old courthouse. So they, I mean, way back in the day, we sort of went to places that were historical. I don't know why, but we just went to historical courthouse.
Got the history of it.
[Speaker 1]
I know, we've been to Wasatch County. We've been to Box Elder County. I mean, there is money in the budget.
If you all want to travel, we can afford to take the council to wherever you'd want to go. It's just up to you all where you would like to meet. I'm going to Kanab.
[Speaker 6]
I want to go to California. Oh, that's good.
[Speaker 3]
And if we're going out of state, we're not going to California. Yeah, we're not going to California.
[Speaker 10]
I want to see Hawaii. Yeah, let's go to Hawaii.
[Speaker 8]
What about Kanab? I don't feel like it. How about California?
We could probably do Cache County.
[Speaker 1]
Cache County. Cache County?
[Speaker 10]
You know where you went.
[Speaker 8]
In June.
[Speaker 4]
That's great, California. Yeah, Cache is a nice place. Yeah, it's a nice place.
The Bear Lake area? Yeah. Ideal beach in June.
[Speaker 2]
Is there a courthouse in Bear Lake? Rich County has to have something. If you're going to have a hard time, that's their slogan.
Well, that Marriott thing.
[Speaker 1]
That was something. That was something.
[Speaker 6]
Cache County? You want to go to Cache County?
[Speaker 4]
That sounds like doubt in your voice. I know. That was Jeff's.
I was thinking, yeah.
[Speaker 5]
No, is that really your preference? Because that's where I'll start, where you really...
[Speaker 4]
Oh, I was just doing that. I think it'd be great, but...
[Speaker 1]
Although, we'll swap. We'd be meeting at the same time, though. Are any of you guys okay traveling?
Yeah. Yeah. Is there something fun in Kanab?
Right, Eric?
[Speaker 2]
Acting president. Kanab is fun. It's warmer.
I don't think I've ever been to Kanab before. I, if, like, we could do an off-site activity if you wanted to, right? Like, very fun thing to do out in the state.
Who's got the house by the way?
[Speaker 8]
Don't they have a good state? We're all government attorneys. Yeah.
[Speaker 2]
Who's got a good torch? I'll just have the torch.
[Speaker 1]
I'll have the LA. It's getting warm. So, do we have, we're right at 1030.
We still have one more item. So, do we have a nomination? It sounds like it's either Kanab or Cash.
[Speaker 2]
Is Kanab too hot? Thank you.
[Speaker 3]
It's the same as here. It only gets as hot there as it gets hot here in Los Angeles. Wait.
That sounds like Melville. It's the same Melville-ish. It's the same Melville-ish.
I think my brain's been fried, yeah.
[Speaker 2]
I'll show you the time. There's a fun radio podcast.
[Speaker 8]
Good call. Kanab would be my preference, but that's just me.
[Speaker 5]
So, do you want to go on a Friday, Thursday or Friday?
[Speaker 1]
Well, I don't want people to have to travel on the weekend.
[Speaker 5]
Okay. So, Thursday?
[Speaker 1]
Well, if we did a Tuesday, we could travel Monday afternoon. Yeah, we could do that. Have a meeting on Thursday.
Travel home on Friday.
[Speaker 5]
Have the meeting Friday morning?
[Speaker 1]
Not at all.
[Speaker 5]
After the meeting?
[Speaker 1]
I guess it's all up to you guys. I'll do what you want. I'm going to be out of town for the last two weeks of June.
Okay. You can still go home. I can still go home.
[Speaker 3]
If you want to see me host.
[Speaker 10]
I'm also going to be out of town.
[Speaker 1]
Maybe we should pick a date and see where it can be done. Okay. So, I proposed some dates.
Those are just dates that worked well for me to be here. Tuesday the 10th, Monday the 16th, Wednesday the 18th, Monday the 23rd, June 26th, Thursday, 27th Friday, or June 30th Monday. If we go in the first two weeks, Jeff can go.
[Speaker 7]
He can be there to host us. And who buzzed down there?
[Speaker 6]
Yeah, but we're down there on the 11th. So, I mean, we'd already been down there anyway. I mean, we'd already have the convention center.
[Speaker 1]
On the 10th.
[Speaker 6]
Well, I can probably get it a day early.
[Speaker 1]
Monday, June 10th, and travel Sunday night.
[Speaker 4]
Maybe Tuesday.
[Speaker 1]
Oh, Tuesday. Yeah, Tuesday. Travel on Monday.
Or do it later. We could do it later on Tuesday. Yeah, do it later on Tuesday if you want.
Oh, actually, maybe that's a better idea. We did a Tuesday afternoon meeting. Then you can drive down Tuesday and then stay over that night.
[Speaker 2]
And then if people wanted to stay and go to the opening of the assistance. Yeah, yeah.
[Speaker 4]
So, let's say that UPC.
[Speaker 1]
Like 1 o'clock. Let's say 1 o'clock. 1 o'clock on Tuesday, June 10th.
1 to 2.30. And then swap 2.30 to 4.30. Well, you know, we could go earlier, Jeff.
[Speaker 3]
Say 12.30. I think that works well, though, to give people a chance to get down there. Yeah, 1 o'clock. If you start a little bit later, people can travel that day and not have to get a hotel room.
[Speaker 2]
I wanted to start meetings at noon because people have to drive to get to them. I know, I know.
[Speaker 1]
Okay, so. Marilyn. So, UPC, Tuesday, June 10th from 1 to 2.30. And then swap from 2.30 to 4.30. Cash.
[Speaker 6]
Okay, so if NAD doesn't work out.
[Speaker 2]
Cash. Yeah. But not, would we do cash that same day?
Could we do it at 4 o'clock?
[Speaker 3]
If it's cash, you probably got to do it a different date, right?
[Speaker 5]
So, I have to make this work. Okay.
[Speaker 4]
Yeah.
[Speaker 3]
Make it so.
[Speaker 4]
Well, if we can't get hotel space, because that is probably going to be the higher season, right? It is. There's a lot of.
[Speaker 6]
But I've got good rates right now.
[Speaker 2]
Yeah. It's early in the season.
[Speaker 5]
It's very early in the season.
[Speaker 7]
Yeah. Okay. There's a lot of hotel rooms.
[Speaker 9]
Yeah, you haven't yelled anybody over hotels. Just go with that.
[Speaker 1]
You run into snags. Yeah. Okay.
We'll do that. Okay, so. Incentive awards.
So, there is a budget, a remaining budget. So, the Attorney General's Office budgets a certain amount in incentive awards for UPC employees. The council could, you know, go above and beyond that.
We've done that in the past, but that's caused some grief. So, I don't know that I'm necessarily suggesting that, but there is a balance of $1,250. That won't cause grief to the Attorney General.
It will or will not? Will not. Okay.
So, if. If I could just.
[Speaker 8]
There's $1,250 for UPC to distribute to its employees. My motion would be, let's turn that money over to Bob and let Bob do as he will. Okay.
[Speaker 9]
Like, as long as it's not like $10,000. Correct. Right.
Right. Okay.
[Speaker 3]
$10,009. Sorry. There are state policies that we have to follow.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah. But, like, I don't. It's not going to cause.
Okay. Yeah, I mean, it wouldn't be excessive. Yeah.
Then, with that, if that's the motion, if that's what you would like, then I can look at the budget and make some recommendations to council.
[Speaker 7]
And we may need to do a, or are you just going to give me carte blanche authority? I need carte blanche if it's $1,250. Okay.
Is there a second?
[Speaker 3]
No, I'll second that.
[Speaker 7]
Okay. That makes it easy. All in favor?
Aye.
[Speaker 4]
Opposed?
[Speaker 7]
Aye.
[Speaker 4]
Is it $1,250 total? Yeah. $1,250 and some more, I think.
I think the AG's doing 1,600, or 1%, right, which is more for some people. This is budget, though.
[Speaker 3]
This is budget.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah, this is just what's budget. Okay. We've already made.
[Speaker 3]
We've already made some. We've made some more.
[Speaker 7]
Yeah, this. Yeah. Yeah.
[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Normally you do it in January, December.
[Speaker 7]
I don't know what our incentive award budget is. I didn't know that. Oh, no.
[Speaker 10]
Anything else?
[Speaker 7]
Okay, no, that's good. I don't even know where it is.
[Speaker 1]
Okay, we have a motion to adjourn. Okay, we'll see you all in June in Kanab. Cross your fingers.
Should I? Oh, yeah, thank you.