The Utah State Board of Education Law & Licensing Committee on Tuesday declined to immediately repeal the board's rule categorization framework and instead agreed to further consider a replacement package at a special committee meeting after members raised questions about monitoring, appeal routes and whether the proposed oversight subcommittee would have final decision authority.

Chair Tara Carey, who introduced the repeal and replacement package, said the primary driver of the proposed rewrite was the field's inability to sustain the current volume of rules and the board's lack of a clear, centralized mechanism to track corrective action plans and rule compliance. "We pass a rule and say they're gonna follow it... LEAs received this rule, and they know they can't comply because they don't have the funding," Carey said, summarizing staff and field feedback. "My hope here is to get compliance that is required by law with the hope that this will lead to less rules instead of more."

Why it matters: The package would repeal the existing category system that labels rules by monitoring intensity and replace it with a framework that codifies definitions of monitoring, risk assessment, superintendent responsibilities and a new oversight and accountability subcommittee. Proponents say it would make enforcement clearer and provide a single place to track corrective action plans; opponents warned the changes could centralize power, add administrative burden and raise public‑records questions.

Key issues raised in committee

- Basis for categories: Members questioned the empirical basis for category assignments. Chair Carey said staff could not always tie category labels to specific funding or staffing and that the label changes could appear arbitrary; she told the committee the existing system sometimes conveys a message to LEAs that the state will not perform active oversight on some rules.

- Oversight and accountability subcommittee: The draft would create a small subcommittee of board chairs and leadership to receive referrals when staff cannot resolve noncompliance. Several members sought clarity on whether the subcommittee's decisions would be final, how appeals would work and whether referrals would be public; counsel and the sponsor said referrals would be intended as an escalation step and the full board would remain the ultimate decision maker for matters of consequence.

- Data, audit and GRAMA: Chief Audit Executive Debbie Davis cautioned that the state must ensure data reliability before building centralized trackers for corrective action plans. Members debated whether information reported to the state should be GRAMA‑protected (nonpublic) while under investigation and when records would become public.

- Scope, burden and timing: Members said staff already face short deadlines and heavy workloads after legislative sessions. Several asked for a realistic timetable and for changes that do not require onerous new rule checks for every administrative rule; the draft currently includes a target date for designating programs into the new framework on or before 2029‑07‑31.

Committee action and outcome

The committee voted unanimously to move items 1.5 (R277‑111 repeal) and 1.6 (R277‑114 repeal and reenact — response to compliance and related issues) to a special Law & Licensing Committee meeting in October for further refinement, stakeholder outreach and to permit staff to produce a revised draft that addresses the concerns raised in the discussion.

Next steps: Committee sponsors said they will consult audit, LEA counsel and stakeholder groups, refine language about the subcommittee's role, appeal routes and GRAMA protections, and return with amended text and supporting analyses to the special meeting. The committee also directed staff to consider an implementation plan for monitoring and for centralized reporting of corrective action plan status.