(1)After each party has presented a closing argument, the commission shall, at the direction of the chair, begin its deliberations:
(1)(a) immediately after conclusion of the closing arguments; or
(1)(b) at a future meeting of the commission, on a date and time determined by a majority of the members of the commission.
(2)(2)(a) The chair of the commission shall conduct the deliberations.
(2)(b) Upon a motion made by a commission member, the commission may:
(2)(b)(i) exclude commission staff from all or a portion of the deliberations by a majority vote of the commission; or
(2)(b)(ii) close the meeting in accordance with Section 52-4-204.
(3)(3)(a) During deliberations, for each allegation reviewed by the commission, each member shall determine and cast a vote stating:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(1) After each party has presented a closing argument, the commission shall, at the direction of the chair, begin its deliberations:
(1)(a) immediately after conclusion of the closing arguments; or
(1)(b) at a future meeting of the commission, on a date and time determined by a majority of the members of the commission.
(2) (2)(a) The chair of the commission shall conduct the deliberations.
(2)(b) Upon a motion made by a commission member, the commission may:
(2)(b)(i) exclude commission staff from all or a portion of the deliberations by a majority vote of the commission; or
(2)(b)(ii) close the meeting in accordance with Section 52-4-204.
(3) (3)(a) During deliberations, for each allegation reviewed by the commission, each member shall determine and cast a vote stating:
(3)(a)(i) whether the allegation is:
(3)(a)(i)(A) proven by clear and convincing evidence; or
(3)(a)(i)(B) not proven; and
(3)(a)(ii) for each allegation proven, whether the commission would recommend to the appropriate political subdivision governing body to take one or more of the following actions:
(3)(a)(ii)(A) censure;
(3)(a)(ii)(B) in the case of a political subdivision employee, termination;
(3)(a)(ii)(C) in the case of a political subdivision officer, removal from office; or
(3)(a)(ii)(D) any other action or reprimand that the commission determines is appropriate.
(3)(b) (3)(b)(i) A verbal roll call vote shall be taken on each allegation, and each recommended action described in Subsection (3)(a)(ii) on each allegation.
(3)(b)(ii) Each member's vote shall be recorded.
(4) (4)(a) An allegation is not considered to be proven unless six of the seven members of the commission vote that the allegation is proven.
(4)(b) The seven members of the commission described in Subsection (4)(a) refers to the members that actually participate in deciding whether an allegation is proven, including an alternate member described in Subsection 63A-15-201(4)(f)(i)(A) or a temporary member described in Subsection 63A-15-201(4)(f)(i)(B).
(4)(c) An allegation that is not considered to be proven is dismissed.
(4)(d) (4)(d)(i) Before the commission issues its recommendation in accordance with Section 63A-15-704, the commission may, upon a majority vote, reconsider and hold a new vote on an allegation.
(4)(d)(ii) A motion to reconsider a vote may only be made by a member of the commission who voted that the allegation was not proved.
(5) The commission may not find that an allegation is proven if the allegation is based on an act by an individual under the authority of the political subdivision officer or employee, unless the commission finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the political subdivision officer or employee:
(5)(a) encouraged, condoned, or ordered the act;
(5)(b) (5)(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
(5)(b)(ii) failed to take appropriate action to prevent the act;
(5)(c) (5)(c)(i) while the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual was engaging in the act; and
(5)(c)(ii) failed to take appropriate action to stop the act; or
(5)(d) (5)(d)(i) after the individual engaged in the act, knew or should have known that the individual engaged in the act; and
(5)(d)(ii) failed to take appropriate action in response to the act.
(6) The commission may not find that an allegation is proven if the allegation is based on the failure of an individual under the authority of the political subdivision officer or employee to act, unless the commission finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the political subdivision officer or employee:
(6)(a) encouraged, condoned, or ordered the failure to act;
(6)(b) (6)(b)(i) before the individual failed to act, knew or should have known that the individual was likely to fail to act; and
(6)(b)(ii) failed to take appropriate action to prevent the failure to act;
(6)(c) (6)(c)(i) while the individual was failing to act, knew or should have known that the individual was failing to act; and
(6)(c)(ii) failed to take appropriate action to prevent the failure to act; or
(6)(d) (6)(d)(i) after the individual failed to act, knew or should have known that the individual failed to act; and
(6)(d)(ii) failed to take appropriate action in response to the failure to act.
(7) At the conclusion of deliberations, the commission shall prepare the commission's recommendations as provided in Sections 63A-15-704 and 63A-15-705.