Stakeholders tell Utah licensing committee reporting change flooded UPAC with referrals, creating backlog

Cass Harshadt, an attorney who represents educators before the state licensure commission, told the Utah State Board of Education licensing committee that amendments to the reporting rule have broadened what must be referred to the Professional Practices Advisory Commission (UPAC), producing a higher volume of cases and a growing backlog.

"Now every parent complaint, every violation of an educator standard is getting reported to UPAC," Harshadt said, adding that some referrals arise from minor errors such as an accidental checkbox on an application or a single profane remark. Harshadt praised UPAC investigators as "very good" and described the expedited hearing process as effective and faster, but said full investigations are taking too long and can leave educators unemployed while files remain flagged.

Director Rasmussen told the committee staff later supplied preliminary numbers: 133 complaints classified as unsubstantiated parent complaints over the two‑year period staff reviewed. Rasmussen also said overall referrals from local education agencies (LEAs) and the hotline have risen substantially since the reporting criteria changed.

UPAC members and panelists who spoke at the meeting emphasized the observable consequences for educators: a letter of education or a reprimand placed on a teacher’s Cactus file can impede transfers and hiring and, in some cases, create financial and professional hardship. Attorney Izzy Kausanga estimated a multi‑day contested hearing can cost an educator roughly $20,000 in legal fees, depending on complexity and counsel.

Speakers urged targeted changes rather than a wholesale overhaul of the rules. Testimony from current and former UPAC members stressed that the commission’s investigation and expedited hearing procedures generally work but recommended clarifying which cases should be expedited versus fully investigated and improving data collection so the board can evaluate whether longer suspensions are having the intended rehabilitative effect.

The committee paused for a short break to request staff pull referral and classification data and returned with the initial figure staff had on hand. No changes to rules were voted on at the meeting; at the end the committee approved a final procedural motion by unanimous voice vote (the motion text is not specified in the transcript).

The committee asked staff to provide more detailed data about the number and source of referrals and to clarify which referrals originated with parents, LEAs, or the hotline so members can assess whether reporting practices or the rule language should be revised.