Member Boggess moved the board to direct staff and legislators to amend multiple Utah Code provisions to remove categorical exemptions for public schools, libraries, institutions of higher education and public-education employees from statutes addressing materials harmful to minors, and to revise definitions so institutional status or scope of employment could not be asserted as a defense.

"What we're working on here is equality under the law and constitutional fidelity and just basic child protection," Member Boggess said in a lengthy statement arguing the changes would close what he called perceived loopholes that allow institutional actors to avoid criminal liability. He cited court decisions and research during his remarks.

Presiding Member (speaker 1) and other board members raised immediate questions about the motion's citations. Several members said the specific Utah Code sections cited in the motion appeared to have been renumbered during recent recodification. Member Green and Member Boggess said they had checked le.utah.gov and identified a recent bill (transcript references HB21) that may have moved relevant language into different chapter and section numbers.

Member Lear opposed moving forward without legal review. "Has it been reviewed by the AAGs?" Lear asked, and highlighted three concerns: (1) the motion uses criminal statutes that include an element of intent, which the motion text did not expressly address; (2) the motion appears to conflate multiple statutory categories (pornographic material, materials harmful to minors, sensitive materials) that have different legal definitions in Utah law; and (3) the degree of AAG review needed could not be completed in the hours before the next meeting.

Boggess acknowledged he had not consulted AAGs before making the motion and offered to postpone the matter until tomorrow's unfinished business so staff could retrieve updated code lines and obtain legal review. The presiding member called the question on postponement. The board voted to postpone the motion until tomorrow's unfinished business; the tally was 12 in favor, 1 opposed (Member Lear), with two members absent.

Board members recorded that questions remain about the precise statutory citations and the role of intent and differing statutory definitions; they directed staff to retrieve the updated code citations and to ask the AAGs to conduct a focused legal review before the item returns to the board.

The board did not adopt the substantive change at this meeting; the motion will be reconsidered after staff provides verified citations and the AAGs have reviewed the proposed language.