The USOE stated at the meeting that the new framework "is merely a framework, with the important and essential details to be added by teachers." Sounds a lot like the official line for Common Core: "They're just standards. Teachers still get to choose curriculum." I suppose that's not surprising, given that the man who's the "architect of Common Core," David Coleman, is also now the president of the College Board.
As for the USOE's assertion that teachers get to fill in the details as they like, it seems to forget that AP teachers have always been in the business of preparing their students to take the AP exam. If something is not emphasized in the framework/syllabus/guidelines they work from, they take a risk by spending time on it - a risk that their students' scores will suffer.
The new History framework has been decried by decorated AP History teacher Larry Krieger (also see here), the Republican National Committee, National Review writer Stanley Kurtz, and education senior fellow of Robert P. George's American Principles Project Jane Robbins. Texas just rejected the framework last week.
To get a feel for the direction of things, take a look at the sample test released by the College Board, as well as the Course and Exam Description. Then you can begin to draw your own conclusions.
There appears to be plenty of cause for concern that the Utah State Office of Education is willing to embrace this changed framework.