Thank God it's Monday. You don't hear that often, but after everything that happened to me last week on the records front, I want a fresh start.

I confess I don't like House Bill 122, though I'm trying to remember the arguments in favor of it. The bill passed the House last week, but it's still just a problem for another day.

Last week, I received word from the Ogden Records Board that it denied my appeal for certain employment records related to former police officer Ken Hammond. Ogden does not subscribe to the State Records Committee appeal system, so The Tribune has to file suit against the city if it wants to pursue this further. My bosses have not given me an indication the newspaper will do that.

The board's denial, a copy of which is attached below, probably ensures the pending criminal and civil court cases against Hammond will be the only vehicles for learning details of his time on the police force.

To ensure I would be beaten down by three levels of government, the feds sought to crush my spirits, too. The Mine Safety and Health Administration sent me a copy of a 2001 report about the Martin County Coal impoundment failure, which was one of my first FOIA requests to Obama Administration. The problem is: I asked for the 2003 report — which the government (now under two presidents) has been withholding from release.

And I'm not the only who had problems last week. Check out this article about meetings in Highland. In my experience, when one member of a governing body complains about transparency issues with the rest of the board, there's some kind of problem.

— NC

OgdenRecordsReviewBoardDecision.pdf

Labels: Crime, FOIA, GRAMA, Legislature, Obama, Open and Public Meetings Act

A media consortium* is asking the Cache County Council to stay where everyone can see them when it appoints a new attorney.

The Herald Journal in Logan says the news outlets are arguing the county attorney is an important enough job that the public deserves to hear next week's deliberations.

The council chairman, meanwhile, has pointed to Utah's open meeting laws, which say meetings may be held in private when discussing the “character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual.”

The article raises an interesting topic. While state and federal laws permits some public business to be done behind closed doors, government agencies aren't necessarily obligated to work that way.

— NC

*Isn't it amazing how using the word "consortium" makes something sound big and impressive.

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act

In the nine months I've been writing for this blog, I've tried to keep the topics relevant to Utahns.

But this story from The Olympian is so outrageous, I couldn't resist sharing. The article recounts how members of the Olympia, Wash., city council were e-mailing each other about business during a public meeting. Effectively, the council was circumventing the public process during a public meeting.

The Olympian obtained the e-mails and reported:

In several e-mails, council members discussed topics that were before the council on the given night. In an exchange on Sept. 23, Kingsbury appeared to try to line up enough votes to release a property from the moratorium on development in Chambers Basin in southeast Olympia.

He wrote to Hyer, "Are you comfortable if I make a motion removing the Kramer property from the moratorium area, and I think I can get (Councilman) Craig (Ottavelli) to second. And, do you support that? We haven't had a chance to talk, but I am ready to do that."

About a minute later, he wrote to Ottavelli: "If I move to remove the Kramer property from the moratorium area, will you second? Or are you on that page. We have at least 4 if you are."

I just hope this is illegal in Utah and I'm not giving public officials any ideas.

— NC

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act

Let's see if I have this correct.

A couple stood up at a public meeting and advocated for something. Then the couple asked the local newspaper not to name them because they did not want to draw attention to the issue?

Then the newspaper complied with the request and granted anonymity to the couple who just influenced public policy?

So much for newspapers being spotlights on public business.

This strange turn of events occurred at a meeting of the Alpine City Council, which considered whether to amend the town's off-road vehicle ordinance. A local couple asked the ordinance be amended to allow their Japanese mini-truck on city streets.

The couple then asked the Provo Daily Herald not to name them, according to the newspaper's article on the meeting.

The city of Alpine, however, had the good sense to keep the public business public. The city's Website has documents online suggesting the couple is Roy and Linda Pehrson. The documents, in the Dec. 16 meeting packet, include the Pehrsons' rationale for seeking the ordinance be amended.

— NC

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah County

I must have big fans on the north end of the Wasatch Front because the Standard-Examiner has weighed upon the survey I discussed yesterday.

In an editorial, the Ogden-based newspaper opines:

In Utah, our government is ailing, and it needs a large dose of integrity....

The editorial recommends following BGA's suggestions for improving government.

— NC

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act, open records

The alternative title of this post is: "Utah: It's just like New York."



The Better Government Association recently released a ranking of how states score in protecting "itself against possible corruption and [making] its processes open and accountable to it citizens." The BGA ranking index considers the state's laws on transparency, keeping public officials accountable and placing limits on items like campaign contributions and gifts to public officials.

To read the entire report, click here then choose your preferred format.

Utah was ranked 36 overall, which tied it with New York. Utah was tied for third in open records laws, but the state's standing deteriorates from there.

The Beehive State was ranked 9th in protecting whistle blowers. Utah is 39th in campaign finance laws. (Insert your "Utah politics needs ethics reform" mantra here.)

Utah is No. 32 in open meetings laws and No. 47 in conflicts of interest laws.

— NC

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act, open records, State Records Committee

UPDATE: On Wednesday, a county official sent me an e-mail with this explanation for the emergency meeting.

Nate; Sorry with the election, I was just now able to look at my email messages. Yes, something unexpected did come up with a deadline of November 5, 2008 to have two resolutions approved and submitted. Thank you.

Onto the original post. — NC


The Daggett County Commission held what it labeled an "emergency meeting" at 9 a.m. today. Was it because a tornado struck? Flaming Gorge Dam burst? The Wyoming National Guard invaded?

No. The best I can infer, an "emergency meeting" was held because somebody realized there is an election on Tuesday. (What is it with Daggett County and elections?)

Daggett County's Web site today listed two notices. One announced the emergency meeting. The other canceled a meeting scheduled for Tuesday "due to Election Day being held at the Courthouse" in Manila.

State law requires government bodies to post notices and agendas at least 24 hours before meeting. I don't know what time the notice for the emergency meeting was posted. The law says the 24-hour rule can be waived if ...

... because of unforeseen circumstances it is necessary for a public body to hold an emergency meeting to consider matters of an emergency or urgent nature ...

Click here for a PDF of the "emergency meeting" agenda. Here's a synopsis: Say Pledge of Allegiance, Approve Open Invoice Report, hear information item, consider two fiscal resolutions, consider the application for one person to the planning and zoning board.

— NC

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act

A columnist for The Capital Times of Wisconsin offers a good set of open-government questions voters can ask candidates this season. The complete column can be found here, but I've pasted a sample below.

Do you favor disclosure of communications between the White House and agencies regarding administrative decision-making and information disclosure?

What are the appropriate limits of executive privilege in the disclosure of information?

Federal law protects only corporate whistle-blowers who reveal financial abuses. Should the law be expanded to protect the rights of private-sector workers who report violations of public health and safety laws?

How can we ensure public access to health and safety information?

At the state and local levels, government still throws up many obstacles. Problems include overcharging for records, delays in responding to open records requests, problems getting police and prosecution information. Legislators provide information about bill drafts to some interest groups while withholding information to other groups or members of the public, and they are
trying to limit access to court records online.

Meanwhile, local officials abuse laws allowing closed meetings, particularly when discussing economic development. Ask your local representatives about policies regarding closed meetings for economic development.

— NC

Labels: Candidates, FOIA, Open and Public Meetings Act, open records

After three years of asking, Tribune polygamy reporter Brooke Adams finally gained access to a meeting of the Safety Net Committee.

This committee is established to "open communication [and] break down barriers" between people living in plural marriages, law enforcement and other concerned parties, according to the Website of the Utah attorney general. That office administers the committee.

Adams writes on her blog:

...I was consistently and firmly told that committee members did not want the media to attend.

I had a problem with that. For one thing, the committee was previously funded by a federal grant: Your tax dollars.

Presumably, the committee will follow other provisions of Utah's open meeting laws, including publishing agendas in advance.

By the way, can you guess what publication Adams used to make her argument to the attorney general's office? Yep, the handbook on open meetings and open records... published by the attorney general's office. A PDF of that handbook is available by clicking here.

— NC

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act, Polygamy

Given all the public vitriol that seems to greet every new bit of news about Real Salt Lake's relationship with Sandy city, I was greatly surprised by something I read in the Deseret News this morning:

"The Sandy City Council, acting both on its own behalf and as a redevelopment agency, signed off on the remaining $10 million in the $45 million public funding package (for Real's new stadium). The meeting was a public hearing, but no residents showed up to comment."

The council's online agenda, which appears to have been posted in accordance with Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act, does show that the council was scheduled to recess in order to convene into a Redevelopment Agency meeting. I had trouble finding a similar agenda for the RDA portion of the meeting, but Sandy spokesman Nick Duerkson told me that the notification was properly made and posted in accordance with the law.

Either way, it wasn't exactly a secret that this was coming up. You'd think that the staunchest critics would be on the ball.

For his part, Duerkson said he wasn't surprised. He said Sandy meets with RSL in a bi-monthly planning meeting -- and usually only a few members of the public bother to show up.

I suppose it's far easier to attack RSL and Sandy on the Internet comment boards and letters pages of the state's daily newspapers than it is to actually show up and try to make a difference. And yes, I'm sure an argument could be made that the council would have signed off on the final piece of this funding package no matter who showed up to complain at the meeting.

But when the public abandons its duty to participate in the process, it allows those in power to say -- and correctly so -- "we didn't hear any complaints."

-- mdl

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act, Sandy, Sports

"It's hard when you've got an audience," says West Jordan mayor Dave Newton.

And that's why Newton is unapologetic for hosting a recent budget meeting in which the public wasn't able to hear city councilors deliberate on the city's budget.

"When we sit up on the dais and we put mikes out there, it becomes a different atmosphere than when we can just chat and go back and forth and be less formal," Newton told The Deseret News.

D-News reporter Amy Choate-Nielsen writes that "the Open and Public Meetings Act doesn't specify that amplification must be used in public meetings in order for city councils to 'conduct their deliberations openly.' "

-mdl

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act, West Jordan