For an official agenda, go here.

STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE MEETING


The State Records Committee will hold a meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 9, in the Courtyard Meeting Room, State Archives Building, 346 S. Rio Grande St. (450 West), Salt Lake City. This is a public meeting, and anyone can attend. Committee business and two hearings are scheduled.

*Introduction of Gary Ott, Elected Official Representative, newly appointed member of the Committee

*First Hearing – Tina Wollenberg vs. Summit County. Ms. Wollenberg is appealing the denial of recorded interviews of her minor children by the Summit County Sheriff’s Office.

*Second Hearing – Marvin Melville vs. Salt Lake City Corporation. Mr. Melville is appealing the denial of a draft of an affidavit.

*Approval of the March 12, 2009, meeting minutes of the State Records Committee
*Approval of General Schedule items
*Appeals received
*Cases in District Court
*Draft of proposal dealing with repeated postponements and rescheduling of hearings – Paul Tonks
*Other Business
*Adjournment – Next meeting scheduled – Thursday, May 14, 2009

Labels: State Records Committee

The State Records Committee on Thursday ordered the University of Utah to say what it paid a women who lost limbs to a flesh-eating bacteria.

In a unanimous vote, the committee said the dollar figure is a public record and must be disclosed. The committee did not address whether other terms of the settlement must be released.

The university can appeal the decision by filing a lawsuit in state court.

Lisa Speckman lost three limbs from a flesh-eating bacteria she contracted while under the care of university-trained medical staff. The Tribune sought terms of the legal settlement between the university and Speckman and her family.

In written denials and at Thursday's hearing, a university attorney argued the settlement, including any money it paid, was a health record protected by federal law. The Speckmans' attorney also wrote the committee, saying disclosing the records would invade the family's privacy.

Speckman's husband, Stephen Speckman, is a former Deseret News reporter who himself used state and federal record laws to pry information from the government.

The Tribune argued money is not a health record. Also, the newspaper wanted the settlement to help report on the larger issue of medical mistakes, the consequences and how to prevent them.

— NC

Labels: GRAMA, State Records Committee

For an official, more complete copy of the agenda, go here.

STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE MEETING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

The State Records Committee will hold a meeting at 9:30 a.m. Thursday, March 12.
The meeting will be held in the Courtyard Meeting Room, State Archives Building, 346 S. Rio Grande St. (450 West), Salt Lake City. This is a public meeting, and anyone can attend. Committee business and one hearing are scheduled.

* First Hearing – Pamela Manson, the Salt Lake Tribune vs. University of Utah. Ms. Monson is appealing the denial of a settlement amount paid by the University of Utah in a malpractice suit to which the university was named a party.

* Approval of the February 12, meeting minutes of the State Records Committee

* Legislative updates-Patricia Smith-Mansfield, Director of Archives

* Appeals received

* Cases in District Court

* Introduction of Gary Ott, Elected Official Representative

* Discussion of Administrative Rules changes

* draft of proposal dealing with repeated postponements and rescheduling hearings

* Other Business

* Adjournment – Next meeting scheduled –Thursday, April 9, 2009

Individuals wishing to comment during the meeting should notify Susan Mumford, Executive Secretary of the State Records Committee, and should be in attendance at the public meeting. The executive secretary will also accept written comments before the meeting but no later than 6 p.m. March 10. Please mail or deliver those comments to:

State Records Committee
Utah State Archives
346 S. Rio Grande
Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Labels: State Records Committee

As a newspaper reporter, Stephen Speckman exposed how government functioned and the mistakes it make.

Now Speckman is asking for the result of one government mistake to remain hidden.

Speckman's attorney has sent a letter asking the State Records Committee to not order the release of a legal settlement between Speckman, his wife and the University of Utah.

Speckman's wife, Lisa Speckman, lost three limbs from a flesh-eating bacteria she contracted while under the care of university-trained medical staff. The university is refusing to disclose what it paid to the Speckmans to settle their lawsuit.

The Tribune has appealed to the records committee and has a hearing before it on March 12. In a letter to the committee, a copy of which is attached below, the Speckmans' attorney has claimed disclosing the money paid and other terms will invade the couple's privacy. The Tribune has argued the law requires government to disclose the public money it spends.

Stephen Speckman was a respected military reporter for Deseret News. He left the newspaper earlier this year.

On online search for Stephen Speckman's articles reveals he made regular use of the Freedom of Information Act and the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act.

— NC


Speckman1.pdfSpeckman2.pdf

Labels: GRAMA, State Records Committee

After months of confusion, The Spanish Fork News will receive the two police initial contact reports it sought.

The State Records Committee ruled unanimously in favor of reporter Hilarie Orman and directed the Utah County Sheriff's Office to provide the reports it has been denying her for months.

Confusion replaced drama at today's hearing. A representative from the Utah County Attorney's Office actually agreed with Orman that the documents she sought were public. The attorney said her office did not understand what Orman was seeking. The office, and apparently the county commission, too, thought Orman wanted other related documents and not an initial contact report.

Initial contact reports are public under state law. I listened to this morning's hearing and the back and forth discussions over how the two sides got confused, but I still don't understand what the problem was.

Maybe Orman could have been more clear. Also, maybe Utah County could have been more open with its documentation in order to let Orman take what she wanted.

It's also still apparent to me Utah County was placing the burden on Orman to show why the record should be released. That is not how the law works. The burden is on government to show why the record should not be disclosed.

— NC

Labels: Crime, State Records Committee, Utah County

For the full meeting notice, go here.

STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE MEETING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

The State Records Committee will hold a meeting on 9:30 a.m. Thursday, February 12 in the Courtyard Meeting Room, State Archives Building, 346 South Rio Grande Street (450 West), Salt Lake City. This is a public meeting. Committee business and three hearings are scheduled.

*First Hearing – Tina Wollenberger vs. Summit County. Ms. Wollenberger is appealing the denial of copies of a video taped interview of her minor son by the Summit County Sheriff’s Office.

*Second Hearing – Hilarie Orman, Spanish Fork News vs. Utah County. Ms. Orman is appealing the denial of incident reports from the Utah County Sheriff’s Office.


*Approval of the January 8, 2009, meeting minutes of the State Records Committee

*Introduction of Scott Daniels, Citizen Representative

*Approval of Retention Schedule Items

*Discussion of Administrative Rules changes

*Annual Report for 2008

*Other Business

*Adjournment – Next meeting scheduled – Thursday, March 12, 2009

Individuals wishing to comment during the meeting should notify Susan Mumford, Executive Secretary of the State Records Committee, and should be in attendance at the public meeting. The executive secretary will also accept written comments before the meeting but no later than February 9, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. Please mail or deliver those comments to:

State Records Committee
Utah State Archives
346 S. Rio Grande
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Labels: Crime, State Records Committee, Utah County

Even though it doesn't have to, Utah County will allow Hilarie Orman to appeal to the State Records Committee.

Orman, of the Spanish Fork News, has been trying to obtain two police reports from the Utah County Sheriff's Office. The sheriff's office denied her request and then the Utah County Commission denied her appeal.

Orman thought she would be allowed to appeal both denials to the State Records Committee. But the secretary for the committee told Orman that Utah County had "opted out" of the state process — an option available to counties and municipalities in Utah if they formulate their own records process.

Then Utah County talked to the secretary and said, no, its procedures are to allow appeals to the state. It turns out the county just hadn't updated its ordinances.

If you're head is spinning, so was Orman's. But the bottom line is: She has another shot at the two police reports.

No agenda has been set yet, but the committee's next meeting is Feb. 12.

— NC

Labels: State Records Committee, Utah County

The Utah Attorney General's Office is on a cold streak when it comes to records.

First the Utah Supreme Court ruled against the AG when it tried to keep secret records dealing with wilderness rights of way over public lands.

Then on Thursday the State Records Committee said the AG must release communications between the criminal appeals division and attorneys representing the Utah Division of Finance. Click here for an article about the decision.

The technical aspects of Thursday's case dealt with whether discussions among the lawyers constituted attorney-client privilege. The heart of the matter is public defenders want to know what the AG's office said about paying lawyers who defend appealing convicts.

But the latter case may not be over. The AG has the option of filing a lawsuit in state district court challenging the records committee decision.


— NC

Labels: State Records Committee

To read the complete notice and agenda for this meeting, click here.

The State Records Committee will hold a meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, Jan. 8.

The meeting will be held in the Courtyard Meeting Room, State Archives Building, 346 S. Rio Grande Street (450 West) in Salt Lake City

Committee business and one hearing are scheduled.

– Utah Federal Defender Office vs. Utah Attorney General’s Office, Capital Habeas Unit. The Federal Defender Office is appealing the denial of communications between the Utah Division of Finance and the Utah Attorney General’s Office, Division of Criminal Appeals. This hearing has been continued from the Dec. 11 meeting to allow the committee members to review a complete set of documents requested by the committee from the Office of the Attorney General.

—Approval of the December 11, 2008, meeting minutes of the State Records Committee
—Appeals received: A summary of cases reviewed for hearings
—Cases in District Court
—Citizen representative update
—Approval of Retention Schedule Item
—Other Business

Adjournment – Next meeting scheduled – Thursday, Feb. 12.

Individuals wishing to comment during the meeting should notify Susan Mumford, Executive Secretary of the State Records Committee, and should be in attendance at the public meeting. The executive secretary will also accept written comments before the meeting but no later than 6 p.m. Jan. 6. Please mail or deliver those comments to:

State Records Committee
Utah State Archives
346 S. Rio Grande
Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Labels: State Records Committee

The State Records Committee meets 9 a.m. Dec. 11. For a complete agenda, click here.

Here's a synopsis with instructions on how to attend or submit written comment.

— NC

The meeting will be held 9 a.m. in the Courtyard Meeting Room, the Archives Building, 346 S. Rio Grande St. (450 West), Salt Lake City, Utah, This is a public meeting, and anyone can attend.

* 9:00 a.m. – Hearing – Utah Federal Defender Office vs. Utah Attorney General’s Office, Capital Habeas Unit. The Federal Defender Office is appealing the denial of communications between the Utah Division of Finance and the Utah Attorney General’s Office, Division of Criminal Appeals.

* Training for State Records Committee members: 11:15 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

* Approval of the November 13, 2008, meeting minutes of the State Records Committee

* Appeals received: A summary of cases reviewed for hearings

* Cases in District Court

* Citizen representative update

* Approval of Retention Schedule Items

* Other Business

* Adjournment – Next meeting scheduled – Jan. 8.

Individuals wishing to comment during the meeting should notify Susan Mumford, Executive Secretary of the State Records Committee, and should be in attendance at the public meeting. The executive secretary will also accept written comments before the meeting but no later than 6 p.m. Dec. 9. Please mail or deliver those comments to:

State Records Committee
Utah State Archives
346 S. Rio Grande
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

NOTICE OF POSSIBLE ELECTRONIC OR TELEPHONIC PARTICIPATION
One or more members of the State Records Committee may participate electronically or telephonically pursuant to UCA 52-4-7.8.

NOTICE OF SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify Susan Mumford at the Utah State Archives: 801-531-3861.

Labels: State Records Committee

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

For the complete notice and agenda, click here.

The State Records Committee will hold a meeting on Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008. The meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtyard Meeting Room, the Archives Building, 346 South Rio Grande St. (450 West), Salt Lake City. This is a public meeting, and anyone can attend. Committee business and one hearing are scheduled.

Hearing – Keith Sobraske, Investigative Research, Inc. vs. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). Mr. Sobraske is appealing the denial of records including traffic, engineering, accident, and other studies and changes on a section of U.S. Highway 163.

— Approval of the Oct. 9 meeting minutes of the State Records Committee
— Appeals received: A summary of cases reviewed for hearings
— Cases in District Court
— Citizen representative update
— Scheduling training for Committee members
— Approval of General Schedule Items
— Other Business
— Adjournment – Next meeting scheduled – Thursday, Dec. 11

Individuals wishing to comment during the meeting should notify Susan Mumford, Executive Secretary of the State Records Committee, and should be in attendance at the public meeting.

Labels: State Records Committee

Utah County record keepers might want to look north and find out what its big brother is doing.

The Utah County Attorney's Office has denied a request from Hilarie Orman, of the Spanish Fork News, to review two police reports. One is a report on a trespassing case. The other case is from a motorcycle crash. They're not exactly the crimes of the centuries.

Yet the attorney's office claims both reports meet the definition of a "protected" record under the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act. There are legitimate grounds for classifying a record as protected, but I can't figure out how Orman's desired reports would enter that category.*

Where police reports are concerned, GRAMA allows for the protection of ongoing cases. Both of Orman's cases are closed.

Government bodies also can protect records which, if released, would threaten someone's safety. That would have to be some trespassing case and motorcycle crash if that were the issue here.

Orman is not giving up. She has filed an appeal with the Utah County Commission in the hope it will order the sheriff's office to release the records.

The county commission can review a case decided by the State Records Committee. The committee decided police reports are public records and ordered the reports released.

— NC

* I am not an attorney and frequently remind myself of that.

Labels: GRAMA, State Records Committee

For the official agenda, information about accommodations, electronic attendance and submitting written comment, click here.

The State Records Committee will hold a meeting on 9:30 a.m. Thursday, Oct, 9. The meeting will be held in the Courtyard Meeting Room, the Archives Building, 346 South Rio Grande Street (450 West), Salt Lake City.

Committee business and three hearings have been scheduled:

* First Hearing – Jim Garside vs. Salt Lake City. Mr. Garside is appealing the denial of a copy of a joint defense agreement between Salt Lake City and Big Cottonwood Lower Canal Company.

* Second Hearing – Steve Onysko vs. Environmental Quality. Mr. Onysko is appealing the denial of documentation of communications about him and his work in the Division of Drinking Water at Environmental Quality.

* Third Hearing – Mark Haik vs. UDOT. Mr. Haik is appealing the denial of records relating to a city street map prepared by the Utah Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation.

* Approval of the August 14, 2008, meeting minutes of the State Records Committee

* Appeals received: A summary of cases reviewed for a hearing during the month will be presented to the Committee.

* Adjournment – Next meeting scheduled – Thursday, November 13, 2008

— NC

Labels: GRAMA, SLC, State Records Committee

September 11, 2008
9:30 AM - 1:30 PM
State Archives Building
346 South Rio Grande St.
Salt Lake City 84101
Contact:
Susan Mumford
801-531-3861
smumford@utah.gov


-- First Hearing – Dan Schroeder, Sierra Club vs. Utah Transit Authority. Mr. Schroeder is appealing the denial of records from UTA about communications between Ogden City and UTA since January 1, 2006.


-- Second Hearing – Jim Garside vs. Salt Lake City. Mr. Garside is appealing the denial of records from Salt Lake City Corporation concerning agreements between Lower Canal and Salt Lake City vs. Big Ditch Irrigation.

-- nc

Labels: State Records Committee

The Utah Department of Corrections and some county jails did not come off well in a legislative audit released today. Among other things, the department did a poor job overseeing county jails where it keeps inmates, the audit says.

Meanwhile, journalists and the public aren't allowed to oversee much of what Corrections or the jails are doing. Earlier this year, Corrections denied a records request I made for inspection reports of county jails.

The State Records Committee sided with Corrections. The committee agreed a state statute preventing the release of "security measures" applied to the inspection reports. The theory is an inmate could use the information in the inspection to plot an escape. That the public should be informed of dangers at a jail is not to be considered, Corrections and the committee decided.

And while today's audit recommended improving the jail inspection process and documentation, Correction's non-disclosure policy and the records committee's ruling stands. So Utah could have the best and safest penitentiaries and jails in the world — or the worst — and we aren't allowed to know.

— NC

Labels: GRAMA, jail/prisons, secrecy, State Records Committee

In my first post for this blog, I wrote about how Utah has a good system for appealing record denials. But the system is not perfect, and you can blame it on the lawyers.

Well, kind of. Here's why.

Reporter Steve Gehrke requested some documents from the Salt Lake County Attorney's Office. Last week, he received a denial and instructions on how to appeal that denial to the Salt Lake County Council. The council will schedule an appeal hearing before it. Here's the catch.

Salt Lake County Attorney Lohra Miller is the council's lawyer. For Gehrke to win his appeal, he must persuade the council its attorney is wrong; that the council should ignore its lawyer's advice and give him the documents.

Of course, we think the county attorney is wrong, but why should the council listen to us non-lawyers when it finances people with juris doctorates? And there's no requirement for the council to seek an outside legal opinion. (If the council rejects our appeal, we could take it to the State Records Committee but that means more time and effort.)

This structural flaw in the appeal process is not unique to Salt Lake County. I had an almost identical scenario last year when I tried to obtain records from the Utah County Attorney. A similar problem exists when the state of Utah denies a records request. The Utah attorney general will represent the state in an appeal. The attorney general also is the lawyer for the State Records Committee.

But maybe the Salt Lake County Council will surprise us and decide it's getting bad legal advice. Stay tuned.

--nc

The photograph is the great Phil Hartman as the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.

Labels: GRAMA, State Records Committee

One attorney wonders whether the State Records Committee is paying attention to the recent decision discussed below.

This spring, the Deseret News won a records case that went all the way to the Utah Supreme Court. The court ordered Salt Lake County to release a report on a sexual harassment investigation. Then on May 8, a former Utah Department of Corrections employee, represented by attorney Chad Steur, took a similar case to the State Records Committee.

Steur's client wanted sexual harassment investigation reports on two other corrections workers, one of whom was found by the department to have harassed. Steur used the News ruling to argue releasing the reports on both workers.

The records committee sided with Steur on the report for the worker found to have harassed and ordered the report released. But the committee allowed corrections to keep secret the report for the guy who was absolved of harassment. The committee said releasing that report would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy." Here is a link to the complete order.

The split decision eats at Steur. He says the News ruling should have applied to both reports and says the records committee made an arbitrary decision.

"It remains to be seen whether the records committee is going to follow the mandate from the Utah Supreme Court that all records are public," Steur told me in an interview.

Steur said his client wanted to judge for herself whether both harassment cases were handled properly but cannot without the reports.

-- nc

Labels: GRAMA, State Records Committee

This blog probably will write a lot about the problems with Utah's records and meeting laws. So my first post is about something Utah does well: You don't have to settle for a no.

Or at least not right away. Utah provides an appeals process far superior to any state I've found. If you request a record from a Utah agency -- such as a city, a county or a state agency -- and that agency denies you, the agency then must provide you an appeal option. Some agencies, such as Salt Lake City government, have entire boards to hear your appeal while other agencies allow you to appeal to an administrator.

If that board or administrator rules against your appeal, you're still not done. You have the option of appealing to the State Records Committee. If you lose at that committee, you have one more option: you can sue in state court. (A similar appeals process exists for the agency which received the request if the agency thinks your documents should not be disclosed.)

I worked in Missouri for three years and if an agency there denies your request, your only option is to sue. Lawsuits are expensive even if you win. Government agencies know that and it gives them an incentive to deny your request.

In November, The Tribune published an investigation on college drug testing that used record requests in 39 states. Among the schools who denied my request, only the University of Nebraska told me I had an administrative appeal option. (I did not pursue it.)

What makes an administrative appeal option so good for us citizens? Well, it's one thing for an agency to deny a record request. It's another thing for the agency to stand in public and justify the denial. Utah's appeals process keeps a lot of records cases out of court and gives a fighting chance to the little guys.

— NC

Labels: GRAMA, SLC, State Records Committee