This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2010, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
When Utah residents appeal a decision of a local government board to not release a record, they ought to have the right to petition to the state Records Committee.
The issue gained attention this summer after Utah Transit Authority managers wouldn't allow a requester to appeal a records access denial to the state committee. Instead, requesters were told to go to court. That request involved a salary survey UTA officials deemed confidential even though it was used to justify large salaries for UTA's top brass.
To their credit, UTA officials modified their policy in October to reinstate appeals to the state Records Committee. The issue, however, is much bigger than UTA.
Under current practice, the state Records Committee hears only cases from state agencies — other governmental entities that choose to allow appeals to the committee or agencies that don't have their own local records ordinances.
There are three good reasons why all records requesters should be able to appeal to the state committee:
First, because of the less-formal nature of the committee, it levels the playing field for everyday citizens when pitted against well-oiled governments. At the records committee, one doesn't need to pay a costly filing fee or hire an attorney.
While Utah's Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) says that if arguments for and against secrecy are equal, the public interest prevails. However, history shows that Utah's government culture favors secrecy, even in the face of good public-interest arguments. The records committee is a check on this culture of secrecy. Well-paid government attorneys can use the law and the costly court processes to put up access roadblocks. Without the right to appeal to the state records committee, many records cases die at the courthouse steps. Government officials know this and use it to their advantage.
Second, the arguments that helped enshrine appeals outside of the state Records Committee system are faulty. When GRAMA was written, local governments argued that they wanted their own autonomy from the state Records Committee. They said they didn't want a state "mandate" that would prove onerous. Time has shown that the state Records Committee process is actually less time-consuming and less costly than officials once feared.
Third, the committee membership includes records experts in both the public and private sector. The seven-member board represents local government, state government, private industry, the media, the governor and has a citizen member. A review of the committee's decisions since 1995 shows orders have effectively balanced concerns about privacy, safety, trade secrets and intellectual property rights with the public interest.
It's time for a thorough look at GRAMA's appeal process and the many local ordinances related to records appeals. Many local ordinances, adopted back in the 1990s, simply suggest that a requester may appeal to district court and are silent on whether appeals should be allowed to the state. In default, many requesters have been told to go to court or simply accept the local decision of secrecy.
It is clearly time to re-examine the facts that drove the initial decision to allow local governments to opt out of records committee appeals. Local government leaders' fears have never materialized. At the same time, there is plenty of evidence to show that many local records ordinances give government an unfair upper hand.
Joel Campbell is a former reporter and current associate professor of communications at Brigham Young University. His reporting does not necessarily reflect the views of BYU. He writes on First Amendment and open-government issues for The Salt Lake Tribune. He can be reached at foiguy@gmail.com.