http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20090222/OPINION/902220313/1014/OPINION
A Senate bill sponsored by St. George lawmaker Stephen Urquhart is being promoted as a means of saving taxpayers money. In reality, it is legislation that would cost residents awareness about ordinance changes, water issues, foreclosures and other important public business.
Senate Bill 208 would lift the requirement that legal advertisements be placed in newspapers of general circulation throughout the state. Urquhart, in announcing the bill, said that taxpayers are paying too much money for the advertisements. Instead he wants to have the legal notices posted on a state Web site. Municipalities wouldn't be prohibited from posting notices in newspapers, but it's likely that many will only use the state site.
Urquhart's announcement about the bill came in a special press conference for bloggers that was broadcasted over the Internet. During the presentation, Urquhart said posting legal notices online would make them visible to more people. But how many of you knew about his presentation until reading about it in this newspaper?
That's one of the points against this proposal that should be considered.
Let's be honest. Removing the publication requirement will cost newspapers of all sizes money. Legal notices comprise a relatively small amount of revenue for The Spectrum & Daily News, but the loss of money will hurt. No question.
But there is a question that we ask of our legislators: What price are you willing to put on keeping the public informed?
House Bill 122, legislation that limits the public's access to public records and its right to due process to challenge the withholding of certain documents, already has passed the House and is under consideration in the Senate. SB 208 also threatens to limit access to information.
Our Legislature appears to be aiming more for secrecy than transparency.
Proponents argue that legal notices will be more visible on the state's Web site. It's true that the notices will be visible to the world via the Internet. What those same proponents fail to point out, however, is that the notices already are available via the Web sites of newspapers across the state. And the Web sites of our state's newspapers receive far more traffic on a daily basis than any state Web site.
Proponents also say the cost for legal notices is too high. In various press conferences and meetings, lawmakers have said that newspapers are seeking to charge more for the notices. What they neglect to point out, however, is that only smaller, weekly, newspapers are seeking to charge more. And that's only because the cap placed on what they can charge was set decades ago. If the state government can increase its fees over the course of decades, shouldn't the smallest newspapers in the state also be allowed to do so as long as the rates remain fair?
For the record, this newspaper is large enough that it doesn't operate under the state-imposed cap. But we have reduced our rates in recent years and provide an approximately 40 percent discount off of regular classified rates for legal notices.
Even if lawmakers want to toss out all other arguments, the idea of government not having a check and balance in the public arena should be disconcerting for everyone. Posting legal notices in newspapers provides protection for the public. If a person or city publishes a legal notice, those municipalities receive an affidavit that the notice was, indeed, placed in the newspaper and on the publication's Web site so that residents could see it and take action. The state's site doesn't provide such notification. So, how does the public know if it's really seeing the legal notices required under the law? As of now, it doesn't.
The reality is that only the people who know to look for a legal notice will do so on the state Web site. It's far more likely that residents will notice a proposed zoning change or tax increase as they read through their newspaper or read through a news Web site - something they do in the normal order of their days - than check a state Web site for actions that they don't even know are about to happen. And this plan doesn't take into consideration the people who don't have Internet access on a daily basis.
Utah lawmakers are known for being fiscally conservative. That's a good thing. But those same lawmakers also talk about how much they cherish transparency and reducing the influence of government.
Our lawmakers' recent actions don't live up to those lofty claims.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Spectrum: Preserve GRAMA
Preserve GRAMA
Utah has one of the best open-records laws in the United States with the Government Records Access and Management Act. Under GRAMA, public records requests undergo a balancing test that weighs the taxpayer's right to know against the government's right to conduct its business efficiently and effectively.
If a person takes issue with being denied access to what he or she deems to be a public record, then the citizen can appeal to the State Records Committee or even the courts system.
House Bill 122 would throw out this important check-and-balance system in favor of government entities that are or could be involved in litigation.
HB 122 aims to amend GRAMA to allow municipalities to classify records of not just pending litigation, but also related to any issue that a city, county, school district or other taxing entity believes it may face litigation on in the future. In other words, even a fear of potential litigation could be used to deny the public access to records.
This bill - sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, and Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo - could be used to hide important information from the public. For example, under provisions in this bill, the public could be denied records related to whether a local government was turning a blind eye to discrimination in the workplace. Residents could be denied access to details about how closely city department managers are following recommendations from a mayor-appointed board.
Such incidents have happened recently in Utah, but details about them were opened to the public because of documents obtained using GRAMA. If this bill passes, then government officials, the State Records Committee and the courts would be prevented from weighing the public's interest in deciding whether to release the records.
HB 122 is bad on many levels. GRAMA already has provisions to allow for withholding of documents if litigation is pending, so why is another law necessary? Is it because of harm that has been done in the past? If so, why does House committee testimony show that even proponents for the bill failed to share even a single documented case in which the GRAMA balancing test was improperly applied?
We live in an era when the people want more accountability from their government. HB 122 flies in the face of that goal. If passed, we likely will have more secrecy.
Those facts don't match up to Utah principles. Let's not make this revision part of Utah law.
Utah has one of the best open-records laws in the United States with the Government Records Access and Management Act. Under GRAMA, public records requests undergo a balancing test that weighs the taxpayer's right to know against the government's right to conduct its business efficiently and effectively.
If a person takes issue with being denied access to what he or she deems to be a public record, then the citizen can appeal to the State Records Committee or even the courts system.
House Bill 122 would throw out this important check-and-balance system in favor of government entities that are or could be involved in litigation.
HB 122 aims to amend GRAMA to allow municipalities to classify records of not just pending litigation, but also related to any issue that a city, county, school district or other taxing entity believes it may face litigation on in the future. In other words, even a fear of potential litigation could be used to deny the public access to records.
This bill - sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, and Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo - could be used to hide important information from the public. For example, under provisions in this bill, the public could be denied records related to whether a local government was turning a blind eye to discrimination in the workplace. Residents could be denied access to details about how closely city department managers are following recommendations from a mayor-appointed board.
Such incidents have happened recently in Utah, but details about them were opened to the public because of documents obtained using GRAMA. If this bill passes, then government officials, the State Records Committee and the courts would be prevented from weighing the public's interest in deciding whether to release the records.
HB 122 is bad on many levels. GRAMA already has provisions to allow for withholding of documents if litigation is pending, so why is another law necessary? Is it because of harm that has been done in the past? If so, why does House committee testimony show that even proponents for the bill failed to share even a single documented case in which the GRAMA balancing test was improperly applied?
We live in an era when the people want more accountability from their government. HB 122 flies in the face of that goal. If passed, we likely will have more secrecy.
Those facts don't match up to Utah principles. Let's not make this revision part of Utah law.
Standard Examiner: House Bill 122 would allow government to keep secrets
Jesse Fruhwirth and Don Baker never met, but right now they have something in common.
Jesse is rolling his eyes over House Bill 122; Don is rolling over in his grave.
Before his death, Don was a leading investigative reporter for the Standard-Examiner and Deseret News, and a strong advocate for open government.
Together with former Republican House Speaker Marty Stephens, of Farr West, Don helped craft the state’s Government Records and Access Management Act in 1991.
Jesse is our court reporter in Davis County and has used GRAMA regularly in pursuing the public’s right to know.
Like Don before him, Jesse has been our point man on a number of GRAMA battles with law enforcement agencies that want to keep you in the dark about how they conduct your business.
Now the Legislature wants to thwart Don and Jesse’s efforts by gutting GRAMA with HB 122. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, basically will allow government to keep secret any document if officials believe there is pending litigation.
To use an argument that a lot of our lawmakers love, this is a slippery slope.
Jesse says if HB 122 had been in place when the Farmington police standoff with Brian Wood took place last year, the public might not know to this day that a police officer shot Wood.
Farmington police refused to make any public comment during the standoff. Neither neighbors, the media, the community nor the family had a good idea of what was going on.
“At the confusing and stressful conclusion to the standoff, an officer mistakenly relayed on his radio that the suspect had shot himself,” Jesse said.
“Without any input from police to correct the error, media took this small crumb of (mis)information they gleaned from their police scanners and unanimously reported it the next day.”
It was only because of GRAMA that Farmington police held a news conference the next day to tell the community that the suspect had not shot himself, but actually was shot by a deputy.
Farmington police had reason to anticipate litigation by the Wood family over the incident. An attorney representing the Wood family was one of those who joined the media in using GRAMA to ask for the complete file of the incident.
“Had HB 122 been in place during the Wood incident, would Farmington police have had any reason, incentive or interest in telling the public the truth about the incident? Would that press conference have occurred if the department knew that they were under no obligation to release any documents to anyone?” Jesse said.
Here’s the crux.
HB 122 will actually encourage more litigation because it will be the only means of getting such information. Jesse said the Wood case reveals why government agencies need to be required to release records “especially if there is the possibility of litigation.”
No one understood this better than Don. GRAMA was set up with the average citizen in mind, not necessarily the media. Creating another level of bureaucracy to prevent citizens from getting access to information they are entitled to is just another step in the wrong direction.
COMIC CHAOS: Some readers noticed that the captions for the Tuesday and Friday Family Circus comics seemed incomplete. Because of a “scripting error” in the pagination process by the company that puts together the comics page for us, the comic was automatically stretched by the computer to fit the space, rather than manually adjusted. This caused lines from the caption to drop off. The company assures us it won’t happen again.
Andy Howell is executive editor. He can be reached at 625-4210 or via ahowell@standard.net .
Jesse is rolling his eyes over House Bill 122; Don is rolling over in his grave.
Before his death, Don was a leading investigative reporter for the Standard-Examiner and Deseret News, and a strong advocate for open government.
Together with former Republican House Speaker Marty Stephens, of Farr West, Don helped craft the state’s Government Records and Access Management Act in 1991.
Jesse is our court reporter in Davis County and has used GRAMA regularly in pursuing the public’s right to know.
Like Don before him, Jesse has been our point man on a number of GRAMA battles with law enforcement agencies that want to keep you in the dark about how they conduct your business.
Now the Legislature wants to thwart Don and Jesse’s efforts by gutting GRAMA with HB 122. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, basically will allow government to keep secret any document if officials believe there is pending litigation.
To use an argument that a lot of our lawmakers love, this is a slippery slope.
Jesse says if HB 122 had been in place when the Farmington police standoff with Brian Wood took place last year, the public might not know to this day that a police officer shot Wood.
Farmington police refused to make any public comment during the standoff. Neither neighbors, the media, the community nor the family had a good idea of what was going on.
“At the confusing and stressful conclusion to the standoff, an officer mistakenly relayed on his radio that the suspect had shot himself,” Jesse said.
“Without any input from police to correct the error, media took this small crumb of (mis)information they gleaned from their police scanners and unanimously reported it the next day.”
It was only because of GRAMA that Farmington police held a news conference the next day to tell the community that the suspect had not shot himself, but actually was shot by a deputy.
Farmington police had reason to anticipate litigation by the Wood family over the incident. An attorney representing the Wood family was one of those who joined the media in using GRAMA to ask for the complete file of the incident.
“Had HB 122 been in place during the Wood incident, would Farmington police have had any reason, incentive or interest in telling the public the truth about the incident? Would that press conference have occurred if the department knew that they were under no obligation to release any documents to anyone?” Jesse said.
Here’s the crux.
HB 122 will actually encourage more litigation because it will be the only means of getting such information. Jesse said the Wood case reveals why government agencies need to be required to release records “especially if there is the possibility of litigation.”
No one understood this better than Don. GRAMA was set up with the average citizen in mind, not necessarily the media. Creating another level of bureaucracy to prevent citizens from getting access to information they are entitled to is just another step in the wrong direction.
COMIC CHAOS: Some readers noticed that the captions for the Tuesday and Friday Family Circus comics seemed incomplete. Because of a “scripting error” in the pagination process by the company that puts together the comics page for us, the comic was automatically stretched by the computer to fit the space, rather than manually adjusted. This caused lines from the caption to drop off. The company assures us it won’t happen again.
Andy Howell is executive editor. He can be reached at 625-4210 or via ahowell@standard.net .
Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
My response to this Blog entry....
From Where I Sit
Facts about SB208. BenJoe makes a big deal about the fact that the Trib put up its editorial on legal notices on the Web only first. The paper then followed it up with a printed editorial. Hand it to BenJoe for the spin. Instead of negative spin, I believe it shows that news"papers" get the fact that readers are on the Web and in print. BenJoe wants to make it seem that only bloggers know how to communicate online. The fact is, newspaper readership is larger than ever because of the online and paper components. What proponents of SB208 want to do is put in on the web only. Its an elitist and exclusive argument. Why not use both? Senators this week have been saying that society is not ready to go to Web only notices. Maybe someday, but not yet.
Second point. BenJoe's linking SB208 with SB161 shows he hasn't spent any effort to find out the facts. SB161 only deals with very small entities -- 4th and 5th class cities. Its effect would be small. The 20-year-old cap has a disproportionate effect on small rural newspapers. No such statutory cap exists on what larger newspapers charge for legals from larger entities. That said, newspapers have frozen their rates for the past 6-7 years and charge even less than non-profit rates.
I happy to talk to anyone who really desires the facts.
Thanks,
Joel Campbell
foiguy@gmail.com
801-362-4298
From Where I Sit
Facts about SB208. BenJoe makes a big deal about the fact that the Trib put up its editorial on legal notices on the Web only first. The paper then followed it up with a printed editorial. Hand it to BenJoe for the spin. Instead of negative spin, I believe it shows that news"papers" get the fact that readers are on the Web and in print. BenJoe wants to make it seem that only bloggers know how to communicate online. The fact is, newspaper readership is larger than ever because of the online and paper components. What proponents of SB208 want to do is put in on the web only. Its an elitist and exclusive argument. Why not use both? Senators this week have been saying that society is not ready to go to Web only notices. Maybe someday, but not yet.
Second point. BenJoe's linking SB208 with SB161 shows he hasn't spent any effort to find out the facts. SB161 only deals with very small entities -- 4th and 5th class cities. Its effect would be small. The 20-year-old cap has a disproportionate effect on small rural newspapers. No such statutory cap exists on what larger newspapers charge for legals from larger entities. That said, newspapers have frozen their rates for the past 6-7 years and charge even less than non-profit rates.
I happy to talk to anyone who really desires the facts.
Thanks,
Joel Campbell
foiguy@gmail.com
801-362-4298
Thursday, February 19, 2009
FIVE GOOD REASONS TO OPPOSE H.B. 122
FIVE GOOD REASONS TO OPPOSE H.B. 122
1. H.B. 122 DESTROYS THE CAREFUL BALANCING OF VALUES THAT IS GRAMA. GRAMA
carefully balances two important values of a free society: the right of the public to know what its government is doing and the right of government to conduct public business effectively and efficiently. Since its enactment, GRAMA has allowed government officials, the State Records Committee, and the courts to balance these competing interests in determining whether a particular record should be public or not. H.B. 122 destroys that system of checks and balances
by requiring the public to satisfy an impermissibly high “clear and convincing evidence” standard to obtain access to a wide swath of records involving governmental action of great interest to the public. This change would significantly damage the public’s right to know what its government is doing.
2. H.B. 122 ALLOWS MORE GOVERNMENT SECRECY IN AN AREA PRONE TO ABUSE. When
government exercises its power to take the life, liberty or property of an individual, the need for public scrutiny is at its zenith. The public has a compelling interest in scrutinizing government action or inaction when it exercises such authority. H.B. 122 would significantly impair public scrutiny of such government action by requiring the public to clear an unjustifiably high hurdle
before it could access government records in a wide variety of criminal, civil, and administrative investigations and proceedings, including audit, disciplinary, licensing, certification and registration matters. Because of the high stakes and the potential for abuse, this is an area of government action that deserves more light, not less.
3. H.B. 122 UNDERMINES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT. Is it a problem if a local government appears to be turning a blind eye to one of its managers who is found to have regularly sexually harassed subordinate public employees? Is it a problem if the police chief is ignoring the recommendations of a civilian review board established by a mayor to enhance public trust in law enforcement by reviewing allegations of police brutality? Indeed, these are issues of great interest to a public that is entitled to know whether its government officials are
abusing their powers. Both problems occurred recently in Utah. They only came to public light because of GRAMA requests. By requiring the public to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that such records should be public, H.B. 122 makes it much more likely that records like these will never see the light of day. As a result, the public will have one less check on government and one less tool to hold government officials accountable for their official conduct.
4. H.B. 122 IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. The government officials promoting H.B.
122 have offered shifting rationales for the bill. First, they said it was necessary to protect government records relating to attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Then they said it was necessary to prevent disclosure of records that might interfere with on-going investigations. Finally, they said they are just receiving too many GRAMA requests. Here are the facts: GRAMA already contains exceptions for attorney-client privilege and attorney work product records. GRAMA already contains exceptions for records the disclosure of which would
interfere with investigatory or enforcement proceedings, impair a fair process, or put lives in danger. And GRAMA already contains provisions allowing government to deny requests for non-public records or obtain more time to respond to multiple requests. The overreaching government secrecy authorized by H.B. 122 is not only bad public policy, it is a solution in search of a problem.
5. GRAMA’S PUBLIC INTEREST BALANCING TEST HAS FUNCTIONED WELL FOR MORE THAN 18
YEARS. Those who seek to make it easier to seal off government records from the public ought to at least be able to explain why such a measure is necessary. The proponents of H.B. 122 have utterly failed to demonstrate such necessity. At the House Committee hearing on H.B. 122, a Committee member asked the government official testifying in favor of the bill if he knew of any examples where release of records had impaired a government investigation or caused harm.
The government witness said he knew of no such case. Nor have the proponents of H.B. 122 been able to point to a single example where the public interest balancing test has been improperly applied to a GRAMA request. In fact, the public interest balancing test has functioned precisely as intended by the legislature since it enacted GRAMA 18 years ago. In cases where the public interest in nondisclosure of a record is non-existent or is outweighed by the public interests in disclosure, the record has been released. In cases where the interests favoring non-disclosure outweigh the interests in disclosure, the GRAMA request has been denied. Top governmental officials make the initial balancing decision. Their acts are
reviewable by the State Records Committee and the courts, including ultimately the Utah Supreme Court. With so many checks and balances, GRAMA ensures that protected records are made public only when access truly serves the public interest. The statute works. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
UTAH MEDIA COALITION
Daily Newspapers/News Providers
Daily Herald (Provo)
Deseret News
Herald Journal (Logan)
Salt Lake Tribune
Standard-Examiner (Ogden)
The Spectrum (St. George)
The Associated Press
Broadcasters
KSL-TV and Radio
KUED
KUER
KTVX
KUTV
KSTU FOX 13
KCPW
Groups
Utah Press Association
Utah Society of Professional Journalists
(Headliners Chapter)
Weekly Newspapers
Beaver Press
Blue Mountain Panorama
Box Elder News Journal
Davis County Clipper
Emery County Progress
Eureka Reporter
Gunnison Valley News
Hilltop Times
Intermountain Catholic
Intermountain Commercial Record
Magna Times
Millard County Chronicle
Millard County Gazette
Moab Times-Independent
Morgan County News
Mt. Pleasant Pyramid
Mundo Hispano
Nephi Times-News New Utah!
New Utah! American Fork
New Utah! Lehi
New Utah! Lindon
New Utah! Lone Peak
New Utah! Pleasant Grove
Orem Geneva Times
Park Record
Payson Chronicle
Richfield Reaper
Salina Sun
Salt Lake City Weekly
San Juan Record
Sanpete Messenger
Southern Utah News
Spanish Fork Press
Springville Herald
Summit County Bee
Sun Advocate
The Wendover Times
Tooele Transcript-Bulletin
Tremonton Leader
Uintah Basin Standard
Cottonwood Holladay Journal
Valley Journal Publications
Draper Journal
Midvale Journal
Millcreek Journal
Murray Journal
Sandy Journal
South Salt Lake Journal
South Valley Journal
Sugarhouse Journal
Taylorsville Kearns Journal
West Jordan Journal
West Valley Journal
Vernal Express
Wasatch Wave
West Valley News
Lisa Bowen
Deseret News, 801-237-2179
bowen@desnews.com
Dorothy Chioda
Salt Lake Tribune, 801-257-8506
dchioda@sltrib.com
1. H.B. 122 DESTROYS THE CAREFUL BALANCING OF VALUES THAT IS GRAMA. GRAMA
carefully balances two important values of a free society: the right of the public to know what its government is doing and the right of government to conduct public business effectively and efficiently. Since its enactment, GRAMA has allowed government officials, the State Records Committee, and the courts to balance these competing interests in determining whether a particular record should be public or not. H.B. 122 destroys that system of checks and balances
by requiring the public to satisfy an impermissibly high “clear and convincing evidence” standard to obtain access to a wide swath of records involving governmental action of great interest to the public. This change would significantly damage the public’s right to know what its government is doing.
2. H.B. 122 ALLOWS MORE GOVERNMENT SECRECY IN AN AREA PRONE TO ABUSE. When
government exercises its power to take the life, liberty or property of an individual, the need for public scrutiny is at its zenith. The public has a compelling interest in scrutinizing government action or inaction when it exercises such authority. H.B. 122 would significantly impair public scrutiny of such government action by requiring the public to clear an unjustifiably high hurdle
before it could access government records in a wide variety of criminal, civil, and administrative investigations and proceedings, including audit, disciplinary, licensing, certification and registration matters. Because of the high stakes and the potential for abuse, this is an area of government action that deserves more light, not less.
3. H.B. 122 UNDERMINES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT. Is it a problem if a local government appears to be turning a blind eye to one of its managers who is found to have regularly sexually harassed subordinate public employees? Is it a problem if the police chief is ignoring the recommendations of a civilian review board established by a mayor to enhance public trust in law enforcement by reviewing allegations of police brutality? Indeed, these are issues of great interest to a public that is entitled to know whether its government officials are
abusing their powers. Both problems occurred recently in Utah. They only came to public light because of GRAMA requests. By requiring the public to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that such records should be public, H.B. 122 makes it much more likely that records like these will never see the light of day. As a result, the public will have one less check on government and one less tool to hold government officials accountable for their official conduct.
4. H.B. 122 IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. The government officials promoting H.B.
122 have offered shifting rationales for the bill. First, they said it was necessary to protect government records relating to attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Then they said it was necessary to prevent disclosure of records that might interfere with on-going investigations. Finally, they said they are just receiving too many GRAMA requests. Here are the facts: GRAMA already contains exceptions for attorney-client privilege and attorney work product records. GRAMA already contains exceptions for records the disclosure of which would
interfere with investigatory or enforcement proceedings, impair a fair process, or put lives in danger. And GRAMA already contains provisions allowing government to deny requests for non-public records or obtain more time to respond to multiple requests. The overreaching government secrecy authorized by H.B. 122 is not only bad public policy, it is a solution in search of a problem.
5. GRAMA’S PUBLIC INTEREST BALANCING TEST HAS FUNCTIONED WELL FOR MORE THAN 18
YEARS. Those who seek to make it easier to seal off government records from the public ought to at least be able to explain why such a measure is necessary. The proponents of H.B. 122 have utterly failed to demonstrate such necessity. At the House Committee hearing on H.B. 122, a Committee member asked the government official testifying in favor of the bill if he knew of any examples where release of records had impaired a government investigation or caused harm.
The government witness said he knew of no such case. Nor have the proponents of H.B. 122 been able to point to a single example where the public interest balancing test has been improperly applied to a GRAMA request. In fact, the public interest balancing test has functioned precisely as intended by the legislature since it enacted GRAMA 18 years ago. In cases where the public interest in nondisclosure of a record is non-existent or is outweighed by the public interests in disclosure, the record has been released. In cases where the interests favoring non-disclosure outweigh the interests in disclosure, the GRAMA request has been denied. Top governmental officials make the initial balancing decision. Their acts are
reviewable by the State Records Committee and the courts, including ultimately the Utah Supreme Court. With so many checks and balances, GRAMA ensures that protected records are made public only when access truly serves the public interest. The statute works. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
UTAH MEDIA COALITION
Daily Newspapers/News Providers
Daily Herald (Provo)
Deseret News
Herald Journal (Logan)
Salt Lake Tribune
Standard-Examiner (Ogden)
The Spectrum (St. George)
The Associated Press
Broadcasters
KSL-TV and Radio
KUED
KUER
KTVX
KUTV
KSTU FOX 13
KCPW
Groups
Utah Press Association
Utah Society of Professional Journalists
(Headliners Chapter)
Weekly Newspapers
Beaver Press
Blue Mountain Panorama
Box Elder News Journal
Davis County Clipper
Emery County Progress
Eureka Reporter
Gunnison Valley News
Hilltop Times
Intermountain Catholic
Intermountain Commercial Record
Magna Times
Millard County Chronicle
Millard County Gazette
Moab Times-Independent
Morgan County News
Mt. Pleasant Pyramid
Mundo Hispano
Nephi Times-News New Utah!
New Utah! American Fork
New Utah! Lehi
New Utah! Lindon
New Utah! Lone Peak
New Utah! Pleasant Grove
Orem Geneva Times
Park Record
Payson Chronicle
Richfield Reaper
Salina Sun
Salt Lake City Weekly
San Juan Record
Sanpete Messenger
Southern Utah News
Spanish Fork Press
Springville Herald
Summit County Bee
Sun Advocate
The Wendover Times
Tooele Transcript-Bulletin
Tremonton Leader
Uintah Basin Standard
Cottonwood Holladay Journal
Valley Journal Publications
Draper Journal
Midvale Journal
Millcreek Journal
Murray Journal
Sandy Journal
South Salt Lake Journal
South Valley Journal
Sugarhouse Journal
Taylorsville Kearns Journal
West Jordan Journal
West Valley Journal
Vernal Express
Wasatch Wave
West Valley News
Lisa Bowen
Deseret News, 801-237-2179
bowen@desnews.com
Dorothy Chioda
Salt Lake Tribune, 801-257-8506
dchioda@sltrib.com
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
KSL: Don't dilute GRAMA
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=238&sid=5575917
If ever there were a time when openness and transparency in government was more important than now, we can't think of it. Look at what is happening nationally, as government assumes astonishingly more power. And how will that filter down to state and local governments as the nation trends toward socialism?
It is a huge concern. And it is one reason KSL joins other Utah news organizations in opposing a measure being considered on Capitol Hill that would weaken Utah's Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA). Passage of House Bill 122 would make it more difficult for the public to gain access to information, especially information that may be filed as part of "anticipated" litigation. It would restrict certain records from the so-called "balancing test," which until now has allowed courts to decide whether requested information should be released.
GRAMA has served the free flow of information in Utah well since the early 1990's. It balances the public's constitutional right of access to information with privacy laws and government's responsibility to restrict access to certain records for the public good.
However, the changes being proposed clearly weigh the balance in favor of secrecy. That, in our view, is precisely the opposite of what ought to be happening during these changing times.
If ever there were a time when openness and transparency in government was more important than now, we can't think of it. Look at what is happening nationally, as government assumes astonishingly more power. And how will that filter down to state and local governments as the nation trends toward socialism?
It is a huge concern. And it is one reason KSL joins other Utah news organizations in opposing a measure being considered on Capitol Hill that would weaken Utah's Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA). Passage of House Bill 122 would make it more difficult for the public to gain access to information, especially information that may be filed as part of "anticipated" litigation. It would restrict certain records from the so-called "balancing test," which until now has allowed courts to decide whether requested information should be released.
GRAMA has served the free flow of information in Utah well since the early 1990's. It balances the public's constitutional right of access to information with privacy laws and government's responsibility to restrict access to certain records for the public good.
However, the changes being proposed clearly weigh the balance in favor of secrecy. That, in our view, is precisely the opposite of what ought to be happening during these changing times.
Why we should keep public notices in newspapers
The stated goal of SB208 is to expand the availability of public notices and save consumers money. However, it fails on both counts.
Availability will decrease if public notices are only on the Web
By removing notices from newspapers and putting them a state Web site actually reduces the availability to large part of the population. Therefore, to reach the largest possible audience the Utah Press Association believes that so-called legal notices should be both in Utah’s newspapers and on the Web.
Utah newspapers have acted in cooperation with lawmakers to develop technology and advertising to further online public notices
For the past two years, with the agreement of former Senate President John Valentine and Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, Utah's newspapers have developed a new centralized Web site that is now in beta testing. Also, for several years we have maintained and continue to maintain, utahlegalnotices.com. Both of these Web sites have been searchable by key words. The new Web site will be RSS feed capable and a fully searchable database of statewide public notices. One will also be able to subscribe to e-mail feeds on a particular key word. We believe that we have developed one of the most sophisticated legal notice Web sites in the United States. The Utah Press Association has pledged to create an advertising campaign that would help citizens better understand and access public notices
The number of Utah newspaper readers is growing
A 10-year analysis of the state’s daily newspapers shows a 1 percent gain over those years. The Provo Daily Herald has had a 28 percent increase in circulation over the past 10 years. The Standard-Examiner is among the 10 fastest growing newspapers in the country. Furthermore, Utah newspapers have more readers than ever through their Web operations. Let’s keep both notices available to both print and online users. While lawmakers may have heard about the problems with the newspaper industry, those are a result of a poor economy and loss of ad revenues, not of lack of readers.
Other problems with Internet-only public notice
Those without computers will not see public notices. Large segments of society lack the means to purchase a computer or to pay for regular Internet access.
How great the savings?
The government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure adequate notification to the public of its actions. That responsibility cannot be abandoned in favor of presumed cost savings. Furthermore, these savings may prove to be elusive in light of a decrease in effective public notice, and the additional funds that must be allocated to the creation or maintenance of a government Web site. Already the state government has spent nearly $200,000 to create and maintain the public meeting notice Web site. There is s bill, HB 323, to add planning documents to the current Web site with a $100,000 fiscal note. There is yet no fiscal note for SB208. Utah Press has created a Web site at no cost to taxpayers.
A tradition of an independent watchdog
As has been the case for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices?
Local newspapers are the established medium for public notices – they are where the public expects to find them.
Many seniors would lose access
Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises senior citizens. Surveys show that only 29 percent of adults over the age of 65 go online (Pew Research Center, 2006). A recent study by American Demographics found that 78 percent of Americans over the age of 65 get their news from newspapers, while only 12 percent look to the Internet for news. Senior citizens are also among the most politically active citizens and thus are most likely to take advantage of public notices.
Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises minority citizens.
Both African-Americans (56 percent) and Hispanics (52 percent) are below the national average in Internet penetration and are expected to remain well under the national average for many years to come. (Jupiter Research, 2005)
Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises the poor.
Demographic research shows 94 percent of citizens earning of income of $75,000 per year are Internet users. However, only 54 percent of those who make less that $30,000 use the Internet. (Pew Research Center, 2006)
Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises rural citizens.
Internet access in rural areas is consistently 10 percent below the national average, studies show. Furthermore, rural residents are less likely to have access to broadband Internet connections (Pew Research Center, 2006). In Utah, the preference for public notice by many local governments are local newspapers.
SB161
Although not tied to SB208, SB161 was introduced to allow rural papers the right to set legal notice rates the market would bear for 4th and 5th class cities. The bill would strike a rate set in the 1980s. Because of confusion about the intent of the bill, the Utah Press Association board agreed to abandon support for the bill.
Utah Press Association
Joel Campbell
801-362-4298
Availability will decrease if public notices are only on the Web
By removing notices from newspapers and putting them a state Web site actually reduces the availability to large part of the population. Therefore, to reach the largest possible audience the Utah Press Association believes that so-called legal notices should be both in Utah’s newspapers and on the Web.
Utah newspapers have acted in cooperation with lawmakers to develop technology and advertising to further online public notices
For the past two years, with the agreement of former Senate President John Valentine and Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, Utah's newspapers have developed a new centralized Web site that is now in beta testing. Also, for several years we have maintained and continue to maintain, utahlegalnotices.com. Both of these Web sites have been searchable by key words. The new Web site will be RSS feed capable and a fully searchable database of statewide public notices. One will also be able to subscribe to e-mail feeds on a particular key word. We believe that we have developed one of the most sophisticated legal notice Web sites in the United States. The Utah Press Association has pledged to create an advertising campaign that would help citizens better understand and access public notices
The number of Utah newspaper readers is growing
A 10-year analysis of the state’s daily newspapers shows a 1 percent gain over those years. The Provo Daily Herald has had a 28 percent increase in circulation over the past 10 years. The Standard-Examiner is among the 10 fastest growing newspapers in the country. Furthermore, Utah newspapers have more readers than ever through their Web operations. Let’s keep both notices available to both print and online users. While lawmakers may have heard about the problems with the newspaper industry, those are a result of a poor economy and loss of ad revenues, not of lack of readers.
Other problems with Internet-only public notice
Those without computers will not see public notices. Large segments of society lack the means to purchase a computer or to pay for regular Internet access.
How great the savings?
The government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure adequate notification to the public of its actions. That responsibility cannot be abandoned in favor of presumed cost savings. Furthermore, these savings may prove to be elusive in light of a decrease in effective public notice, and the additional funds that must be allocated to the creation or maintenance of a government Web site. Already the state government has spent nearly $200,000 to create and maintain the public meeting notice Web site. There is s bill, HB 323, to add planning documents to the current Web site with a $100,000 fiscal note. There is yet no fiscal note for SB208. Utah Press has created a Web site at no cost to taxpayers.
A tradition of an independent watchdog
As has been the case for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices?
Local newspapers are the established medium for public notices – they are where the public expects to find them.
Many seniors would lose access
Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises senior citizens. Surveys show that only 29 percent of adults over the age of 65 go online (Pew Research Center, 2006). A recent study by American Demographics found that 78 percent of Americans over the age of 65 get their news from newspapers, while only 12 percent look to the Internet for news. Senior citizens are also among the most politically active citizens and thus are most likely to take advantage of public notices.
Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises minority citizens.
Both African-Americans (56 percent) and Hispanics (52 percent) are below the national average in Internet penetration and are expected to remain well under the national average for many years to come. (Jupiter Research, 2005)
Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises the poor.
Demographic research shows 94 percent of citizens earning of income of $75,000 per year are Internet users. However, only 54 percent of those who make less that $30,000 use the Internet. (Pew Research Center, 2006)
Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises rural citizens.
Internet access in rural areas is consistently 10 percent below the national average, studies show. Furthermore, rural residents are less likely to have access to broadband Internet connections (Pew Research Center, 2006). In Utah, the preference for public notice by many local governments are local newspapers.
SB161
Although not tied to SB208, SB161 was introduced to allow rural papers the right to set legal notice rates the market would bear for 4th and 5th class cities. The bill would strike a rate set in the 1980s. Because of confusion about the intent of the bill, the Utah Press Association board agreed to abandon support for the bill.
Utah Press Association
Joel Campbell
801-362-4298
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The price tag for government public notice so far -- $201,700
According to the fiscal note on HB222 (2007 session) and the State Archives administrator the following has been spent on the Utah Public Meetings Notice Web Site:
2008 appropriation $112,000 (startup)
2009 appropriation $71,700 (salary of administrator)
2009 Govenor's budget $18,000 (yearly maintenance cost for Utah Interactive)
TOTAL $201,700
Looking forward -- Ongoing yearly costs without any enhancements to the web site .. $92,600
HB 323 has a $100,000 fiscal note to provide enhancements to provide planning documents on the Public Notice Web Site.
SB208 currently has not fiscal note, but providing public notices from every entity in the state is likely to a much greater and involved task than the $100,000 originally spent for just providing public meeting notices online.
Cost of development of the Utah Press Association legal notices web site to taxpayers --- $0
Value to taxpayers of Utah Press Association ad campaign to help educate citizens about legal notices $500,000
Joel Campbell
Utah Press Association
2008 appropriation $112,000 (startup)
2009 appropriation $71,700 (salary of administrator)
2009 Govenor's budget $18,000 (yearly maintenance cost for Utah Interactive)
TOTAL $201,700
Looking forward -- Ongoing yearly costs without any enhancements to the web site .. $92,600
HB 323 has a $100,000 fiscal note to provide enhancements to provide planning documents on the Public Notice Web Site.
SB208 currently has not fiscal note, but providing public notices from every entity in the state is likely to a much greater and involved task than the $100,000 originally spent for just providing public meeting notices online.
Cost of development of the Utah Press Association legal notices web site to taxpayers --- $0
Value to taxpayers of Utah Press Association ad campaign to help educate citizens about legal notices $500,000
Joel Campbell
Utah Press Association
Keep GRAMA intact, Five good reasons to oppose HB122,
1. H.B. 122 DESTROYS THE CAREFUL BALANCING OF VALUES THAT IS GRAMA. GRAMA carefully balances two important values of a free society: the right of the public to know what its government is doing and the right of government to conduct public business effectively and efficiently. Since its enactment, GRAMA has allowed government officials, the State Records Committee, and the courts to balance these competing interests in determining whether a particular record should be public or not. H.B. 122 destroys that system of checks and balances by prohibiting use of the public interest balancing for a wide swath of records involving governmental action of great interest to the public. This change would significantly damage the public’s right to know what its government is doing.
2. H.B. 122 ALLOWS MORE GOVERNMENT SECRECY IN AN AREA PRONE TO ABUSE. When government exercises its power to take the life, liberty or property of an individual, the need for public scrutiny is at its zenith. The public has a compelling interest in scrutinizing government action or inaction when it exercises such authority. H.B. 122 would significantly impair public scrutiny of such government action by eliminating the critical public interest balancing test for government records in a wide variety of criminal, civil, and administrative investigations and proceedings, including audit, disciplinary, licensing, certification and registration matters. Because of the high stakes and the potential for abuse, this is an area of government action that deserves more light, not less.
3. H.B. 122 UNDERMINES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT. Is it a problem if a local government appears to be turning a blind eye to one of its managers who is found to have regularly sexually harassed subordinate public employees? Is it a problem if the police chief is ignoring the recommendations of a civilian review board established by a mayor to enhance public trust in law enforcement by reviewing allegations of police brutality? Indeed, these are issues of great interest to a public that is entitled to know whether its government officials are abusing their powers. Both problems occurred recently in Utah. They only came to public light because of successful GRAMA requests. H.B. 122 would prevent government officials, the State Records Committee, and the courts from considering the public interest in releasing records likes these. As a result, the public would have one less check on government and one less tool to hold government officials accountable for their official conduct.
4. H.B. 122 IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. The government officials promoting H.B. 122 have offered shifting rationales for the bill. First, they said it was necessary to protect government records relating to attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Then they said it was necessary to prevent disclosure of records that might interfere with on-going investigations. Finally, they said they are just receiving too many GRAMA requests. Here are the facts: GRAMA already contains exceptions for attorney-client privilege and attorney work product records. GRAMA already contains exceptions for records the disclosure of which would interfere with investigatory or enforcement proceedings, impair a fair process, or put lives in danger. And GRAMA already contains provisions allowing government to deny requests for non-public records or obtain more time to respond to multiple requests. The overreaching government secrecy authorized by H.B. 122 is not only bad public policy, it is a solution in search of a problem.
5. GRAMA’S PUBLIC INTEREST BALANCING TEST HAS FUNCTIONED WELL FOR MORE THAN 18 YEARS. Those who seek to make it easier to seal off government records from the public ought to at least be able to provide a convincing reason why such a measure is necessary. The proponents of H.B. 122 have utterly failed to demonstrate such necessity. At the House Committee hearing on H.B. 122, a Committee member asked the government official testifying in favor of the bill if he knew of any examples where release of records had impaired a government investigation or caused harm. The government witness said he knew of no such case. Nor have the proponents of H.B. 122 been able to point to a single example where the public interest balancing test has been improperly applied to a GRAMA request. In fact, the public interest balancing test has functioned precisely as intended by the legislature since it enacted GRAMA 18 years ago. In cases where the public interest in nondisclosure of a record is non-existent or is outweighed by the public interests in disclosure, the record has been released. In cases where the interests favoring non-disclosure outweigh the interests in disclosure, the GRAMA request has been denied. Top governmental officials make the initial balancing decision. Their acts are reviewable by the State Records Committee and the courts, including ultimately the Utah Supreme Court. With so many checks and balances, GRAMA ensures that protected records are made public only when access truly serves the public interest. The statute works. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
UTAH MEDIA COALITION
Daily Newspapers/News Providers
Daily Herald (Provo)
Deseret News
Herald Journal (Logan)
Salt Lake Tribune
Standard-Examiner (Ogden)
The Spectrum (St. George)
The Associated Press
Broadcasters
KSL-TV and Radio
KUED
KUER
KTVX
KUTV
KSTU FOX 13
KCPW
Groups
Utah Press Association
Utah Society of Professional Journalists (Headliners Chapter)
Weekly Newspapers
Beaver Press
Blue Mountain Panorama
Box Elder News Journal
Davis County Clipper
Emery County Progress
Eureka Reporter
Gunnison Valley News
Hilltop Times
Intermountain Catholic
Intermountain Commercial Record
Magna Times
Millard County Chronicle
Millard County Gazette
Moab Times-Independent
Morgan County News
Mt. Pleasant Pyramid
Mundo Hispano
Nephi Times-News New Utah!
New Utah! American Fork
New Utah! Lehi
New Utah! Lindon
New Utah! Lone Peak
New Utah! Pleasant Grove
Orem Geneva Times
Park Record
Payson Chronicle
Richfield Reaper
Salina Sun
Salt Lake City Weekly
San Juan Record
Sanpete Messenger
Southern Utah News
Spanish Fork Press
Springville Herald
Summit County Bee
Sun Advocate
The Wendover Times
Tooele Transcript-Bulletin
Tremonton Leader
Uintah Basin Standard
Vernal Express
Wasatch Wave
West Valley News
Lisa Bowen
Deseret News, 801-237-2179
bowen@desnews.com
Dorothy Chioda
Salt Lake Tribune, 801-257-8506
dchioda@sltrib.com
2. H.B. 122 ALLOWS MORE GOVERNMENT SECRECY IN AN AREA PRONE TO ABUSE. When government exercises its power to take the life, liberty or property of an individual, the need for public scrutiny is at its zenith. The public has a compelling interest in scrutinizing government action or inaction when it exercises such authority. H.B. 122 would significantly impair public scrutiny of such government action by eliminating the critical public interest balancing test for government records in a wide variety of criminal, civil, and administrative investigations and proceedings, including audit, disciplinary, licensing, certification and registration matters. Because of the high stakes and the potential for abuse, this is an area of government action that deserves more light, not less.
3. H.B. 122 UNDERMINES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT. Is it a problem if a local government appears to be turning a blind eye to one of its managers who is found to have regularly sexually harassed subordinate public employees? Is it a problem if the police chief is ignoring the recommendations of a civilian review board established by a mayor to enhance public trust in law enforcement by reviewing allegations of police brutality? Indeed, these are issues of great interest to a public that is entitled to know whether its government officials are abusing their powers. Both problems occurred recently in Utah. They only came to public light because of successful GRAMA requests. H.B. 122 would prevent government officials, the State Records Committee, and the courts from considering the public interest in releasing records likes these. As a result, the public would have one less check on government and one less tool to hold government officials accountable for their official conduct.
4. H.B. 122 IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. The government officials promoting H.B. 122 have offered shifting rationales for the bill. First, they said it was necessary to protect government records relating to attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Then they said it was necessary to prevent disclosure of records that might interfere with on-going investigations. Finally, they said they are just receiving too many GRAMA requests. Here are the facts: GRAMA already contains exceptions for attorney-client privilege and attorney work product records. GRAMA already contains exceptions for records the disclosure of which would interfere with investigatory or enforcement proceedings, impair a fair process, or put lives in danger. And GRAMA already contains provisions allowing government to deny requests for non-public records or obtain more time to respond to multiple requests. The overreaching government secrecy authorized by H.B. 122 is not only bad public policy, it is a solution in search of a problem.
5. GRAMA’S PUBLIC INTEREST BALANCING TEST HAS FUNCTIONED WELL FOR MORE THAN 18 YEARS. Those who seek to make it easier to seal off government records from the public ought to at least be able to provide a convincing reason why such a measure is necessary. The proponents of H.B. 122 have utterly failed to demonstrate such necessity. At the House Committee hearing on H.B. 122, a Committee member asked the government official testifying in favor of the bill if he knew of any examples where release of records had impaired a government investigation or caused harm. The government witness said he knew of no such case. Nor have the proponents of H.B. 122 been able to point to a single example where the public interest balancing test has been improperly applied to a GRAMA request. In fact, the public interest balancing test has functioned precisely as intended by the legislature since it enacted GRAMA 18 years ago. In cases where the public interest in nondisclosure of a record is non-existent or is outweighed by the public interests in disclosure, the record has been released. In cases where the interests favoring non-disclosure outweigh the interests in disclosure, the GRAMA request has been denied. Top governmental officials make the initial balancing decision. Their acts are reviewable by the State Records Committee and the courts, including ultimately the Utah Supreme Court. With so many checks and balances, GRAMA ensures that protected records are made public only when access truly serves the public interest. The statute works. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
UTAH MEDIA COALITION
Daily Newspapers/News Providers
Daily Herald (Provo)
Deseret News
Herald Journal (Logan)
Salt Lake Tribune
Standard-Examiner (Ogden)
The Spectrum (St. George)
The Associated Press
Broadcasters
KSL-TV and Radio
KUED
KUER
KTVX
KUTV
KSTU FOX 13
KCPW
Groups
Utah Press Association
Utah Society of Professional Journalists (Headliners Chapter)
Weekly Newspapers
Beaver Press
Blue Mountain Panorama
Box Elder News Journal
Davis County Clipper
Emery County Progress
Eureka Reporter
Gunnison Valley News
Hilltop Times
Intermountain Catholic
Intermountain Commercial Record
Magna Times
Millard County Chronicle
Millard County Gazette
Moab Times-Independent
Morgan County News
Mt. Pleasant Pyramid
Mundo Hispano
Nephi Times-News New Utah!
New Utah! American Fork
New Utah! Lehi
New Utah! Lindon
New Utah! Lone Peak
New Utah! Pleasant Grove
Orem Geneva Times
Park Record
Payson Chronicle
Richfield Reaper
Salina Sun
Salt Lake City Weekly
San Juan Record
Sanpete Messenger
Southern Utah News
Spanish Fork Press
Springville Herald
Summit County Bee
Sun Advocate
The Wendover Times
Tooele Transcript-Bulletin
Tremonton Leader
Uintah Basin Standard
Vernal Express
Wasatch Wave
West Valley News
Lisa Bowen
Deseret News, 801-237-2179
bowen@desnews.com
Dorothy Chioda
Salt Lake Tribune, 801-257-8506
dchioda@sltrib.com
Park Record: Media and government square off
bill advancing through the House would erode access citizens have to government records that could most impact their lives, an attorney who represents media outlets claims.
Representatives will likely debate the legislation on the House floor after a committee approved the bill Monday on a party-line vote of 7-3.
Attorney Jeff Hunt, a Utah Government Records Access and Management Act expert, asked lawmakers not to deny the public access to documents related to law enforcement, audit reports, professional licensing and personnel matters.
"That's where government power is exercised in a very significant manner, trying to take away somebody's job or their license," Hunt said.
Read the entire story in the Park Record.
Representatives will likely debate the legislation on the House floor after a committee approved the bill Monday on a party-line vote of 7-3.
Attorney Jeff Hunt, a Utah Government Records Access and Management Act expert, asked lawmakers not to deny the public access to documents related to law enforcement, audit reports, professional licensing and personnel matters.
"That's where government power is exercised in a very significant manner, trying to take away somebody's job or their license," Hunt said.
Read the entire story in the Park Record.
Standard Examiner: Don't mess with GRAMA
It's winter -- about the usual time for the Legislature's leadership to take a thoughtless stab at limiting freedom of the press. This year it's House Bill 122, which would limit the Government Records Access and Management Act's effectiveness by allowing "anticipated" litigation to be a criteria to deny requested government records.
The current GRAMA standard allows a "balancing test" that pits public interest versus privacy concerns. But under HB122, sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, that right will no longer exist. The public interest, balance tests, they're all tossed in the trash with what's left of a power lobbyist's lunch.
Read the whole editorial.
The current GRAMA standard allows a "balancing test" that pits public interest versus privacy concerns. But under HB122, sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, that right will no longer exist. The public interest, balance tests, they're all tossed in the trash with what's left of a power lobbyist's lunch.
Read the whole editorial.
Why public notices need to be in newspapers and the Web
INTRODUCTION
The stated goal of SB208 is to expand the availability of public notices.
By removing notices from newspapers and putting them on obscure state Web site actually reduces the availability to large part of the population. Therefore, to reach the largest possible audience the Utah Press Association believes that public notice should be both in newspapers and on the Web.
For the past two years, with the agreement of former Senate President John Valentine and Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, Utah's newspapers have developed a new centralized Web site that is now in beta testing. Also, for several years we have maintained and continue to maintain, utahlegalnotices.com. Both of these Web sites have been searchable by key words. The new Web site will be RSS feed capable and a fully searchable database of statewide public notices. One will also be able to subscribe to e-mail feeds on a particular key word. We believe that we have developed one of the most sophisticated legal notice Web sites in the United States.
The Utah Press Association has also pledged to create an advertising campaign that would help citizens better understand and access public notices. As has been the case for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices? Also, should the government be in the business of creating its own communications bureaucracy?
SPECIFIC POINTS
A. Public notices must be published by a neutral and independent party.
a. Allowing government officials to post public notices takes away third-party neutral oversight and removes any independent proof of publication.
b. Placing the responsibility of notifying the public in the hands of government officials carries with it a potential for abuse. For example, it may create the temptation to change or manipulate the timing of public notices.
c. Newspapers serve as watchdogs for the community. If a scheduled public notice is not published or contains false information, newspapers are likely to catch the omission or mistake because of their experience in publishing public notices.
B. Public notices must be accessible to the public.
a. Those without computers will not see public notices. Large segments of society lack the means to purchase a computer or to pay for regular Internet access.
b. The government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure adequate notification to the public of its actions. That responsibility cannot be abandoned in favor of presumed cost savings. Furthermore, these savings may prove to be elusive in light of a decrease in effective public notice, and the additional funds that must be allocated to the creation or maintenance of a government Web site.
c. Local newspapers are the established medium for public notices – they are where the public expects to find them.
d. Allowing individual government entities to publish notices on their respective Web sites would create a myriad of different public-notice locations on the Web. Finding them would require computer and Internet skills that many people lack. Newspapers provide readers a single, convenient location in which to find public notices.
e. A significant percentage of Americans do not use the Internet on a regular basis. In 2005, penetration levels hovered at about 68 percent, up only 4 percent in over five years. (Jupiter Research, 2005). Of those that have Internet, only 60 percent of them are online in a given day (Pew Research Center, 2005).
f. Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises the elderly. Surveys show that only 29 percent of adults over the age of 65 go online (Pew Research Center, 2006). A recent study by American Demographics found that 78 percent of Americans over the age of 65 get their news from newspapers, while only 12 percent look to the Internet for news. Senior citizens are also among the most politically active citizens and thus are most likely to take advantage of public notices.
g. Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises minority citizens. Both African-Americans (56 percent) and Hispanics (52 percent) are below the national average in Internet penetration and are expected to remain well under the national average for many years to come. (Jupiter Research, 2005)
h. Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises the poor. Demographic research shows 94 percent of citizens earning of income of $75,000 per year are Internet users. However, only 54 percent of those who make less that $30,000 use the Internet. (Pew Research Center, 2006)
i. Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises rural citizens. Internet access in rural areas is consistently 10 percent below the national average, studies show. Furthermore, rural residents are less likely to have access to broadband Internet connections (Pew Research Center, 2006).
j.. With notices online, guaranteeing or measuring readership is difficult. Newspapers, on the other hand, are required to demonstrate readership by providing records of paid subscribers, maintaining postal permits or submitting to outside subscription audits. Newspapers are required to maintain certain levels of readership, while Internet sites cannot guarantee even minimal levels of readership.
C. Public Notices must be archived in a secure and accessible format.
a. The Internet does not provide a reliable archival history of public notices. Entire years' worth of notices could be deleted with the touch of a single button.
b. The stability of newspapers as a medium for public notices is unquestionable. The Internet, on the other hand, remains highly vulnerable and unstable. Power surges, computer problems and downed servers can prevent access at any time.
c. Hackers attack not just individual computers and Web sites, but even the routers and switches that handle the backbone of the Internet. A successful hacker attack could leave networks out of commission for days or weeks or could compromise the integrity of public notice data.
d. Computer worms, trojans and viruses are constant threats, including for government computers. Printed public notices provide a record of public notices that cannot be altered.
D. The act of publishing a notice must be verified and authenticated by the publisher.
a. Newspapers serve an important monitoring function. If government entities publish their own notices, it would be much more difficult for the community to monitor compliance and accuracy. Newspapers, on the other hand, rely partly on the publication of notices for revenues, and thus are more apt to make sure local governments are publishing notices in accordance with the law.
b. With Internet publication, interested parties cannot prove whether they were properly notified of an impending action. Newspapers serve as verifiable records of publication; sworn affidavits and hard-copy tearsheets provide undeniable proof of an ad's publication.
II. SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS AGAINST PLACING PROCUREMENT NOTICES ON GOVERNMENT INTERNET SITES.
A. Placing procurement notices online reduces government transparency.
a. The publication of government procurement notices serves two major purposes. First, the notices are published to invite bids from qualified bidders. Second, the notices are published to maintain transparency, and hence public confidence in the government. The public must know how their tax dollars are spent. The fact remains that large segments of society do not have Internet access and thus will not be able to access the procurement notices. If the public is not properly notified of the inner workings of its local government, trust and confidence in the government will be seriously undermined.
B. Small and minority owned businesses will be harmed.
a. Recent studies show that minorities remain well behind whites in use of the Internet. This "digital divide" is constant across all income and educational levels. Placing procurement notices on the Internet will disproportionately excluse minority-owned businesses, which are far less likely to have Internet access than their rivals.
b. Placing procurement notices on the Internet creates a disadvantage for smaller businesses, which are less likely to have Internet access or the resources to regularly search and monitor the Internet than their larger and more technologically endowed counterparts.
C. Placing procurement notices on the Internet may increase contract prices.
a. Local governments, which are spending taxpayer dollars, have an interest in the widest possible dissemination of bid notices. This ensures that the government receives the largest amount of bids on any given project, thereby increasing competition and driving down costs. If the notices are published on the Internet instead of in widely accessible newspapers, fewer bidders will see the notices, and contract prices will increase.
D. Placing procurement information online gives rise to the potential for financially motivated tampering and hacking.
The Internet is highly vulnerable to attacks from hackers. Because procurement bids involve financial relations between the public and private sectors, the incentive for hacking and electronic tampering is great. Hackers could easily alter the timing and content of online notices in order to gain a competitive advantage
The stated goal of SB208 is to expand the availability of public notices.
By removing notices from newspapers and putting them on obscure state Web site actually reduces the availability to large part of the population. Therefore, to reach the largest possible audience the Utah Press Association believes that public notice should be both in newspapers and on the Web.
For the past two years, with the agreement of former Senate President John Valentine and Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, Utah's newspapers have developed a new centralized Web site that is now in beta testing. Also, for several years we have maintained and continue to maintain, utahlegalnotices.com. Both of these Web sites have been searchable by key words. The new Web site will be RSS feed capable and a fully searchable database of statewide public notices. One will also be able to subscribe to e-mail feeds on a particular key word. We believe that we have developed one of the most sophisticated legal notice Web sites in the United States.
The Utah Press Association has also pledged to create an advertising campaign that would help citizens better understand and access public notices. As has been the case for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices? Also, should the government be in the business of creating its own communications bureaucracy?
SPECIFIC POINTS
A. Public notices must be published by a neutral and independent party.
a. Allowing government officials to post public notices takes away third-party neutral oversight and removes any independent proof of publication.
b. Placing the responsibility of notifying the public in the hands of government officials carries with it a potential for abuse. For example, it may create the temptation to change or manipulate the timing of public notices.
c. Newspapers serve as watchdogs for the community. If a scheduled public notice is not published or contains false information, newspapers are likely to catch the omission or mistake because of their experience in publishing public notices.
B. Public notices must be accessible to the public.
a. Those without computers will not see public notices. Large segments of society lack the means to purchase a computer or to pay for regular Internet access.
b. The government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure adequate notification to the public of its actions. That responsibility cannot be abandoned in favor of presumed cost savings. Furthermore, these savings may prove to be elusive in light of a decrease in effective public notice, and the additional funds that must be allocated to the creation or maintenance of a government Web site.
c. Local newspapers are the established medium for public notices – they are where the public expects to find them.
d. Allowing individual government entities to publish notices on their respective Web sites would create a myriad of different public-notice locations on the Web. Finding them would require computer and Internet skills that many people lack. Newspapers provide readers a single, convenient location in which to find public notices.
e. A significant percentage of Americans do not use the Internet on a regular basis. In 2005, penetration levels hovered at about 68 percent, up only 4 percent in over five years. (Jupiter Research, 2005). Of those that have Internet, only 60 percent of them are online in a given day (Pew Research Center, 2005).
f. Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises the elderly. Surveys show that only 29 percent of adults over the age of 65 go online (Pew Research Center, 2006). A recent study by American Demographics found that 78 percent of Americans over the age of 65 get their news from newspapers, while only 12 percent look to the Internet for news. Senior citizens are also among the most politically active citizens and thus are most likely to take advantage of public notices.
g. Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises minority citizens. Both African-Americans (56 percent) and Hispanics (52 percent) are below the national average in Internet penetration and are expected to remain well under the national average for many years to come. (Jupiter Research, 2005)
h. Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises the poor. Demographic research shows 94 percent of citizens earning of income of $75,000 per year are Internet users. However, only 54 percent of those who make less that $30,000 use the Internet. (Pew Research Center, 2006)
i. Placing public notices on the Internet disenfranchises rural citizens. Internet access in rural areas is consistently 10 percent below the national average, studies show. Furthermore, rural residents are less likely to have access to broadband Internet connections (Pew Research Center, 2006).
j.. With notices online, guaranteeing or measuring readership is difficult. Newspapers, on the other hand, are required to demonstrate readership by providing records of paid subscribers, maintaining postal permits or submitting to outside subscription audits. Newspapers are required to maintain certain levels of readership, while Internet sites cannot guarantee even minimal levels of readership.
C. Public Notices must be archived in a secure and accessible format.
a. The Internet does not provide a reliable archival history of public notices. Entire years' worth of notices could be deleted with the touch of a single button.
b. The stability of newspapers as a medium for public notices is unquestionable. The Internet, on the other hand, remains highly vulnerable and unstable. Power surges, computer problems and downed servers can prevent access at any time.
c. Hackers attack not just individual computers and Web sites, but even the routers and switches that handle the backbone of the Internet. A successful hacker attack could leave networks out of commission for days or weeks or could compromise the integrity of public notice data.
d. Computer worms, trojans and viruses are constant threats, including for government computers. Printed public notices provide a record of public notices that cannot be altered.
D. The act of publishing a notice must be verified and authenticated by the publisher.
a. Newspapers serve an important monitoring function. If government entities publish their own notices, it would be much more difficult for the community to monitor compliance and accuracy. Newspapers, on the other hand, rely partly on the publication of notices for revenues, and thus are more apt to make sure local governments are publishing notices in accordance with the law.
b. With Internet publication, interested parties cannot prove whether they were properly notified of an impending action. Newspapers serve as verifiable records of publication; sworn affidavits and hard-copy tearsheets provide undeniable proof of an ad's publication.
II. SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS AGAINST PLACING PROCUREMENT NOTICES ON GOVERNMENT INTERNET SITES.
A. Placing procurement notices online reduces government transparency.
a. The publication of government procurement notices serves two major purposes. First, the notices are published to invite bids from qualified bidders. Second, the notices are published to maintain transparency, and hence public confidence in the government. The public must know how their tax dollars are spent. The fact remains that large segments of society do not have Internet access and thus will not be able to access the procurement notices. If the public is not properly notified of the inner workings of its local government, trust and confidence in the government will be seriously undermined.
B. Small and minority owned businesses will be harmed.
a. Recent studies show that minorities remain well behind whites in use of the Internet. This "digital divide" is constant across all income and educational levels. Placing procurement notices on the Internet will disproportionately excluse minority-owned businesses, which are far less likely to have Internet access than their rivals.
b. Placing procurement notices on the Internet creates a disadvantage for smaller businesses, which are less likely to have Internet access or the resources to regularly search and monitor the Internet than their larger and more technologically endowed counterparts.
C. Placing procurement notices on the Internet may increase contract prices.
a. Local governments, which are spending taxpayer dollars, have an interest in the widest possible dissemination of bid notices. This ensures that the government receives the largest amount of bids on any given project, thereby increasing competition and driving down costs. If the notices are published on the Internet instead of in widely accessible newspapers, fewer bidders will see the notices, and contract prices will increase.
D. Placing procurement information online gives rise to the potential for financially motivated tampering and hacking.
The Internet is highly vulnerable to attacks from hackers. Because procurement bids involve financial relations between the public and private sectors, the incentive for hacking and electronic tampering is great. Hackers could easily alter the timing and content of online notices in order to gain a competitive advantage
Daily Herald covers SB208 press conference.
Here's Joe Pyrah's take on Sen. Urquhart's press conference in the Daily Herald.
Newspapers get it on public notice!
The truth is that newspapers get it. If Sen. Urquhart had made a simple phone call or questions of legislators who are familiar with the idea would have shown that the Utah Press Association agrees on the the need to expand the reach and accessibility of use of public notice.
However, we believe that public notice should be both in newspapers and on the Web. For the past two years, with the agreement of former Senate President John Valentine and Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, Utah's newspapers have developed a new centralized Web site that is now in beta testing. Also, for several years we have maintained and continue to maintain, utahlegalnotices.com. Both of these Web sites have been searchable by key words. The new
Web site will be RSS feed capable and a fully searchable database of statewide public notices. One will also be able to subscribe to e-mail feeds on a particular key word. We believe that we have developed one of the most sophisticated legal notice Web sites in the United States.
The Utah Press Association has also pledged to create an advertising campaign that would help citizens better understand and access public notices. As has been the case for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices? Also, should the government be in the business of creating its own communications bureaucracy?
Also, there are real costs associated with creating and maintaining a public notice Web site. Currently, along with the initial startup costs, the Utah Public Meeting Notice Web site has at least one full-time staff and ongoing costs through the Utah Department of Archives.
Joel Campbell
Utah Press Association
Legislative Monitor
However, we believe that public notice should be both in newspapers and on the Web. For the past two years, with the agreement of former Senate President John Valentine and Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, Utah's newspapers have developed a new centralized Web site that is now in beta testing. Also, for several years we have maintained and continue to maintain, utahlegalnotices.com. Both of these Web sites have been searchable by key words. The new
Web site will be RSS feed capable and a fully searchable database of statewide public notices. One will also be able to subscribe to e-mail feeds on a particular key word. We believe that we have developed one of the most sophisticated legal notice Web sites in the United States.
The Utah Press Association has also pledged to create an advertising campaign that would help citizens better understand and access public notices. As has been the case for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices? Also, should the government be in the business of creating its own communications bureaucracy?
Also, there are real costs associated with creating and maintaining a public notice Web site. Currently, along with the initial startup costs, the Utah Public Meeting Notice Web site has at least one full-time staff and ongoing costs through the Utah Department of Archives.
Joel Campbell
Utah Press Association
Legislative Monitor
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Urquhart unveils bill to eliminate newspaper public notices
Sen. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, held a “bloggers only” press conference Tuesday to introduce a bill that would eliminate all requirements for public notice in newspapers from Utah law.
Urquhart says he will run SB208, currently an empty box-car bill, that will change all references in Utah law to only require legal notices on the state’s Web site rather newspapers.
Key statements from Urquhart at his press conference:
Newspapers don’t reach the citizens.
Citizens could use the Web site for a reasonable fee.
He said he wants to lower the cost of public notices and increase the visibility.
Newspapers would have to compete with the state for public notices.
Urquhart sees public notices still appearing in smaller newspapers, but government would have a choice.
The bill would go into effect in July 2010.
The bill would create a central repository of legal notices.
Citizens are being charged too much for public notices
"We want to create better notice and a bigger pool of people who know what is
going on,”
This could be a cheaper alternative for posting foreclosure notices.
Newspapers are asking to increase how much they charge for legal notices, so consumerbill s shouldn’t be forced to take out legal notices in the newspaper
Listen to the entire press conference
Here are some blogs about the press conference:
JMBell
Urquhart says he will run SB208, currently an empty box-car bill, that will change all references in Utah law to only require legal notices on the state’s Web site rather newspapers.
Key statements from Urquhart at his press conference:
Newspapers don’t reach the citizens.
Citizens could use the Web site for a reasonable fee.
He said he wants to lower the cost of public notices and increase the visibility.
Newspapers would have to compete with the state for public notices.
Urquhart sees public notices still appearing in smaller newspapers, but government would have a choice.
The bill would go into effect in July 2010.
The bill would create a central repository of legal notices.
Citizens are being charged too much for public notices
"We want to create better notice and a bigger pool of people who know what is
going on,”
This could be a cheaper alternative for posting foreclosure notices.
Newspapers are asking to increase how much they charge for legal notices, so consumerbill s shouldn’t be forced to take out legal notices in the newspaper
Listen to the entire press conference
Here are some blogs about the press conference:
JMBell
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Two GRAMA box car bills filed
Two Utah Public Notice Web Site bills filed
There are two new Utah Public Notice Web Site bills that have been filed.
HB 323
This bill requires certain entities to post public notice on the state Web site before preparing a proposed general plan or amendment, long-range plan, or capital facilities plan.
SB208
This bill is currently a box car filed by Sen. Steve Urquardt
HB 323
This bill requires certain entities to post public notice on the state Web site before preparing a proposed general plan or amendment, long-range plan, or capital facilities plan.
SB208
This bill is currently a box car filed by Sen. Steve Urquardt
SB161 passes committee
SB161 was passed out of a Senate Committee on Friday with the promise from Sen. Kevin VanTassel that he would amend the present an amendment on the floor that it would eliminate any distinction about what could be charged.
SB161
See Kevin Ashby's note below:
Joel - we got into committee meeting and got hung up on the word being struck out and the definition of open rate. A senator commented that it should be worded the same way as the daily's - with no instuction as to what can be charged. Kevin said he would make this ammendment of deleting the line about a legal line rate and present it next week for a vote. Sounded good to me.
Kevin
SB161
See Kevin Ashby's note below:
Joel - we got into committee meeting and got hung up on the word being struck out and the definition of open rate. A senator commented that it should be worded the same way as the daily's - with no instuction as to what can be charged. Kevin said he would make this ammendment of deleting the line about a legal line rate and present it next week for a vote. Sounded good to me.
Kevin
Saturday, February 7, 2009
HB122 in committee on Monday morning
The bill mentioned below will be in committee at 8 a.m. Here's the agenda
http://le.utah.gov/~2009/agenda/HLAW0209.ag.htm for the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee
25 House Building, Utah State Capitol Complex
And here's committee members
Rep. Douglas C. Aagard, Chair
Rep. Curtis Oda, Vice Chair
Rep. Trisha S. Beck
Rep. John Dougall
Rep. Ben C. Ferry
Rep. Richard A. Greenwood
Rep. David Litvack
Rep. Rebecca D. Lockhart
Rep. Paul Ray
Rep. Jennifer M. Seelig
Rep. Larry B. Wiley
Rep. Carl Wimmer
http://le.utah.gov/~2009/agenda/HLAW0209.ag.htm for the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee
25 House Building, Utah State Capitol Complex
And here's committee members
Rep. Douglas C. Aagard, Chair
Rep. Curtis Oda, Vice Chair
Rep. Trisha S. Beck
Rep. John Dougall
Rep. Ben C. Ferry
Rep. Richard A. Greenwood
Rep. David Litvack
Rep. Rebecca D. Lockhart
Rep. Paul Ray
Rep. Jennifer M. Seelig
Rep. Larry B. Wiley
Rep. Carl Wimmer
Utah League GRAMA proposal
I spoke with Lincoln Shurtz yesterday from the Utah League of Cities and Towns. The League is asking to add a provision to GRAMA that would limit requesters to 24 GRAMA requests per year. After that they would have to pay for all charges associated with the request. Lincoln said that "public interest" requests would not be covered by the charges. Because of the public interest language in GRAMA, he believes it wouldn't cover media requests. As you know, the law does say those working on a story for publication or air are considered working in the public interest. Beyond that, I am not sure how well that protects the public. The have asked Rep. Greg Hughes to amend this language to HB 118 or another GRAMA bill. In theory, I don't like limiting the public access.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The undoing of Utah's records law -- HB122
HB 122 should concern anyone who cares about proper checks and balances on government power. This bill would expand the legal exception for attorney-client records under the Government Records Access and Management Act, the state's public records law to include "anticipated" litigation. Even worse, it is a wholesale elimination of several categories of records from GRAMA's public interest balancing test.
Among the records that would not be subject to the balancing test under HB122 are law enforcement investigatory records, employee disciplinary records, audit records and licensing records. This robs the public of "due process" to request opening of records that have great public interest. GRAMA properly allows these records to locked up, but this bill throws away the key. The public loses is right to challenge such closures if this bill becomes law.
The government officials have expressed fears that the balancing test would allow a judge or the State Records Committee to second guess or overrule a legitimate "protected" classification. That's the point. The law is working the way it was designed to work. It has been used very rarely and only in cases when requesters were able to make a case for an overriding public interest including the Olympics bribery scandal investigation, disciplinary records at Salt Lake County and wilderness road designations . If there were ever cases where the public had a right to know, these were it. Maybe, it's because government attorneys never like to lose cases that the Attorney General is behind this bill, but the power of government officials to classify records, including attorneys, is properly checked by the State Records Committee and state courts.
The balancing test is a check and balance by the judiciary on the executive, a process that has a long and honored place in the American system of government. Deference to public disclosure is also appropriate in a democracy. In fact, this bill would run amok of the legislative intent. GRAMA was written to "favor public access when, in the application of this act, countervailing interests are of equal weight." That means, all things being equal, that the public interest should prevail.
That balancing test was a result of a five-year process that involved discussion of many record users and government agencies. Yet, the AG's office never sought to discuss this measure with most of the public-interest groups that were involved in GRAMA's creation. The public should cry foul if legislators try to pass HB 122.
Among the records that would not be subject to the balancing test under HB122 are law enforcement investigatory records, employee disciplinary records, audit records and licensing records. This robs the public of "due process" to request opening of records that have great public interest. GRAMA properly allows these records to locked up, but this bill throws away the key. The public loses is right to challenge such closures if this bill becomes law.
The government officials have expressed fears that the balancing test would allow a judge or the State Records Committee to second guess or overrule a legitimate "protected" classification. That's the point. The law is working the way it was designed to work. It has been used very rarely and only in cases when requesters were able to make a case for an overriding public interest including the Olympics bribery scandal investigation, disciplinary records at Salt Lake County and wilderness road designations . If there were ever cases where the public had a right to know, these were it. Maybe, it's because government attorneys never like to lose cases that the Attorney General is behind this bill, but the power of government officials to classify records, including attorneys, is properly checked by the State Records Committee and state courts.
The balancing test is a check and balance by the judiciary on the executive, a process that has a long and honored place in the American system of government. Deference to public disclosure is also appropriate in a democracy. In fact, this bill would run amok of the legislative intent. GRAMA was written to "favor public access when, in the application of this act, countervailing interests are of equal weight." That means, all things being equal, that the public interest should prevail.
That balancing test was a result of a five-year process that involved discussion of many record users and government agencies. Yet, the AG's office never sought to discuss this measure with most of the public-interest groups that were involved in GRAMA's creation. The public should cry foul if legislators try to pass HB 122.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Update on UPA watch list
Key Legislative Bills UPA is watching
Updated Feb. 3, 2009
Joel Campbell
UPA Legislative Monitor
Public Notice
SB161 Repeal of Maximum Charge to Publish Legal Notice
UPA members are scheduled to speak to the Utah Legislative Rural Caucus on Friday, Feb. 9, about public notices Web site and Maximum Line Rate legislation.
HB 67 Public Hearings on Property Tax Increases
Reduces the number of Truth in Taxation notices by one and requires all entities in one county advertise in a combined Truth in Taxation notice. It has passed the House and has been introduced in the Senate.
Open and Public Meetings Act and GRAMA
HB122 was pulled from a committee agenda on Feb. 3. Newspaper attorneys were scheduled to meet with Attorney General Mark Shurtleff on Feb. 5.
See also Salt Lake Tribune article.
Jeff Hunt writes:
HB 122 is very problematic. It expands the exception for attorney-client records. Worse yet, it removes several categories of records from the public interest balancing test, meaning that the news media and public would not be able to argue that public interest is served by disclosure of records even if they are technically properly classified as non-public. Among the records that would not be subject to the balancing test under the bill are law enforcement investigatory records, employee disciplinary records, audit records, and licensing records. This may be an attempt to reverse the Deseret News v. Salt Lake County Supreme Court win and some State Records Committee decisions on disciplinary records. As you know, the news media fought very hard for the balancing test in GRAMA. This bill would remove the balancing test option for a large category of records frequently requested by the media.
SB 26 Open and Public Meetings Act
Revises rules for release of public meeting minutes before they are approved and makes recordings of a public meeting available within 72 hours. This has been passed by the Senate and by a House committee.
SB 18 Utah Transparency Advisory Board
This bill was amended with the following provisions explained by the Utah League of Cities and Towns. It’s interesting the concessions made to allow local cities to simply provide link to the state’s Web site rather than provide them to the Web site.
Transparency in Gov. Finance and Taxation of Special Districts
Lincoln Shurtz, Utah League of Cities and Towns
Well today two of the more anticipated bills for local government were drafted and numbered.
First, we have SB18 First Substitute Transparency in Government Finance . While the first bill SB18 was out much earlier, the substitute, which addressed many of our concerns was made available for public dissemination.
Here are a few concerns that were expressed as well as the response outlined in SB18 First Substitute.
1. We raised an issue with the ability of small jurisdictions to comply with transparency requirements. In response, Sen. Niederhauser has provided a special exception for jurisdictions with a budget less than $10 Million dollars, which allows for special consideration of their financial capacity and technical capabilities.
2. We raised a concern regarding the timing of implementation. Sen. Niederhauser has subsequently delayed implementation of the legislation's effect until May 2011 for municipal governments.
3. We raised concerns regarding the volume and complexity of information that would be required by the proposed compliance. Sen. Niederhauser has responded by taking the rule making authority away from the State Department of Finance and giving it to the Transparency Advisory Board, of which we will be members as a result of this legislation.
4. We raised concerns regarding a requirement to submit information in a format similar to the state's website format. In response. Sen. Niederhauser has allowed for us to simply comply by linking our existing websites to the state website to allow for a unique format for each city.
5. We raised concerns regarding potential liability for disclosing protected records inadvertently. To address this concern, a liability waiver was included in the substitute.
SB 101 and HB 93 State Ethics Commission
Makes State Ethics Commission documents “protected” and exempt from the Open Meetings Act . These bills are not likely to go anywere.
DRAFT League of Cities and Towns is proposing a bill to restrict harassment GRAMA requests.
DRAFT Wrongful destruction of withholding of public records, Greg Hughes
Sales Tax
DRAFT Sales and Use Tax Definitions… Wayne Harper and John Valentine
Other bills of interest
DRAFT Midterm vacancies in Political Offices Amendments
DRAFT Legislator Communications with Judiciary and Executive Branch Resolution
HB59 Subpoenas for Records in certain Criminal Investigations
HB 232 Campaign and Financial Reporting Requirements Revisions
SB 25 Online Voter Registration
HB 48 Ballot Question Amendments
HB 103 Revolving Door Limitations for Public Officials to Become Lobbyists
HB 213 Ban on Gifts to Legislators
SB 30 Enhancement of Truth in Advertising Act
HB 247 Sex Offender e-mail Registration
HB 41 Sex Offender Registry Amendments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)