UPA Legislative Watch

Alert! Major restrictive changes proposed for Utah's records law

2011-03-01T20:13:00.001-08:00

Dear Friends of Open Government.

HB477 (Sponsored by John Dougall, R-American Fork) was unveiled
tonight and makes many significant changes to the Utah Government
Records Access and Management Act. It will be heard in committee
tomorrow afternoon at 4:10 p.m. in Room 20 of the House Builidng on
Wednesday. We need people to attend and, if allowed, to testify. We
also need people to start contacting committee members and their
representatives.

Here is a link to the bill:
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillint/hb0477.htm
Attorneys and others are still cataloging all of the proposed
changes, but here are some highlights:
-- The legislature would exempt itself from all provisions of GRAMA
except for the legislative intent and security provisions. Legislative
Management would create its own rules of access.
-- Would change the standard for the for the State Records Committee
to disclose information from a balancing test between the public
interest and other interests to a much higher "preponderance of
evidence" standard.
-- Would remove access to police follow-up reports, even if they
contained information that is classified as part of an "initial
contact report"
-- Would remove text messages, a voice mail message or video chat as
covered documents under the law.
-- Would include the cost of overhead, salaries and experts time in
calculating the cost to copy records.
-- Fee waivers for copies would be based on whether it is in the best
interest of taxpayers resources to do so.
-- The current law states that citizens can inspect a record free of
charge, but the proposed changes says that fees could be applied to
records which are readily available.

And the list goes on.. Talking points and more detailed info to follow...

Please call members of the committee and ask them to oppose this, if
for no other reason that such a major shift in Utah's bedrock
transparency law, needs more than 24 hours review. The original took
two years to develop.

Rep. Michael E. Noel, Chair, Kanab
Rep. Stephen G. Handy, Vice Chair, Layton

Rep. Roger E. Barrus, Centerville
Rep. Fred C. Cox, West Valley,
Rep. John Dougall, American Fork

Rep. Lynn N. Hemingway, Salt Lake City
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson, West Valley City
Rep. Christopher N. Herrod, Provo

Rep. Ken Ivory, West Jordan
Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox, Ogden
Rep. Brad R. Wilson, Kaysville

HB266 would lock up salary information

2010-02-09T20:31:00.001-08:00

Untold stories
By Joel Campbell
Utah Press Association

If HB266 passes in the Utah Legislature, only titles and salaries of public officials would be released, while some elected appointed officials names and salaries would be released. The bill does not say who gets to decide which salaries and names should be public and which should not. Furthermore, the bill would severely the ability of the public to watchdog the government and its expenditures. The reasons for the bill are short-sighted. If names of Utah public employees were protected under GRAMA, the following kinds of abuse and corruption would never come to light to the public.

In 2008, The Salt Lake Tribune analysis of Sandy's pay records - finally made public under court order - revealed a decades-old system that disproportionately benefited the city's highest-paid employees, including the mayor, administrators, department heads and their top aides. Dolan and his administrators fought to keep city pay records secret, beginning with their 2004 denial of a Salt Lake Tribune request for the names and salaries of police officers and firefighters. It resulted in a change in Sandy's bonus program and earned the Society of Professional Journalist's Freedom of Information Award last year.

A 2008 KSL investigation found that Herriman City Hall was filled with relatives. From department heads to the crossing guards, the investigation revealed that Herriman City Hall is a family affair. The planning director's niece was on the planning staff, and his nephew was an intern. A planning commissioner's daughter was a city planner. A nephew got a job too. The water manager's brother works in another department. The department's director has two brothers-in-law who work in other divisions. The assistant city manager's sister-in-law was hired in finance. His own son got a job on the street crew. An employee in the mayor's office has a sister who got hired in another department. In all, KSL found that 30 percent of Herriman's total city workforce -- one out of every three city employees -- is related to someone else who works for the city. If SB266 becomes law, the problems of nepotism would be far more unlikely to come to light. Names are needed to show family ties.

The Herriman city manager also served as the city’s mayor, considered a conflict for many cities. Under the SB266 plan, there would be no way to find out if a government employee held two city positions at once or was receiving a pension while employed by government. The problem under SB266, salaries and associated names would not be public information. A single person could hold two titles but the connection will remain a secret.

A Deseret News article examined how women do not advance as quickly -- or as often -- as men in local government in Utah. This report analyzes and compares the salaries of the top earners of Provo City employees, both men and women, Under the SB166, names of employees could not be released as part of an investigation of gender equity. Such names and gender would be critical to such an investigation.

This is how laws help protect the public interest in other states. An investigation found that some of the most powerful Indiana state legislators are also administrators of a state-funded community college. Three of the four legislators have six figure salaries but do little work, and the fourth earned closer to $65,000 per year. The lawmakers sometimes vote on major college issues despite their conflict of interest. Under the SB266 scheme, legislator’s salaries and names might show up with their legislative work, but may not be reported by other agencies where they are employed.

The Texas Associated Press gathered salary information to compare high school football coaches' salaries with the average pay of teachers and the best-paid educators in their districts. The AP determined that high school football coaches in Texas earn 75 percent more than the average teacher. Nearly 80 percent of the coaches make more than the best-paid teacher in their districts. The proposed Utah bill would make nearly impossible to do such a comparison.

Middlesex News (Framingham, Mass.) investigated the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, uncovering patronage, nepotism, exorbitant salaries, no-bid contracts, and plans to keep charging tolls although the road has already paid for itself.

The Oakland (Calif.) Tribune reported on a hidden layer of government that had developed in the state of California; obscure agencies were still operating long after their roles became obsolete, with officials receiving salaries for serving on the agencies' boards. Such corruption would be difficult to track without names of staff and officials.

Universities pay lavish salaries to land "superstar" professors, mostly in the fields of medicine and economics. The Columbus Dispatch analyzed salary databases for Ohio's 13 public universities to find the highest-paid professors in the state. The series focuses on Ohio State University, the school with the most professors among the highest-paid. Such super-stars, only identifiable through names, would be able to be checked out.

The San Francisco Examiner investigation explored a practice of questionable expenditures at the San Francisco Unified School District. The series focused on the finding that "some San Francisco school custodians have doubled their salaries through overtime pay," charging the district for "answering" alarms that apparently never went off..." The investigation revealed that "the oversight may have cost millions over a number of years," as "the district failed to conduct the most basic oversight. How can such a check on the public purse be pursued unless investigators were able to use names of the custodians.

The Denver Post analysis of pension records revealed an outdated pension system that "funnels millions of tax dollars to retired city police officers and firefighters by linking their pensions to the salaries of current department employees, even decades after they've retired. Names are the only way to accurately connect the dots on such an investigation.

Source: Salt Lake Tribune, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc.

HB266 would hurt public's right to know

2010-02-03T09:21:00.000-08:00

Wasatch Wave’s (Heber City, Utah) editorial position:
Government behind closed doors

The Issue:
Proposed legislation will limit public’s right to know
We Suggest:
Kill the Bill Rep. Powell

A bill (HB 266) has been drafted and sponsored by our own State Representative Kraig Powell that would eliminate the public's right to know what public employees are paid. This bill was drafted at the request of Wasatch County Payroll Manager Dell Barney.
We are appalled that Rep. Powell would even consider sponsoring a bill that would hide from the public the expenditures of public monies from the electorate. The passage of this bill could open the floodgates of corruption in the determination of salaries for public employees. Without public scrutiny some employees could receive monumental salaries and others could be penalized with substandard wages all under the cover of no public knowledge of government’s activities and expenditures.
Barney’s request for the submission of this bill is nothing more than an attempt of government to conduct its affairs away from public oversight.
We must remember that this is public money being spent for public employees, and as the public employees’ bosses, the taxpayer has a right to know how every dime is being spent. Aren’t bosses entitled to know how salaries of their employees are being allocated?
This legislation would open the door for exorbitant salaries for a few and poverty wages for those not in favor with the administration. This observation is supported by the obscene salaries paid to industry and banking management away from the scrutiny of their stockholders. This action was fostered behind closed doors without the oversight of the public.
When Rep. Powell was asked about why he would sponsor such a poor piece of legislation he responded by stating that he had a responsibility to carry any legislation from his constituents. If this is the case then we suggest that anyone who would like to be named king request Rep. Powell to sponsor the appropriate bill for such action.
We must keep in mind that government that is conducted behind closed doors away from the scrutiny of the electorate is not a democracy. Democracy’s basic premise is based on the public’s right to know the actions and activities of its elected officials.
We would suggest that Mr. Barney enroll in a course in basic American government and pay particular attention to First Amendment rights. That’s the part that guarantees the public’s right to know.
We request that Rep. Powell withdraw his sponsorship of this misguided legislation. To be a party to such a bad piece of legislation definitely reflects poorly on the people of Wasatch County. Remember, Rep. Powell, you were elected by the majority to represent the best interests of the community as a whole. Not just a select few.
Legislation that fosters ignorance of the activities of government is not in the best interest of a free, informed, democratic society.

HB 60 -- bill would close canal safety records

2010-01-26T11:49:00.001-08:00

Tomorrow morning the House Natural Resources, Agriculture, and
Environment Standing Committee
http://le.utah.gov/~2010/agenda/HNAE0127.ag.htm
will consider a bill that would require canal companies to create a
management plan for their canals and then makes those plans protected
records under GRAMA. Specifically, the plans would be created to find
out hazards and other safety concerns with canals in the wake of the
canal collapses in Logan. We would ask you to call the following
committee members and ask them to keep these records public.

Below are two letters, one from Bruce Smith and the other from Allison
Hess, explaining why this bill hurts the public's right to know and
the public's ability to weigh the risks of canal safety in Utah. You
should know that UPA and SPJ met with the sponsor Rep. Hunsaker and
agree to disagree about making this information public.

Here's a link to the bill

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0060.htm

Please call ASAP especially if you have any personal connections with
them. The number for the House is 801-528-1029.

Committee members

Rep. Roger E. Barrus, Chair
Rep. John G. Mathis, Vice Chair

Rep. Melvin R. Brown
Rep. Brad L. Dee
Rep. Jack R. Draxler
Rep. Kerry W. Gibson
Rep. James R. Gowans
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson
Rep. Michael E. Noel
Rep. Patrick Painter
Rep. Phil Riesen
Rep. Christine F. Watkins
Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox
Rep. Bill Wright

Fred,

Your effort to protect the citizens of Utah by enhancing the
safety of the canal systems is commendable. However, I must tell you
that I think keeping the information about the safety of the canals
and the plans to correct the problems from the public is not the right
thing to do. As you know three people were killed in Logan last
summer as a result ot a canal problem. The public has a right to know
what the owners of the canal companies are going to do to insure that
a disaster like this doesn't happen again.

I might be missing something but I see no reason to keep the
information secret. Even though the canal companies are private
endities, what they do, or don't do has a huge impact on the public.
As you know canals run all through Cache Valley and the people who may
be impacted by what the canal compinies do have a right to know what
their plans are. Your bill should allow those plans to be made
public.

The argument that they are private, thus can keep their plans
secret isn't right especially if they are going to get tax payer help.
The canal companies have a history of wanting to keep things secret,
they think it's easier that way. However the public has a right to
know especially when public safety is a concern.

Your bill is an important one especially for the citizens of Cache
Valley. The people in Cache Valley have a right to know what hazards
are out there, and what the canal companies are going to do about it.

Your bill would be a much better bill and have a much greater
chance of passing if the public is brought into the debate. The
public would be better served if the information about canal owners
plans was allowed to be public information.

Bruce K. Smith
Publisher
The Herald Journal
P.O. Box 487
Logan, Utah 84321
bsmith@hjnews.com
435-752-2121

Dear Representative Hunsaker:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Utah Chapter of the Society of
Professional Journalists. We want you to know we applaud your efforts
to enhance the safety of Utah canals; however, we feel the best
protection for citizens comes when they have easy access to
information about the management and oversight of critical structures
that as we have seen could lead to death and damage.

We are very concerned about the language in your proposed canal
management safety bill, which forbids the state from disclosing the
plans under Utah’s Government Records Access Management Act.

In many instances, private entities' records are justifiably public,
particularly when they deal with public safety, health and money. For
example, most states make private security, private prison and private
hospital operators, particularly those which receive government
funding, subject to public records laws.

Many states require foundations that support university and schools to
open their records. Also, many states require private entities, which
receive tax dollars, for example, tourism groups, symphonies,
community chest, zoos, etc, make their records public. The federal
government also requires that all non--profit charities file yearly
public financial statements. Given
the history of this canal, public oversight is imperative.

We urge you to take the additional step in your legislation to promote
public safety, and make the information open to the public. It is not
only good public policy, it will create goodwill with citizens who
then feel as if they have input and information about structures will
have a significant impact on the community.

Please feel free to contact me. We would be pleased to discuss this
matter in person if you are willing.

Sincerely,

Allison Barlow Hess
President, Utah Headliners Chapter
Society of Professional Journalists

KVNU's For the People on SB208

2009-03-06T22:00:00.000-08:00

http://kvnuforthepeople.com/2009/03/06/bad-bills/

Hypocrisy raises my eyebrows, especially when it’s in the form of legislation. Two examples:

As I’ve said elsewhere, when you have some of the most anti-union organizations around (not to mention a majority of Utah Republicans in the House) “standing up” for the rights of union employees — in a right to work state, nonetheless — something is up.

And when you have Steve Urquhart (eternal victim of Utah’s “liberal media”) sponsoring a bill (SB208), with the support of these same Republican representatives, that claims government can do something better than private industry while also taking away a large chunk of a private industry’s (newspapers) revenue, it’s worth at least asking a few more questions. Shouldn’t they be telling us the free market can handle this problem? And normally, that’s exactly what they would be doing. Did Steve realize the error of his conservative ways, or is there more to the story? What gives?

Maybe I’m just a cynic. Maybe they’re hoping we’ll buy it. Either way, I’d bet my reputation neither of these pieces of legislation are as black and white as their sponsors and supporters would have us believe.

If SB208 doesn’t meet with a vote today, it’s sure to be buried in the ever present end of session Ombibus, and it seems — based on noted hypocrisy alone — to deserve more scrutiny than it’s getting.

2009-03-06T15:40:00.000-08:00

SB208 Second Substitute, which removes legal notices from newspapers Salt Lake
Utah,Davis, Weber and Washington, passed the Senate 18-8 along party lines.
Sens. Valentine, Bramble and Greiner were absent.

http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/sbillint/sb0208s02.htm

This bill now only applies to the following counties:

In smaller counties the notice must be provided on the Web site and in
the newspaper.

58th LEGISLATURE
2009 GENERAL SESSION

2SSB 208 RCS# 632
PASSAGE ON SECOND 3/06/2009 3:31:35 PM
2nd Reading

Utah Public Notice Website Amendments

Urquhart

18 YEAS 8 NAYS 3 ABSENT PASSED

YEAS 18

Bell Hinkins Madsen Urquhart
Buttars Jenkins Niederhauser Van Tassell
Christensen Killpack Okerlund Waddoups
Dayton Knudson Stephenson
Hillyard Liljenquist Stowell

NAYS 8

Davis Jones McCoy Robles
Goodfellow Mayne Morgan Romero

ABSENT 3

Bramble Greiner Valentine

Update on SB208 and HB122

2009-03-05T08:33:00.000-08:00

SB208
The bill is currently on the 2nd reading calendar and is likely to
come up sometime today. It is 22nd on the calendar. We are hoping for
defeat of the bill, but will likely see amendment from Sen. John
Valentine. We know the work of UPA publishers is working. We have been
told that support for this measure is eroding. I will send out an
alert when this is on and all can listed on the Internet if they
wish...
go to
http://www.le.state.ut.us/

and view What's Happening Today... There should be blinking icons for
both audio and video for the Senate.

H.B. 122 came before the full Senate today. The amendment to which
the media coalition agreed passed, and the bill was approved (vote was
27-1) for possible final passage (likely tomorrow or Friday) on the
Senate's third reading calendar. No attempt was made to further amend
the bill today, but Tribune attorney Michael O'Brien supposes
amendments could be raised tomorrow, but probably not by Bramble. As
you may have heard, Ogden city officials had proposed three awful
amendments to this bill.

I'll post more as the day progresses.

See live updates at upalegislativewatch.blogspot.com

Joel

Daily Spectrum Editorial:SB208 promotes more secretcy

2009-02-23T08:23:00.000-08:00

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.

Spectrum: Preserve GRAMA

2009-02-21T22:50:00.000-08:00

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.

Standard Examiner: House Bill 122 would allow government to keep secrets

2009-02-21T22:44:00.000-08:00

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 .

Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

2009-02-21T22:05:00.000-08:00

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

FIVE GOOD REASONS TO OPPOSE H.B. 122

2009-02-19T06:38:00.001-08:00

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

KSL: Don't dilute GRAMA

2009-02-18T05:59:00.001-08:00

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.

Why we should keep public notices in newspapers

2009-02-18T05:54:00.000-08:00

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

The price tag for government public notice so far -- $201,700

2009-02-11T11:44:00.001-08:00

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

Keep GRAMA intact, Five good reasons to oppose HB122,

2009-02-11T09:01:00.001-08:00

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

Park Record: Media and government square off

2009-02-11T08:08:00.000-08:00

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.

Standard Examiner: Don't mess with GRAMA

2009-02-11T08:04:00.000-08:00

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.

Why public notices need to be in newspapers and the Web

2009-02-11T08:02:00.001-08:00

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

Daily Herald covers SB208 press conference.

2009-02-11T07:33:00.000-08:00

Here's Joe Pyrah's take on Sen. Urquhart's press conference in the Daily Herald.

Newspapers get it on public notice!

2009-02-11T01:25:00.000-08:00

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

Urquhart unveils bill to eliminate newspaper public notices

2009-02-10T19:27:00.000-08:00

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

Two GRAMA box car bills filed

2009-02-08T08:22:00.000-08:00

HB0362 Wrongful Destruction or Withholding of Public Records
Rep. Greg Hughes

HB0375 Government Records in County Government Amendments
Rep. Doug Aagard

Two Utah Public Notice Web Site bills filed

2009-02-08T08:04:00.000-08:00

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

SB161 passes committee

2009-02-08T07:47:00.000-08:00

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

HB122 in committee on Monday morning

2009-02-07T08:55:00.000-08:00

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

Utah League GRAMA proposal

2009-02-07T08:06:00.001-08:00

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.

The undoing of Utah's records law -- HB122

2009-02-06T10:16:00.000-08:00

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.

Update on UPA watch list

2009-02-03T20:00:00.000-08:00

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.

What we hear from the League about GRAMA changes

2009-01-28T08:38:00.000-08:00

This was posted on the Utah League of Cities and Towns blog.

GRAMA:
As many cities have been experiencing problems associated with overwhelming records requests that are designed to harass rather than retrieve information, we are looking to amend the GRAMA laws to address harassment and ensure that those using such tactics pay the full cost of record retrieval. We are in the process of working the press and other interested parties to address this issue and will update you with language as soon as it is available. This request for legislation was made by the Salt Lake County Municipal Clerks and Recorders Association.

The Open Meeting Minutes bill is on the Senate Calendar

2009-01-27T16:18:00.000-08:00

SB26 is now on the Senate's 2nd reading calendar. Because it was an interim committee bill it will not have a Senate Committee hearing.

Utah Financial Disclosure Web Site up

2009-01-26T22:08:00.000-08:00

The Lt. Governors Financial Disclosure Web site is up, but you can't access from a Mac and you have to use Internet Explorer version 6 or 7.

Why SB 101 and HB 93 are bad ideas

2009-01-26T21:46:00.000-08:00

SB 101 and HB 93 State Ethics Commission

These two bills would create a State Ethics Commission. Its documents would be “protected” and exempt from the Open Meetings Act.

Rather than exempting and protecting everything the committee does, why not consider how the committee might protect information and hold executive sessions within the existing framework of GRAMA and the Open Meetings Act? It sets a bad precedent for such a key watchdog group to be exempt from our key state transparency laws. It undermines an overall state policy to better understand and embrace our open government laws. As Mayor Ralph Becker is doing, we need to encourage a culture of transparency in our state. This sends the wrong message.

Here's the UPA Watch List

2009-01-26T21:27:00.000-08:00

Public Notice

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.

DRAFT Amendments to notice provisions for subdivision changes, K. Powell

Maximum Line Rate

DRAFT Repeal of Maximum Line Rate Charge for Official Notices Published by Fourth and Fifth Class Cities and Towns

Open and Public Meetings Act and GRAMA

From Jeff Hunt:

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.

SB 18 Utah Transparency Advisory Board

SB 101 and HB 93 State Ethics Commission

Makes State Ethics Commission documents “protected” and exempt from the Open Meetings Act

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

Other bills of interest

DRAFT Midterm vacancies in Political Offices Amendments

DRAFT Legislator Communications with Judiciary and Executive Branch Resolution