Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Privacy Audits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
League weighs records-office bill and legislative-audit amendments; concerns raised about public-access perception and attorney-client privilege
Summary
The League discussed SB277 (creating a government records office and replacing the state records committee) and SB154/SJR4 (legislative audit amendments implicating attorney-client privilege) and signaled support for structural records-office changes while opposing SB154/SJR4 as drafted.
League staff briefed members on a package of bills affecting records access, government transparency, and data privacy during the Feb. 18 LPC meeting.
SB277 would replace the multi-member state records committee with a single, law-trained director appointed by the governor with Senate advice and consent, create a government records office, and remove the committee’s balancing test that allowed the panel to weigh access against privacy interests. League staff said the substitution narrows decision-making and places a law-trained individual in charge of records appeals; staff’s preliminary recommendation was to support SB277 but to monitor changes to the balancing-test language.
Members expressed concern about public perception and access. Lynn Pays (Sandy City) warned that siding with a bill that looks like it restricts access to government documents risks a public backlash: “There’s a good chance that our citizens will feel like we are in favor of restricting public access to government documents.” Dave Qualey (Salt Lake City) described administrative problems with the state records committee’s current process and said the committee’s inconsistent, time-consuming hearings create practical difficulties for cities that respond to large numbers of GRAMA requests.
The committee also discussed SB154 (legislative audit amendments) and SJR4, which together would change how the legislative auditor handles privileged records in audits and could remove procedural protections for attorney-client and work-product materials. League staff said the first substitute for SB154 reduced some risks but left significant concerns: the substitute sets a fast arbitration-like process and places costs for the arbitrator on the government entity if the auditor prevails, and the sub does not explicitly prohibit the auditor from further sharing privileged material. The League’s position for both SB154 sub1 and SJR4 was oppose as drafted because of potential erosion of attorney-client confidentiality and insufficient guardrails on auditor release and downstream distribution.
On data-privacy cleanup, staff described HB491 (data privacy cleanup) as a bill with technical fixes and additional training and reporting requirements; League staff said they were opposed as drafted but were negotiating changes with the sponsor.
Ending: League staff will continue to negotiate language, support structural changes that place a law-trained director in the records office, press for stronger guardrails on auditor access to privileged materials, and advise members to follow committee action closely.
