Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
League cautious on records and audit bills; support for law‑trained records director, questions on balancing test and audit access
Summary
Committee discussed SB 277 (government records management amendments), GRAMA revisions, and SB 154 (legislative audit amendments). Staff recommended support for some structural records changes but raised concerns about removing the balancing test and about procedural protections for attorney‑client privilege in audit requests.
The League’s Legislative Policy Committee on Feb. 18 reviewed multiple bills affecting records management, public‑records processes and legislative audits, expressing conditional support for a structural change to the state records process while cautioning against language that would reduce public access or remove procedural protections.
Jared, League staff, summarized SB 277, a government records management bill that would replace the multi‑member state records committee with a single, governor‑appointed, legally trained director and create a new government records office. “We feel like this is good because… there will be a legal trained, individual knowledgeable in records law that will be the director,” Jared said. League staff signaled support for the structural change but noted stakeholders are negotiating the fate of the “balancing test” the records committee currently uses to weigh access versus restriction.
Lynn Pays (Sandy City) urged caution: media and public perception could be that the change restricts access to government documents. “If we come out in support of that, there's a good chance that our citizens will feel like we are in favor of restricting public access to government documents,” she said.
Dave Qualey (Salt Lake City) described operational problems with the current committee—long, inconsistent hearings and decisions by members who are not law‑trained—and said the balancing test has yielded problematic outcomes in some cases; he also urged clarity on process improvements that would avoid inconsistent results.
On legislative audit changes (SB 154 sub 1 and related SJR 4), staff reported the substitute improved the original draft but retained concerning procedures. The substitute creates a process for the legislative auditor general to request records and for a governmental entity to assert privilege, with an arbitrator selected by the auditor general to rule within seven days; staff said the sub still “favors access to the legislative auditor general” and that the arbitrator fee exposure—requiring governmental entities to reimburse the arbitrator if they lose—raises procedural fairness concerns.
Committee members also discussed a separate bill that would make certain obstructive acts against legislative audits misdemeanors; staff said the concept is acceptable but language needs tightening.
Staff indicated they will continue working with sponsors on the balancing test language and on guardrails for legislative audit access and potential sharing of material obtained by auditors. The committee’s staff recommendation was to support SB 277’s structural change (law‑trained director) while continuing to press for clarifying edits on the balancing test and audit procedures.
