The Government Records Office denied an appeal by Salt Lake Tribune reporter Courtney Tanner seeking roughly a year-and-a-half of communications among members of the Utah State Board of Higher Education, the commissioner and Utah State University officials, ruling that some of the messages are protected by state exemptions.

The decision followed an in‑camera review by the office’s director at a May administrative hearing. The director said the records were not properly classified as private under Utah Code §63G‑2‑302(2)(a) but concluded they are protected under Utah Code §63G‑2‑305(23)(b) (imminent or pending litigation) and §63G‑2‑305(28) (records related to retention and similar decisions). “Based on my in camera review, I find that the records are not properly classified as private under 3022a,” the director said, adding that the litigation and retention exemptions applied and that Tanner had not shown special factors to overcome those protections.

Tanner had asked for communications identified in her request as “GRAM‑OF‑3,” covering messages among board members, Commissioner Jeff Landward and then‑USU president Elizabeth (Betsy) Cantwell related to concerns raised in the legislature and a state bill about transgender dormitory access. Tanner argued the requested emails should be public because they reflect the public’s business and, she said, do not amount to formal performance evaluations under the system’s evaluation policy. “I am acting in the benefit of the public by requesting a very tailored communications request between high‑ranking public officials about a publicly funded institution,” Tanner told the hearing.

Steve Gordon, counsel for the Attorney General’s Office representing the Utah System of Higher Education in the proceeding, told the director that the records located by the agency were both limited in number and tied to retention issues and pending litigation involving a former USU coach. Gordon said several of the responsive items are text messages and communications that relate to retention decisions and pending litigation and therefore are protected. He asked the director to review the documents in camera and argued that redacting small documents would render them nonsensical.

Board secretary (identified in the record as Miss Adams) was present and available to explain how searches were conducted; Gordon said the agency provided all responsive records located after broad keyword searches and supplied those documents for the director’s in‑camera review. The director said the records provided for review were few but that the litigation and retention exemptions in §63G‑2‑305 applied to the material reviewed.

The director denied the Tribune’s appeal, saying Tanner had not met the burden to show the public interest in disclosure outweighed the statutory protections already afforded by the Legislature. The director said a written decision would issue within seven business days and that parties would have 30 calendar days from that decision to appeal to district court.

The ruling does not produce the written decision; the director noted only that the office will issue one within the statutory timeframe. The hearing record shows the dispute centered on whether ordinary communications about personnel and retention decisions outside a formal evaluation process fall under the statute’s protected categories and whether the public interest in disclosure was sufficiently strong to overcome those statutory protections.

Further appeals and any subsequent filings will be matters of public record if filed in district court.