Government Records Office denies Andrus appeal over Carbon County safety and structure records

The Government Records Office director on the record denied a public-records appeal brought by attorney Randy Andrus seeking safety rules and ownership and lease records for properties associated with the Carbon County Recreation and Transportation Special Service District.

Andrus told the hearing the February GRAMA request sought three categories: safety rules and guidelines applied countywide to the district’s properties; documentation of ownership interests in buildings and structures on the district-owned back nine of the county golf course; and any leases or licenses for those premises. He said alleged sexual misconduct at the golf driving range prompted the request and that earlier responses were “evasive” and limited to golf-course materials rather than countywide safety rules.

County counsel and the district’s representative told the director they had searched project folders and boxes and found no safety-use policies produced by the special service district since 2018. The county’s attorney said the district’s typical practice was to fund construction projects and then transfer them to the county or to cities; the only property the district still owns and that is open to the public is the back nine of the golf course, which is managed under a long-standing management agreement with the Carbon Country Club. He said he reviewed boxes and identified no folder specifically referencing sheds or maintenance buildings on the golf course and offered a handwritten index of folders and an invitation to the petitioner to inspect documents in person.

The director framed the appeal as a dispute over whether the custodian conducted a reasonable search. After hearing argument, the director said the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that additional records exist and were not produced. The director found that the representations and the recent statement of facts showed a reasonable search had been conducted given the custodian’s record-keeping system and personal knowledge, and that the petitioner had not met the burden to prove records were being withheld. "I find that the petitioner has not met his burden of showing that a reasonable search was not conducted and therefore the appeal is denied," the director said on the record.

The director indicated a written decision would be issued within seven business days and reminded parties that either may appeal to district court within 30 calendar days. The director also encouraged the parties to confer and use the custodian’s offered index or in-person review to resolve outstanding questions and said the petitioner could file follow-up requests using the additional project names provided at hearing.

The director’s interlocutory remarks stressed that the ruling rested on the record custodian’s representations and the limits of the custodian’s file system; the director acknowledged the response could have been clearer earlier in the process and encouraged cooperation to avoid further appeals.

The decision on this appeal is administrative and may be appealed in district court under the statutory timeline.