Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes Government Records Amendments after debate on GRAMA scope and fees
Summary
The Utah House passed House Bill 477, amending the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) to clarify protected records and fee rules; the bill passed 61–12 after floor amendments and debate over legislative intent and consultation with the State Records Committee.
House Bill 477, the Government Records Amendments, passed the Utah House on March 3, 2011, by a vote of 61 yes to 12 no and will be sent to the Senate for consideration. Representative Dougal, the bill sponsor, said the measure clarifies protected categories of personal information in government records, narrows what constitutes a public record (excluding certain personal communications formats), and provides guidance on fee calculations for voluminous GRAMA requests.
Representative Dougal described the bill’s intent as threefold: to protect the privacy of citizens who communicate with their legislators, to limit taxpayer costs for large “fishing” requests, and to allow government offices to continue functioning without being overwhelmed by onerous public-record demands. "It protects the personal information of those who submit their personal information as part of the Senate confirmation process," Dougal said during floor remarks.
Representative Aaron successfully moved Amendment No. 1 to add the words "available to perform the service" after the clause referring to the "pay rate of the lowest paid employee." Aaron said the change was intended to ensure that fee calculations use the lowest-cost person who is both qualified and actually available to do the work, not an under-qualified staffer simply because of pay rate. Debate clarified that the classification and training necessary to perform the service determine who may be counted for the fee calculation.
Opponents raised procedural and substantive concerns. Representative Chavez Hoch asked whether the State Records Committee had been consulted during drafting and warned the bill removes legislative intent language (Acts 18-07 through 18-09), which some committee members use to interpret the statute. Chavez Hoch argued removing the intent language could complicate future statutory interpretation. Supporters including Representative Perez and Representative Hendrickson countered that privacy concerns and changing technology required statutory updates and noted prior work by interim committees addressing GRAMA topics.
After summation by the sponsor and voice votes on amendments, the House approved the bill under suspension of the rules; the clerk recorded final passage (61 yes, 12 no). The sponsor said the bill would protect constituent privacy while clarifying fee rules and definitions going forward.
Next step: The bill is transmitted to the Senate for its consideration.
