Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate amends and passes GRAMA appeals bill after media-negotiated compromise
Summary
The Senate adopted Amendment 3 to SB 15 (records-appeals/GRAMA) negotiated with media representatives, clarifying when requests aren't required, permitting agreed direct appeals to court, and requiring records be provided in their native form; SB15 passed 26-0 with 3 absent.
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Utah Senate amended and passed Senate Bill 15 on Jan. 26, 2006, adopting a compromise amendment negotiated with media representatives that sponsors said preserves core public-records protections while streamlining procedures.
Sen. Bramble presented Amendment 3 (dated 01/26/2006) as a compromise reached at a summit with media publishers, editors and counsel. The amendment makes three primary changes: it specifies that records already “readily available” in the public arena need not trigger a special GRAMA request; it permits government and requesters, by written agreement, to appeal directly to the courts; and it requires agencies to provide records in the form they already exist (for example, supplying spreadsheets in spreadsheet format rather than converting them to PDF), rather than forcing a change in format or withholding information.
Sen. Thomas, sponsor of the bill, said the substitution preserves much of the GRAMA task force intent and streamlines processes. Sen. Aaron and others voiced support for the amendment; the Senate adopted the amendment and, after brief summation and no further debate, moved to final passage. A roll-call vote recorded 26 yes, 0 nay, with 3 absent; the bill was referred to the House for further action.
Supporters said the amendment reduces friction between requesters and government by clarifying logistics (format and appeal path) while maintaining access. Opponents on the floor did not mount sustained opposition after the amendment was offered; one senator asked for clarification on “forum shopping” and the sponsor explained it meant forum shopping between a records committee and judicial option.
The Senate’s action follows multi-stakeholder negotiations; sponsors emphasized the change was intended to remove media opposition while preserving public access protections.
