Records director denies media request for UVU security plans, cites GRAMA exemption
Loading...
Summary
Director Lonnie Pearson denied Nate Carlisle’s appeal seeking UVU’s September 10 security plans, finding such security plans are excluded from disclosure under GRAMA section 63G-2-106 and that the director lacks authority to order release; a written decision will follow within seven business days.
Director Lonnie Pearson denied an appeal by Nate Carlisle of Fox 13 seeking Utah Valley University’s security plans for the Sept. 10 Charlie Kirk/Turning Point USA event, finding the requested documents are exempt from disclosure under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA).
Carlisle argued the plans are historical and that public interest favors disclosure, asking the records office to consider redactions rather than withholding the entire document. “These records are the definition of public interest,” Carlisle told the committee during his presentation.
Utah Valley University’s representative, Miss Ferguson, told the director the records Carlisle seeks are “security plans” and therefore per se excluded from GRAMA under 63G-2-106 because they contain operational deployment strategies, threat responses and security coordination. She said the statute contains no temporal limitation and therefore applies to past plans.
Intervener counsel Mister Novak and Utah County representative Miss Cole urged caution, saying release could interfere with ongoing investigations and future prosecutions and noting witnesses and law‑enforcement planning could be implicated. Novak cited a prior committee ruling he said was squarely on point and repeated that records describing coordination, response posture and deployment strategies fall within the statutory exclusion.
Director Pearson said he reviewed written materials and—because the statute explicitly lists security plans—found he did not have authority to order release or perform the weighing analysis normally available for other exemptions. “I do find that the requested records here are records regarding security measures designed for the protection of persons or property, and those are expressly excluded from GRAMA under 63G-2-106,” he stated during the ruling. He denied the appeal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and said he would issue a written decision within seven business days; any party may appeal to district court within 30 calendar days.
The decision ends this administrative avenue for obtaining the requested plans; parties may seek review in district court or pursue alternative records (such as finalized after‑action reports) if those are not security plans under the statute.