DGO refuses fee‑waiver claim in Wasatch Peak Academy records dispute; classification to be revisited in April

The Department of Government Records (DGO) ruled against a fee‑waiver application in a combined appeal by the Nashes seeking records from Wasatch Peak Academy, directing narrower procedures to move the dispute forward.

Mister Nash argued the records sought — operational, governance and financial documents across a two‑year period — raise systemic public concerns affecting student health, disability accommodations and compliance. "Disclosure here serves accountability, transparency, and compliance in a publicly funded institution," Nash said, urging enforcement of GRAMA’s presumption of openness.

Wasatch Peak counsel (Miss Preston) said the first production included records transferred from the Davis School District and that much of the remaining material implicated HR, attorney‑client privilege, or items not kept in the normal course of business. Preston described the second request as very broad and estimated substantial staff and legal time would be required to gather, review and segregate responsive records.

Director Lonnie Pearson framed the fee waiver as the threshold issue and after in‑court discussion concluded the petitioners had not shown the request was primarily intended to benefit the public or that they were unable to pay. "I don't think that this request is primarily intended to benefit the public," Pearson said, noting the school had already spent substantial time responding without charge and that there was no evidence the Nashes were impecunious. He found denial of the fee waiver was not unreasonable.

Pearson ordered Wasatch Peak to provide a more definite fee estimate (not necessarily fully itemized) based on the lowest paid qualified employee capable of performing the work, invited petitioners to prioritize categories of records in order of importance, and allowed an initial deposit model so processing could proceed in prioritized stages. He continued the matter on classification issues to a tentative April date to allow in‑camera review of withheld materials and a separate written order on fees.

The director's ruling does not decide the classification merits of records withheld as attorney‑client privileged or HR/closed‑session materials; those matters were continued for additional review. The decision directs concrete next steps — a fee estimate from the school, prioritized categories from petitioners, and a follow‑up hearing for classification rulings.