State Records Committee Appeal 97-02

Utah Headliners Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, Petitioner vs.

Utah State Board of Regents, Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Case No. 97-02

Appellant, Utah Headliners Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, seeks an order requiring Respondent to supply records containing personally-identifiable information related to the University of Utah presidential search applicants or nominees.

Petitioner was represented by Joel Campbell, and presented documentation, witnesses and argument. Respondent was represented by Thomas C. Anderson, Esq., Utah Assistant Attorney General, and presented documentation, witnesses and argument. The State Records Committee, having reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties and having heard testimony and argument, now issues the following decision and order.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

The appeal is denied. The information requested is "private" under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-302 (2)(a). Further, the Committee determines under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-403 (11)(b) that upon consideration and weighing of the various interests and public policies pertinent to the classification and disclosure or nondisclosure, that the public interest favoring access does not outweigh the interest favoring restriction. The Committee determines that the interest favoring restriction of access in this case outweighs the interest favoring access. This is so because providing access to these records would render the applicant pool for the position of President of the University of Utah far poorer.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is ordered that Petitioner's request for access to the requested records is denied.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

Either party may appeal this Decision and Order to district court. The petition for review must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of this order. The petition for judicial review must be a complaint. The complaint and the appeals process are governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and by Utah Code Ann. 63-2-404 (Supp. 1996) and 63-2-502 (7) (Supp. 1996). The Court is required to make its decision de novo. In order to protect its rights of appeal, a party may wish to seek advice from an attorney.

Entered this 30th day of June, 1997.

MAX J. EVANS,
Chair, State Records Committee