State Records Committee Appeal Decision 2021-24

BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

SAM STECKLOW, Petitioner, v.

SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD, Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

Case No. 21-24

By this appeal, Petitioner, Sam Stecklow, seeks access to records held by Respondent, the Salt Lake City Police Department Civilian Review Board.

FACTS

In a letter dated October 8, 2020, Mr. Stecklow made a records request pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Mr. Stecklow requested decisions and other final disposition documentation for cases reviewed by Respondent but not published on Salt Lake City’s website. The request was made for records between January 1, 2016 and the date of the records request. Salt Lake City provided redacted final reports to Mr. Stecklow on December 11, 2020.

In a letter dated December 22, 2020, Mr. Stecklow filed an appeal with the Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office. Mr. Stecklow argued that he should be provided the withheld records subject to proper redactions. Mr. Stecklow also argued that he should be given “properly-redacted copies of the records already provided.” In a letter dated January 6, 2021, Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff for the Office of the Salt Lake City Mayor, denied Mr. Stecklow’s appeal. Ms. Otto found that GRAMA does not require the release of records that did not result in sustained findings. Ms. Otto also stated that the redactions were appropriate pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d).

In a letter dated January 7, 2021, Mr. Stecklow appealed Respondent's GRAMA request denial to the State Records Committee ("Committee"). On April 29, 2020, the Committee held a hearing during which the parties were allowed to participate electronically and present their arguments. After carefully considering the parties' arguments and the evidence presented, the Committee issues the following Decision and Order.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

1. GRAMA specifies that “all records are public unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.” Utah Code § 63G-2-201(2). Records that are not public are designated as either “private,” “protected,” or “controlled.” See, Utah Code §§ 63G-2-302, -303, -304 and -305.

2. Records concerning a current or former employee of a governmental entity including performance evaluations and personal status information, are generally private if properly classified by a governmental entity but not including records that are public under Utah Code §§ 63G-2-301(2)(b) or -301(3)(o). Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(a). Records that would disclose information relating to formal charges or disciplinary actions against a past or present governmental employee are normally public if: (1) The disciplinary action has been completed and all time periods for administrative appeal have expired; and (2) The charges on which the disciplinary action was based were sustained. Utah Code § 63G-2-301(3)(o).

3. Records containing data on individuals the disclosure of which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, are private records if properly classified by a governmental entity. Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d).

4. Additionally, the executive secretary of the Committee may decline to schedule a hearing if the record series that is the subject of the appeal has been found by the Committee in a previous hearing involving the same governmental entity to be appropriately classified as private, controlled, or protected. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(4)(b)(i).

5. The Committee previously reviewed Respondent’s classification of its records in Salt Lake Tribune v. Salt Lake Police Dept. Civilian Review Bd., State Records Committee Case No. 06-05 (Aug. 17, 2006). In that decision, the Committee upheld Respondent’s classification of “private” for records where the allegations were not sustained. The Committee used the weighing provision and found that “the public interest favoring access outweighs the interest favoring restriction of access.” Id. The Committee ordered release of the records involving un-sustained actions but required the records to be redacted to protect witness and complainant identifying information. Id. The Committee found that identifying information regarding the subject officers “shall not be redacted.” Id.

6. Although the present case involves the same records series with the same governmental entity as Case No. 06-05, the Committee scheduled this appeal for a hearing. After having reviewed the records in camera and considering the arguments of the parties, the Committee generally re-affirms the previous decision in Case No. 06-05. The Committee finds that Respondent properly classified the requested records as private records pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(a). Upon consideration and weighing the various interests and public policies pertinent to the classification and disclosure or nondisclosure, the Committee again finds that the public interest favoring access is greater than the interest favoring restriction of access. See, Utah Code § 63G-2-403(11)(b). However, in order to preserve the personal privacy of all individuals named in the records, Respondent may redact the names of individuals from the records prior to releasing the records including the names of police officers. The Committee does not believe in this case that the public interest is greater than the police officer’s interest in personal privacy when the charges are un-sustained.

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Sam Stecklow, is hereby GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

A party to a proceeding before the Committee may seek judicial review in District Court of a Committee's Order by filing a petition for review of the Committee Order as provided in Utah Code § 63G-2-404. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(14). A petition for judicial review of a Committee Order "shall be filed no later than 30 days" after the date of the Committee Order. Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1)(a). The petition for judicial review must be a complaint which is governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and include the Committee as a necessary party and contain the required information listed in Subsection -404(2). Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1) & (2). The court shall make its decision de novo but shall allow introduction of evidence presented to the Committee, determine all questions of fact and law without a jury, and decide the issue at the earliest practical opportunity. Utah Code § 63G-2-404(6). In order to protect a parties’ rights on appeal, a party may wish to seek advice from an attorney.

PENALTY NOTICE

Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(c), if the Committee orders the governmental entity to produce a record and no appeal is filed, the government entity herein shall comply with the order of the Committee and shall: (1) Produce the record; and (2) File a notice of compliance with the Committee. If the governmental entity ordered to produce a record fails to file a notice of compliance or a notice of intent to appeal, the Committee may do either or both of the following: (1) Impose a civil penalty of up to $500 for each day of continuing noncompliance; or (2) Send written notice of the entity's noncompliance to the Governor. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(d)(i)(B). In imposing a civil penalty, the Committee shall consider the gravity and circumstances of the violation, including whether the failure to comply was due to neglect or was willful or intentional. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(d)(ii).

Entered this 10 day of May 2021

BY THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE

_____________________________________
KENNETH R. WILLIAMS
Chair, State Records Committee