State Records Committee Appeal Decision 2023-05

BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

ANNA AND BRYAN BAGGALEY, Petitioners, v.

GRANITE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent,

DECISION AND ORDER

Case No. 23-05

By this appeal, Anna and Bryan Baggaley (“Petitioners”), request records allegedly held by Granite School District (“Respondent”).

FACTS

On April 21, 2022, Petitioners submitted a records request to the Respondent under the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”) seeking records pertaining to Granger High School’s decision to remove Petitioner, Anna Baggaley, from her 2nd period US Government Class. These records were to include “emails, meeting notes, files, complaints, written decisions, etc.”

On May 3, 2022, the Respondent denied the request, stating that if such records do exist, they are classified as private and protected under the following GRAMA sections:

-305(10): records created or maintained for civil, criminal, or administrative enforcement purposes . . ., or for discipline . . ., if release of the records could interfere with such investigations or proceedings;

-302(2)(a): records concerning a current or former employee that are not otherwise public; and

-302(2)(d): private records containing data on individuals the disclosure of which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Petitioners appealed to Respondent’s chief administrative officer (“CAO”) on June 1, 2022. Petitioners argued that the Respondent’s determination was legally incorrect, that the classifications given the records were in error. The CAO failed to answer the appeal which constitutes a denial under the GRAMA. Utah Code § 63G-2-401(5)(b).

Petitioners now appeals to the State Records Committee (“Committee”), challenging the Respondent’s decision. On January 19, 2023, the Committee held a hearing during which the parties were allowed to participate. At the hearing, the Committee considered the written materials, oral testimony, and oral arguments of the parties. After having carefully considered all evidence presented to the Committee, the Committee issues the following Decision and Order.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

During the hearing, it became evident to this Committee that in addition to the records sought, Petitioners are looking for some manner of redress against the Respondent. While the Committee sympathizes with the family’s situation, and certainly concerned for their daughter and the ordeal she experienced , we must address that if administrative remedies are available to Petitioners or their daughter, they cannot be found here – this Committee has no legal authority to offer them. Our statutory purview is records and their disclosure. As a result, our focus must remain strictly on the records relating to this appeal.

At the hearing, Petitioners provided a list of specific records he believed should be or are in the Respondent’s possession, and therefore, should be disclosed in response to his original GRAMA request. To this, Mr. Horsley, in-house counsel for the Respondent, stated that it was the first time he had seen such a list of specifically requested records – that the language of Petitioners’ original GRAMA request was broadly directed to records related to an actual investigation and discrimination claims. Counsel for the Respondent took time during the hearing to address each specific record and his knowledge of whether it was disclosed. He concluded that, to his knowledge, some of the listed records had been disclosed, some could not be disclosed due to their status or classification under the GRAMA, some likely existed and could be disclosed, and some did not exist at all. From counsel’s claims, we find it appropriate that the Respondent have an adequate opportunity to thoroughly review the list of specific records and then deliver any remaining responsive records. If at that time Petitioners believe the Respondent is still in error – that the Respondent has misclassified certain records to withhold their access, that the Respondent has unlawfully withheld access to responsive records, or that evidence shows that supposedly non-existent records do in fact exist and are in the Respondent’s possession – then he may request this Committee reopen this appeal for further review.

ORDER

THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioners’ appeal is hereby CONTINUED to the next available hearing to allow the Respondent time to review the list of specified records produced at the hearing and disclose the responsive records.

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 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 30 day of January 2023.

BY THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE
Ken Williams
Chair, State Records Committee