Utah Department of Administrative Services

Division of Archives & Records Service

State Records Committee Appeal 96-01

BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

Paul Harris, Petitioner vs.

Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing of the Utah Department of Commerce

DECISION AND ORDER, Case No. 96-1

Appellant, Paul Harris, seeks an order requiring Respondent to supply certain records held by Respondent. Mr. Harris identifies these records as "three complaints," and requests their release to him "in their entirety including names signatures, addresses and phone numbers."

Appellant submitted written materials, but did not appear personally or by legal counsel, though Representative Evan L. Olsen made comment and inquiry generally in behalf of Petitioner, one of his constituents.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

The appeal is denied. Petitioner's materials argued Petitioner should be entitled to the records requested on the grounds that he should have the right to confront his accusers and that they were business competitors. The Division argued that the records are part of Petitioner's investigative file and are "protected" under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-304(8)(a)(Supp. 1995).

The Committee concludes that the records are "protected" under the indicated statutory provision. They are "records created or maintained for...administrative enforcement purposes...or for discipline, licensing, certification, or registration purposes" and "reasonably could be expected to interfere with investigations undertaken for enforcement, discipline, licensing, certification, or registration purposes."

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is ordered that the appeal 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 and governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and by Utah Code Ann. 63-2-404 (Supp. 1995) and 63-2-502(7) (Supp. 1995). 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 19th day of January, 1995.

MAX J. EVANS,
Chair, State Records Committee