State Records Committee Appeal Decision 24-45

BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

KEATON YEATES, Petitioner, v.

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent,

DECISION AND ORDER

Case No. 24-45

By this appeal, Keaton Yeates (“Petitioner”), requests records allegedly held by Utah Department of Corrections (“Respondent”). 

FACTS

On December 29, 2023, Petitioner submitted a request to the Respondent for certain records pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Specifically, Petitioner requested a “letter from Amy Konkel, CMHC, MIO Program 6/15/2022.” Respondent denied the request on January 5, 2024, pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-305(14) because the letter was a recommendation to the Board of Pardons and Parole. 

Petitioner appealed the denial to Respondent’s chief administrative officer (“CAO”). Petitioner reemphasized his desire to use the letter as evidence in an upcoming lawsuit against the Board of Pardons in District Court. The CAO upheld the denial on February 6, 2024.

Petitioner appealed the CAO’s decision to the State Records Committee (“Committee”). On June 20, 2024, 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.

ISSUES FOR REVIEW

    The Committee is asked to determine whether the record is properly classified and withheld.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

    Under GRAMA, “a person has the right to inspect a public record free of charge, and the right to take a copy of a public record during normal working hours, . . .” Utah Code § 63G-2-201(1)(a). However, a record that is classified as protected is not a public record. Utah Code § 63G-2-201(3)(a). When a record is properly classified as protected under Section 63G-2-305, we are to undertake a weighing analysis where we weigh “the various interests and public policies pertinent to the classification and disclosure or nondisclosure” and order the release of the records if the interest favoring access is “greater than or equal to” the interest favoring restriction. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(11)(b). When conducting the weighing analysis, the courts have instructed that “the balancing analysis under GRAMA must be tethered to the specific interests of the parties and the particularized application of the relevant public policies at issue.” Schroeder v. Utah Attorney General’s Office, 2015 UT 77, ¶51.

    With respect to the classification at issue, GRAMA protects records that, if disclosed, would reveal recommendations made to the Board of Pardons and Parole by an employee of or contractor for the Department of Corrections that are based on the employee’s or contractor’s supervision, diagnosis, or treatment of a person within the Board’s jurisdiction. Utah Code § 63G-2-305(14). Of course, one policy behind this protective classification is the safety of the employee making the recommendation to the Board of Pardons and Parole. If an employee of the Respondent makes an unfavorable recommendation to the Board concerning an inmate’s parole, it’s reasonable to suppose that the inmate could consider retaliating against the employee if the inmate discovered the unfavorable recommendation. Furthermore, if employees and contractors knew that their recommendations concerning inmates were readily made available under GRAMA, it’s also reasonable to suppose that future recommendations could be chilled. With these policies in mind, we look at the records at issue.

    The Committee reviewed the disputed record in camera. Upon our review, we find that the disputed record does contain a substantive recommendation to the Board of Pardons and Parole made by an employee or contractor of the Respondent. Thus, it is classified correctly.
 
    Petitioner’s interest in the records is that he claims he needs it as an “evidentiary exhibit for a Rule 65b/Habeas Corpus Petition for Extraordinary Relief.” In essence, Petitioner states that he intends to bring a federal action against the Respondent for a civil rights violation he has allegedly incurred. 

    When we weigh the interest in access to the record, as tethered to Petitioner’s specific interest, against the policy reason behind Subsection 63G-2-305(14), we find that the interest favoring restricting access outweighs the interest favoring disclosure. In our position, we cannot discount the potential safety risk that could reasonably occur if we order the record to be disclosed. In a court action, Petitioner will be afforded discovery, which is not permitted in these proceedings. See Utah Code § 63G-2-403(10)(a). During discovery, a judge can determine whether the recommendation letter has relevance to his complaint, and the extent to which it can be disclosed. Accordingly, we find that the record is properly classified and withheld.

ORDER

THEREFORE, in accordance with our Decision, Petitioner’s appeal is hereby DENIED. 

Entered this 1st day of July 2024.

BY THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE

Marie Cornwall
Chair, Pro Tem, Utah State Records Committee

Committee members Cornwall, M., Pro Tem, Williams, K., Biehler, E., Buchanan, M., and Dubovik, N. voted in favor of and joined in this Decision and Order.

Committee member Peterson, L. voted in opposition to this Decision and Order.

enclosed: Right to Appeal; Penalty Notice

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).