State Records Committee Appeal Decision 25-21
BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH
PAUL AMANN, Petitioner, v.
UTAH DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Respondent,
DECISION AND ORDER
Case No. 25-21
By this appeal, Petitioner, Paul Amann, requests records allegedly held by Respondent, the Utah Division of Human Resource Management (“DHRM”), a Division within the Utah Department of Government Operations (“DGO”).
FACTS
In a document dated June 23, 2024, Mr. Amann made a request for records pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Mr. Amann requested “all records regarding the hiring” of a specified individual working in “Dispute Resolution” with the Utah State Board of Education. Mr. Amann stated that the records should include “any application, resumes and letters of reference submitted, records of any competing applicants, advertisement for the position, and any emails or other correspondence relevant to the application, and the interview and hiring process.”
In a letter dated July 12, 2024, Timothy Evans, DHRM’s Legal Compliance Review Manager, attached records responsive to Mr. Amann’s records request. Mr. Evans also stated that some records were not maintained by DHRM, and then denied Mr. Amann’s request for records of competing applicants and the list of references for the specified candidate pursuant to Utah Code §§ 63G-302(1)(g) & -302(2)(a).
In a letter dated July 16, 2024, Mr. Amann filed an appeal with the Chief Administrative Officer for DGO, arguing that the withheld records could be produced with redactions. On August 1, 2024, Mr. Amann filed an appeal with the State Records Committee (“Committee”). On March 6, 2025, the Committee held a public hearing during which the parties were allowed to present evidence and arguments to the Committee. After having carefully considered all evidence presented to the Committee including reviewing the disputed records in camera, the Committee issues the following Decision and Order.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. GRAMA specifies that a “record is public unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.” Utah Code § 63G-2-201(2). Records that are designated as “private,” “protected,” or “controlled,” are not public. See, Utah Code §§ 63G-2-201(3)(a), -302, -303, -304 and -305. Records to which access is restricted pursuant to a court rule, another state statute, federal statute, or federal regulation, are also considered non-public records under GRAMA pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-201(3)(b).
2. Employment records concerning a current or former employee of, or applicant for employment with a governmental entity that would disclose that individual’s home address, home telephone number, social security number, insurance coverage, marital status, or payroll deductions, are private records not subject to disclosure pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(1)(g). Records concerning a current or former employee of, or applicant for employment with a governmental entity, including performance evaluations and personal status information such as race, religion, or disabilities, are private records, if properly classified by a governmental entity. Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(a). Exceptions to employment/applicant private records pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(a) are listed under Utah Code §§ 63G-2-301(2)(b) & -301(3)(o). Additionally, records containing data on individuals the disclosure of which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, are also considered private records if properly classified by a governmental entity pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d).
3. Mr. Amann argued in his appeal that he should receive “all responsive records, unredacted.” Mr. Amann stated that the position the specified individual was hired to serve in was a specialized position with great importance to the State because it involved dispute resolution in statewide education. Mr. Amann claimed that “the public has a strong interest in learning” how the specified individual was hired by the Utah State Board of Education especially when compared to other applicants for the position. Mr. Amann claimed that the specified candidate was not qualified for the position, there was a potential of favoritism for that individual over the other candidates, and that release of the requested records would allow the public to determine if the hiring process had been done improperly.
4. After having considered the evidence and arguments of the parties, the Committee finds that the disputed records were properly classified as private records pursuant to Utah Code §§ 63G-2-302(1)(g), -302(2)(a), and -302(2)(d). One of the main purposes of these provisions in GRAMA is to protect the privacy of applicants for employment with a governmental entity. However, a review of the documents showed that with proper redactions, the private information of the specified individual and the applicants could still be protected, while allowing a reviewer of the records to determine whether the specified individual was properly hired. Specifically, the supplemental questions at the end of each application should be made public, but with proper redactions that protects the identities of the applicants. Additionally, Bate Stamped Page 0011, the response to question #6, should continue to be redacted because it contains an experience that describes places which could disclose the identity of the applicant.
5. Accordingly, the Committee finds that a redacted version of the Supplemental Questions in the disputed records that protects the identity of the applicants as noted above, should be provided to Mr. Amann because the public interest favoring access is greater than or equal to the interest favoring restriction of access. See, Utah Code §§ 63G-2-404(9)(a) and -404(11)(b). However, the remaining properly classified disputed records should remain classified as private non-public records not subject to disclosure to the public.
ORDER
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Paul Amann, 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 pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1)(a) subject to the exceptions provided in Utah Code §63G-2-404(1)(b). The petition for judicial review must be a complaint which is governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 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 party’s 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 17 day of March 2025.
BY THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE
LINDA PETERSON
Chair pro tem, Utah State Records Committee