Unfortunately, much of the information in the news articles, television reports and full page advertisements was misleading and/or factually incorrect.   The March 27^th Spectrum editorial stated that existing GRAMA law guarantees “that records are presumed to be available for public review unless otherwise made private by other legislation.”  Under Utah’s current law, records are public unless they are on a specific list of “protected” or “private” records under GRAMA § 63G-2-201(2). The press has repeatedly claimed that HB477 changed this.  That is simply not true.  THIS SECTION OF THE UTAH CODE REMAINED INTACT AND WAS NOT CHANGED BY HB477.

What was eliminated in HB477 was the original intent language which recognizes “constitutional rights” which can’t be created by statute and which are not directly expressed in the plain language of the U.S. or Utah Constitution.  Legislative Legal Counsel strongly discourage enacting legislative intent language in all legislation since members of the executive branch and judges sometimes ignore the plain language of the statute and rely instead on the less specific legislative intent. This dilutes the Legislature’s power to perform its core function of making public policy.  IN OTHER WORDS THE LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE SHOULD ALWAYS CONTROL.   

The editorial goes on to say that “lawmakers tried to exclude text messages and emails from public review.” Again, the Spectrum like almost all newspapers in the state is misleading the public on this issue.  Emails, are the primary means of written communication between legislators  and their constituents, and other government entities, etc., so it is important that emails be considered public and fully accessible under GRAMA (subject to the exemptions in current law). EMAILS WERE NOT EXCLUDED FROM PUBLIC REVIEW UNDER HB477. Most of the emails I have received from constituents verified that the information presented in the media gave them the impression that emails were excluded from GRAMA.  The only significant change to current law impacting emails was on lines 1296-1301 of HB447.  The new language in the bill was an attempt to modify the existing unclear language in the statute to reflect not only the legislature’s position on this exemption (protection of personal files in existing law) but to also validate the current practice of legislative staff to consider these records protectable.   Although the news media has not appealed GRAMA requests that could potentially release personal information, they have argued strenuously that they have a right to the information.  From a public policy standpoint, is it better to disregard the current ambiguity in the existing code or to clarify in code what is existing practice.  It is standard practice to amend the code as necessary to clarify the Legislature’s intent.  HB477 solved the problem before the courts acted and ultimately used the ambiguity to determine public policy in this area. 

Another area of dispute is excluding text messages from GRAMA.  When the legislature enacted GRAMA in 1992 to address records, conversations were in oral in nature. Technology now facilitates conversations in written form and GRAMA neglects to address the difference between a record and a conversation.  In discussing this editorial with Todd Seifert, I appreciated that he feels that texting should be a topic for further discussion as the legislature attempts to balance the media’s right to access  information under the 1^st amendment (freedom of the press)  and a legislator’s and their constituent’s right to privacy.  In making an assessment of this change, consider the current actions of young adults sitting in a room together and rather than engaging in actual verbal conversation, are in fact communicating in short burst of words and acronyms (text symbols) in lieu of speech.  In my mind that type of communication between a legislator and his constituent, family or friends should be private under the communication exemption.  The Governor’s study group is debating these issues and will hopefully come out with a recommendation.   

One last reason I believe the press fought so hard for repeal of this law was in the area of fees which were changed in HB477.  Current law encourages government to waive fees for press requests for information; even complex requests that require extensive time and research. In many cases this doesn’t apply to everyday citizens.  Is it fair for taxpayers to subsidize private, for profit new organizations when citizens often have to pay, or should the press have the same rules as citizen taxpayers?  HB477 attempted to level that playing field and required government to consider the “appropriate use of taxpayer funds and resources” before waving a fee for the press. I don’t believe that was reported in the media. 

Not voting for the repeal of HB477 with 79 of my colleagues in the house and senate has made me and 7 other legislators the focus of the media who is calling for my defeat in the next election.   When I ran for this office 9 years ago, my primary focus was on federal land issues.  My goal was to make sure that the federal government lived up to their commitments to manage our public lands for multiple use and sustained yield and to allow my constituents to continue to utilize those public lands now and in the future.  I have been the recipient of a great deal of criticism from the media and radical environmental groups for my stands on these issues.  I have been attacked, threatened, maligned and generally raked over the coals by the 4^th branch of government as the media likes to call themselves. 

I believe that the changes made to GRAMA by HB477 were necessary.  The elimination of confidentiality will have a chilling effect on participation in the internal deliberative process that is essential to formulating public policy.  Some confidentiality enables a legislator to receive personal information from affected constituents, to research and gain understanding, to have the freedom to explore ideas and develop options without fear of political repercussions, and to identify points for possible negotiation and compromise. This internal deliberative process will become weak and shallow if forced to take place on the front page of the newspaper. HB477 attempted to resolve this issue. 

I stand by my vote.