Source: https://archives.utah.gov/src/srcappeal-2019-06.html
Timestamp: 2019-05-24 19:50:36
Document Index: 515525336

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 63', '§ 52', '§ 63', '§ 52', '§ 52', '§ 52', '§ 63', '§ 63']

State Records Committee Appeal Decision 2019-06
EDWARD A. BERKOVICH, Petitioner, v.
Case No. 19-06
By this appeal, Petitioner, Edward A. Berkovich, seeks access to records held by Respondent, Utah Attorney General’s Office.
On or about November 6, 2018, Mr. Berkovich made a request for a record pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Mr. Berkovich requested the “freeconferencecall.com” recording of a Utah Prosecution Council (UPC) Board meeting held on October 21, 2015 to discuss the “character, professional competence, or physical or mental health” of himself and his continued employment with UPC. Respondent notified Mr. Berkovich that the portion of the recording being requested was during the closed portion of the meeting that the recording was properly classified as a protected record pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-305(32).
Mr. Berkovich appealed to the Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”) for Respondent and on or about January 2, 2019, Solicitor General Tyler Green, acting as CAO, upheld the denial. Mr. Berkovich filed an appeal with the State Records Committee (“Committee”). After hearing oral argument and testimony on March 14, 2019, and carefully considering the requested relief of the parties, the Committee issues the following Decision and Order.
1.	The Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”) specifies every 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 subject to Utah Code §§ 63G-2-203 & -204. Utah Code § 63G-2-201(1). “[A]ll records are public unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.” Utah Code § 63G-2-201(2). Records that are not public are designated as either “private,” “protected,” or “controlled.” See, Utah Code §§ 63G-2-302, -303, -304 and -305.
2.	Transcripts, minutes, recordings, or reports of the closed portion of a meeting of a public body are protected records if properly classified except as provided in Utah Code § 52-4-206. Utah Code § 63G-2-305(32).
3.	The Open and Public Meetings Act (“OPMA”) similarly states that a recording, transcript, report, and written minutes of a closed meeting are protected records under GRAMA except that the records may be disclosed under a court order only as provided under Utah Code § 52-4-304. Utah Code § 52-4-206(5). A judge shall publicly disclose or reveal from the recording or minutes of the closed meeting all information about the portion of the meeting that was illegally closed if the judge determines that the public body violated specific provisions of OPMA regarding closed meetings,. Utah Code § 52-4-304(2)(b).
4.	After having reviewed all the evidence including arguments presented during the hearing, the Committee finds that Respondent properly classified the requested records as protected records pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-305(32).
5.	Mr. Berkovich requested the Committee to consider the weighing provision found in Utah Code § 63G-2-403(11)(b) which allows the Committee upon consideration and weighing of the various interests and public policies pertinent to the classification and disclosure or nondisclosure, order the disclosure of information properly classified as protected “if the public interest favoring access is greater than or equal to the interest favoring restriction of access.”
6.	The Committee after considering the public interest of the release of the records compared with the interest favoring restriction of access, finds that the interest favoring restriction of access outweighs the public interest favoring release of the records. The Committee has determined that the interest argued by Mr. Berkovich for releasing the records is more of a private interest of Mr. Berkovich obtaining records related to him personally as opposed to a general public interest in the records. Therefore, the Committee finds that the weighing provision is not relevant to the present case and the properly classified records should not be released to Mr. Berkovich. See also, Poll v. S. Weber City, State Records Case No. 02-01 (Jan. 14, 2002).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Edward A. Berkovich, is hereby DENIED.