Closed Door Meetings
03 October, 2014
Hand Delivered & Electronic Mail
The Honorable Sean Reyes
Utah Attorney General
Utah State Capitol Complex
350 North State Street, Suite 230
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Re: Violation of Utah Open & Public Meetings Act
Dear Mr. Reyes,
I am submitting this letter as a formal complaint to your office, because I believe that the Salt Lake City Board of Education violated Utah Open & Public Meetings Act [see Utah Code §§ 52-4-101 et seq…].
The ACT states that your office has the authority to enforce its provisions [see Utah Code §§ 52-4-303].
On August, 7, 2014, the Board of Education convened a closed door meeting and discussed an item under the category of “Strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation” [see Utah Code §§52-4-204]. I believe the subject discussed by the Superintendent was not within the limited exception allowed in the ACT [See § 52-4-205 Utah Code]. Despite my objections, the Superintendent continued with his monologue.
On September, 16, 2014, the Board of Education convened a closed door meeting and discussed an item under the category of “Discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual” [see Utah Code §§52-4-205]. In this instance, I believe the subject discussed by Business Administrator Janet Roberts was not within the limited exception allowed in the ACT [See § 52-4-205 Utah Code]. Despite my objections, Business Administrator Roberts not only continued to discuss the issue, she also asked the Board of Education to approve the expenditure of non-budgeted public funds. I excused myself from the remainder of the closed door meeting as I did not want to participate further in the violation of state statue. As you are aware, the ACT requires that “public funds are appropriated for expenditure” in an open meeting and that “a record by individual member, of each vote taken by the public body” [see Utah Code §§ 52-4-103 & 52-4-203]. Those elements of the ACT were not adhered to in this instance.
On September, 17, 2014, I filed a Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) request with Business Administrator, Janet Roberts as she is charged with the responsibility to “attend all meetings of the board, keep an accurate record of its proceedings, and have custody of the seal and records” [see Utah Code §§ 53A-4-103 & 52-4-203].
On October 1, 2014, the School District responded to my request by denying me the audio recording of the closed door meetings. They did however, send me information associated with the questionable discussion from the August 7, 2014, closed door meeting. They stated the following:
You are being provided with the remainder of the records responsive to this request dated August 13, 2014, through September 17, 2014. However, insofar as these records relate to imminent litigation, they are classified as protected, and you must maintain that classification and not re-disclose these records. Utah Code Ann. §63G-2-305(23)(b).
One of the reason’s I submitted the GRAMA request, is so that I could better understand, the “imminent litigation” that was looming. I received no information that would justify the Board of Education to invoke this exception category. I did however receive information that I found disturbing for several reasons.
The documentation sent under the guise of “imminent litigation” was classified as protected and prevents me from passing on the information to the appropriate authorities, in order to ensure the safety of student’s within the Salt Lake City School District. I have been working with a two regulatory agencies to ensure the safety of students involved in this issue. The District’s unlawful use of the “closed door meeting” provision of the ACT, only serves to further jeopardize the lives of student’s within our school district. Additionally, last year I participated in a training session on Utah’s Open and Public Meeting Act, taught by Attorney Burbidge, we were given a booklet titled Convening Meetings Which Are open to the Public: A Handbook for School Board Members. The book was authored by the presenter and on page 11 we read the following:
The Utah Supreme Court has given some guidance about what constitutes “litigation” with regard to the “litigation strategy” purpose for holding a closed meeting. The court has stated that because the expressed purpose of the Act is “openness,” the exceptions should be “strictly construed.” Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Salt Lake County Comm’n, 2001 UT 55, ¶ 15, 28 P.3d 686. In general, for this closed meeting purpose to apply, “the closed portion of the meeting (1) must [be] a strategy session,(2) the strategy session must [be] with respect to litigation, and (3) the litigation must [be] pending or reasonably imminent.” Id
The Utah Legislature has declared it to be state policy that the political subdivisions of the State of Utah are to conduct their deliberations and take their actions in full view of the people whose business they are conducting [See Utah Code § 52—4-102 (2)]. I am requesting that your office enforce the provisions of Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act. Additionally, due to the safety concern I raised in this correspondence, I do believe that time is of the essence.
Shalom,
J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2
Enclosures
School District GRAMA Response