Government employees could end up in jail for releasing information to the public under sweeping changes proposed by the attorney general's office to the state law defining what Utahns have a right to know.
That was a concern raised Wednesday when John Clark, counsel to the attorney general, faced three members of the task force that spent two years coming up with the bill passed by the 1991 Legislature.It was Clark who organized a group of government attorneys who fear the law could force a wholesale public disclosure of now-secret records or that the new requirements could be expensive and time-consuming.
In the past few months, the group has made proposed revisions to the law that seeks to ensure that local and state governments provide public access to records. Entire sections of the law have been rewritten in the latest draft.
The lawmaker who sponsored the Government Records Access Management Act, Rep. Martin Stephens, R-Farr West, asked for Wednesday's meeting after he learned just how extensive the proposed changes are.
"They're changing the focus to the presumption that government records are closed unless they say they're open. It's almost a complete flip-flop," Stephens said in a recent interview, calling it an attempt to gut the law.
At Wednesday's meeting, though, Stephens and the other task force members stopped short of making that accusation. Instead, they spent three hours asking Clark and other government attorneys to defend the changes.
Under the proposed changes, releasing - or in some cases obtaining - private, sensitive or protected information would be punishable by both a fine and jail time.
The proposed changes mandate disciplinary sanctions that range from an oral reprimand to firing of an employee who withholds information, but not criminal penalties unless the release has been ordered by a court or other government entity.
The existing law makes knowingly releasing private, confidential or protected records, or knowingly refusing to release public records, punishable by a fine of up to $500.
The changes are needed, according to a report from the government attorneys, because the current criminal penalty section "is confusing and difficult to apply."
Kate Lahey, a University of Utah law professor and media attorney, said the new penalties lack balance because an employee withholding information could receive a less-severe punishment than an employee releasing them.
Lahey also said it is misguided to punish an employee for releasing information that is classified private but that later is determined by a court or other authority to be public.
She said such a provision would discourage would-be "whistle-b-lowers," those government employees who attempt to expose what they believe is wrongdoing.
Clark told the task force members he is worried the disagreement over the changes is being seen as a battle between government attorneys and public interest groups.
Whether they battle or not remains to be seen, but the two sides were asked by Stephens to meet and determine whether they can agree on any of the proposed changes.
Stephens said he will review their findings and come up with proposed revisions to present during the upcoming session of the Legislature, which begins in January.