Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY -- An education technology vendor has accused the Utah Attorney General's Office of misusing its court-sanctioned investigative powers during a probe of a university's competitive bidding practices.
North Salt Lake resident Lynn Packer also alleges the office violated the state's Government Records Management and Access Act and the court's conflict-of-interest rules.
What they did is conduct a totally secret investigation. Nobody knew about it. The judge didn't know about it.
–Lynn Packer
Packer filed a motion in 3rd District Court last month to require the attorney general's office to comply with laws regarding the use of investigative subpoenas, unseal documents associated with the investigation and appoint a special prosecutor to the case. He also lodged a complaint with the Utah Bar Association against the attorneys involved.
"What they did is conduct a totally secret investigation. Nobody knew about it. The judge didn't know about it," he said.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, after a request for an interview, issued only a brief statement about Packer's claim.
"We believe it is frivolous and we are confident in the law and our ability to create effective conflict screens as we did in this matter," he said.
Utah's subpoena powers law allows the attorney general's office and county attorneys to subpoena witnesses, grant immunity and conduct investigations in secret with limited judicial supervision.
We believe it is frivolous and we are confident in the law and our ability to create effective conflict screens as we did in this matter.
–Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
Packer, a former investigative journalist and BYU journalism instructor, developed lecture-capture software for the college market. The technology compiles classroom activities into a digital library for students to download or view online anytime.
When Weber State University went shopping for such a system, he contends its requests for proposals were written to favor a specific company. He complained to the attorney general's office, which launched a probe into the university's bid practices last year.
The attorney general's office obtained subpoenas and a secrecy order from a 3rd District judge to conduct the investigation. In so doing, it is required under state law to provide the court detailed descriptions of documents and transcripts of testimony.
"That wasn't done in my case," Packer said.
Furthermore, he said the assistant attorney general conducting the investigation and two Weber State lawyers were hired through the attorney general's office. Packer calls that a clear conflict of interest, likening it to a boxer hitting himself in the head rather than the opponent.
At some point, he said, the investigation stalled.
Packer then successfully petitioned a 3rd District judge to lift the secrecy order and unseal the case. He said that's when he discovered the attorney general's office had not filed documents required by the state's investigative subpoena law.
Based on the case number assigned the Weber State investigation, there appears to be dozens of cases in which law enforcement obtained investigative subpoenas from the court.
One of those filed in 2008 involves suspected misuse of public funds in the Uintah School District.
In the application for a secrecy order, the attorney general's office wrote it was conducting an investigation of "a career public employee, his employer, and several building contractors who have business and personal relationships with public officials and private businesses throughout Utah."
"Preliminary information obtained by investigators indicates that the public employee and some if not all of the contractors may have committed multiple felonies related to the misuse of public funds," according to the application.
Prosecutors sought to have investigation kept secret, arguing public disclosure could endanger witnesses or impede the investigation. It could also damage people's reputations before any possible criminal charges were filed.
The status of that investigation is unknown and the attorney general's office has steadfastly remained mum.
Email:dromboy@ksl.com
