Estimated read time: 2-3 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 Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information.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 — The committee assigned to examine Utah's government records act will recommend small but important changes to the 20-year-old law — a far cry from the major overhaul approved, and later retracted, by the Utah Legislature.
The GRAMA working group deserves high praise for the sober, thoughtful and collaborative manner in which it conducted its business. And, the very process the committee pursued deserves to be set aside and elevated as an example of how all public policy ought to be addressed.
The Legislature's initial pass at dismantling the law seemed at the time, and even more so now, a classic rush to judgment. It was hasty and haphazard, with little open debate or discussion, clearly fueled by the kind of bias borne of misinformation.
Sadly, it exemplifies a trend that haunts our entire parliamentary process. Complex and sweeping policy initiatives are relegated to one-click analysis. There is a frightening willingness to forego a deeper understanding of issues in favor of simplified slogans that solidify pre-existing prejudices.
Name the issue — immigration, health care, the economy — and sides align along a picket fence of platitudes. "It's amnesty!" "It's socialism!" The discussion on many of our most pregnant problems seems to take place in opposing echo chambers. Opinions are formed with selective facts, while contravening information is conveniently ignored.
That's how it happened with the original House Bill 477. Lawmakers who voted for the measure, and who later served on the working group, admitted to having been misinformed about the law. They were originally persuaded it encouraged "fishing expeditions," or lacked safeguards against having intimate and personal information "show up on the front page."
Many of those concerns abated after the committee members took the time to look under the hood. They saw the details, sifted through the facts, weighed the analysis and, in the end, simply made up their own minds.
There were very legitimate reasons to review the many facets of our open records laws, and the working group will push forward important improvements. Among them, more open and transparent handling of records, standardized training for records keepers and a way to resolve disputes over whether a record is public or not, possibly by an appointed ombudsman.
In the end, a strong law will be made stronger and we will all be the beneficiaries of an important civics lesson: When it comes to public policy, the quality of the product is determined by the quality of the process.
