Entity: Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity (GOEO)
Public Body: Business Development Board
Subject of concern: Grant approval process
Date of incident: January 8, 2016
Actions taken by the Business Development Board of the Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity (hereinafter, “GOEO” inclusive) in regard to its handling of a proposed Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) grant worth two million dollars ($2,000,000 USD) appear to conflict with multiple specific standards across all sections of the Utah Filmmakers™ Ethics Code, raising significant concerns with UFA™ Leadership. The GOEO is thus being evaluated using the Enumerated Version of the UFA™ Code of Ethics & Conduct.
While it is acknowledged that the GOEO is not formally affiliated with Utah Filmmakers™, it is the state government agency that oversees the Utah Film Commission, which is a Utah Filmmakers™ Associate Organization. This fact is noted with assurance that the findings of this evaluation will have no effect on their participation in the Associate Program, since—to the best of our knowledge—the Film Commission was unaware of the GOEO’s actions.
The results of this evaluation are intended for informational purposes only.
Utah Filmmakers™ Ethics Code – Relevant Standards
The following outlines the expectations of the Utah Filmmakers™ Association regarding the decorum of its Corporate Principals, Leadership, Associates, and Members toward colleagues, employees, contractors, clients, customers, and the community—as well as participants in any official, associated, and/or affiliated programs, forums, activities, and events. These standards are based on the organization’s core values of Professionalism, Integrity, and Respect.
1.0 Professionalism
1.1 Demonstrating competence, accountability, and productivity
Standard: Demonstrating competence, accountability, and productivity in one’s occupation to the best of their abilities.
Analysis – Competence, accountability, productivity: Approving a large, one‑time IAA grant for a new nonprofit organization with no track record, no public competitive process, and minimal documented vetting of economic‑development merit suggests weak due diligence and risk assessment, which conflicts with the expectation of competent, accountable decision‑making described in §1.1.
1.2 Acknowledging limitations and embracing learning
Standard: Acknowledging one’s own limitations and embracing opportunities for learning and development, either on the job or via educational material or training.
Analysis – Acknowledging limitations and learning: GOEO discussion—focused largely on staff assurances rather than hard evidence, comparable proposals, or industry benchmarks—indicates a limited understanding of the film industry and little‑to‑no effort to consult independent expertise, contrary to the standard described in §1.2 of embracing learning and recognizing one’s limits.
1.3 Accepting responsibility for one’s actions
Standard: Accepting responsibility for one’s actions. Owning difficult decisions and mistakes and being accountable for them—making necessary corrections where possible and/or relinquishing one’s stewardship over a particular program, project, or task, if necessary.
Analysis – Accepting responsibility and making corrections: Once public concerns were raised about process irregularities (lack of notice to other organizations, unclear criteria, potential favoritism), there is no visible indication that the GOEO revisited or corrected the decision, held a follow‑up review, or publicly accounted for its process, which conflicts with the standard described in §1.3 to own difficult decisions and make necessary corrections.
1.4 Embracing the collaborative nature of team projects
Standard: Embracing the collaborative nature of team projects, with willingness to assist others and to seek out and accept assistance from others with more knowledge and experience.
Analysis – Collaboration and seeking assistance: The GOEO did not appear to formally consult the Utah Film Commission, local film‑focused nonprofit organizations, or broader film‑industry stakeholders in a transparent way, despite the grant’s direct impact on that ecosystem, undermining the expectation described in §1.4 to embrace collaboration and seek assistance from those with more experience in the subject area.
1.5 Delegating responsibility and creating opportunities
Standard: Being able to delegate responsibility and give others opportunities to learn, grow, and excel.
Analysis – Delegating and creating opportunities: By unanimously approving the direction of a substantial, ad‑hoc grant to a single new entity instead of designing or using a structured, competitive program that could allow multiple Utah‑based film‑focused organizations to apply, the GOEO effectively concentrated opportunity rather than delegating and creating broader pathways for others to learn and grow, contrary to the standard described in §1.5.
1.6 Recognizing and avoiding conflicts of interest
Standard: Recognizing and avoiding conflicts of interest which may occur whenever one’s pursuits in a particular subject lead one to actions, activities, or relationships that undermine—or appear to undermine—one’s ability to make honest and impartial choices when performing one’s duties and harm the collective interests of a project or program.
Analysis – Avoiding conflicts of interest and appearances: The decision process lacks clear, documented conflict‑of‑interest screening for GOEO staff with any personal, political, or business ties to the proposed grant recipient, its principals, or associated venues; proceeding without such clarity creates at least an appearance of conflict of interest, which directly contradicts §1.6.
1.6.1 Use of position, resources, or insider opportunities
Standard: This includes—but is not limited to—situations like using one’s position of authority, exploiting group resources for personal gain, or taking for oneself opportunities discoverable only through one’s position.
Analysis – Use of position, resources, or insider opportunities: Approving a proposal to award a substantial IAA grant to a single new nonprofit organization—through a questionable process effectively hidden from similar organizations—creates the impression that access came from insider relationships and state resources rather than an open field of opportunity, aligning with the very behavior §1.6.1 warns against.
2.0 Integrity
2.1 Ensuring objectivity, fairness, and non‑exploitation
Standard: Ensuring that one is objective, fair, and does not exploit others, their hard work, or their mistakes.
Analysis – Objectivity, fairness, and not exploiting others: Favoring one nascent organization for a major grant, without a transparent comparison with established organizations that provide similar or greater economic and cultural benefits, undermines objectivity and fairness and implicitly exploits the work of those existing organizations that were never given equal access to this opportunity, as described in §2.1.
2.2 Giving everyone an equal opportunity to speak up
Standard: Giving everyone an equal opportunity to speak up when someone else doesn’t.
Analysis – Equal opportunity to speak up: Other film‑focused entities, nonprofit organizations, and film‑industry stakeholders were not meaningfully engaged or given a platform to provide input before the GOEO voted to approve the grant; this conflicts with the standard to give everyone an equal opportunity to speak up when decisions affect them, as described in §2.2.
2.3 Being just toward organizations and businesses
Standard: Being just toward colleagues, fellow organizations, and businesses.
Analysis – Being just toward organizations and businesses: Granting a large, one‑off subsidy to a single new private entity, without a transparent policy foundation or even‑handed access to comparable support, reflects preferential treatment rather than justice toward “fellow organizations and businesses,” breaching §2.3.
2.4 Avoiding unethical behavior and practices
Standard: Avoiding unethical behavior and/or practices to the best of one’s ability.
Analysis – Avoiding unethical practices: While explicit illegality has not been established, the opaque, secretive, non‑competitive approach to deploying public funds is a classic example of questionable practice that §2.4 counsels against, particularly given the potential for perceived favoritism, disregard of public trust, and misuse of taxpayer funds.
2.5 Honesty and transparency when actions impact others
Standard: Being honest and transparent when one’s actions impact others (e.g., decisions affecting the livelihoods of employees and/or contractors).
Analysis – Honesty and transparency when actions impact others: The GOEO did not clearly articulate to the broader community why the proposed grant recipient was selected, how it met the formal criteria, or how comparable opportunities would be made available to others; this lack of proactive transparency about a decision with material impact on existing organizations and vendors directly conflicts with §2.5.
2.6 Prohibition of malicious, deceitful, or petty conduct
Standard: Malicious, deceitful, or petty conduct will not be tolerated.
Analysis – Prohibition of malicious, deceitful, or petty conduct: Even if overt malice is not established, the GOEO’s handling of the grant disclosure evidences deceitful behavior inconsistent with §2.6. Pertinent details of the proposal—including the $2 million cost, the nature of the project, and the intended recipient—were not summarized in the agenda and could only be discovered by members of the public willing to listen to the entirety of a 50‑plus‑minute audio recording of the January 8 board meeting, during which a substantial portion of the discussion focused on this grant despite its bare‑bones description on the published agenda. Unlike other decisions made the same day, GOEO issued no press release about this award, and the grant was not reported in the press until January 22, nearly two weeks later. Taken together, these choices suggest an intentional effort to keep the most salient facts technically public but practically obscure, which falls squarely within the kind of deceitful and petty conduct that §2.6 rejects.
2.7 Misrepresentation in professional interactions
Standard: If one is discovered to be lying or misrepresenting themselves in their professional interactions, they may be disassociated from the organization and/or removed from official forums.
Analysis – Misrepresentation in professional interactions: If, as reported, the opportunity was publicly framed as a neutral economic‑development initiative while privately functioning as a bespoke deal for one favored organization, that constitutes a form of misrepresentation about the nature and accessibility of the grant, violating §2.7’s prohibition on misrepresenting oneself or one’s actions.
2.8 Adhering to the highest ethical standards of business conduct
Standard: Adhering to the highest ethical standards of business conduct and accepting responsibility for acquiring sufficient knowledge of—and making a conscious effort to comply with—all federal, state, county, and municipal laws, regulations, and best practices pertaining to the environment, commerce, industry, safety, labor, discrimination, and privacy, in order to recognize potential risks and to know when to seek legal advice.
Analysis – State laws (SB 2) and regulations (IAA restrictions): Of particular concern under §2.8 is the GOEO’s treatment and description of the underlying funding source, which shows a failure to respect both the letter and intent of S.B. 2 (the 2025 New Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations Act) and basic norms of public finance. During the meeting, it was stated that the $2 million IAA grant would use money “previously allocated to Sundance” and that, with Sundance leaving Utah, that money had “come back.” In reality, S.B. 2 appropriated $3.5 million for the Sundance Institute on the express condition that Sundance remain in Utah and directed the GOEO not to disburse those funds and to allow them to lapse if Sundance chose to leave the state. Once Sundance announced its relocation and confirmed that future festivals would be held outside Utah, those contingent dollars were required to lapse, not to be repurposed at the GOEO’s convenience. By approving a $2 million award described as using money “previously allocated to Sundance,” and by characterizing those funds as having “come back” rather than as an appropriation that was never meant to be deployed if the condition failed, the GOEO effectively treated restricted, contingent funds as discretionary money. This conflicts directly with §2.8’s requirement to acquire sufficient knowledge of governing laws and regulations, to honor explicit appropriations language and lapse provisions, and to seek fresh, transparent legislative authorization before diverting condition‑bound, one‑time funds for an unrelated purpose.
3.0 Respect
3.1 Default respect for people and institutions
Standard: Being respectful of people, property, institutions, and the environment should be by default—no one should demand that respect be “earned.”
Analysis – Default respect for people and institutions: By bypassing the established film ecosystem and its institutions when designing or approving the deployment of a major grant to an unknown, unproven nonprofit organization, the GOEO signaled limited respect for Utah’s existing nonprofit organizations, film industry professionals, and community‑based efforts that have operated for decades without such bespoke support.
3.2 Inclusive, polite, patient, and courteous conduct
Standard: Being respectful means being inclusive, polite, patient, understanding, and courteous.
Analysis – Inclusive, polite, patient, and courteous conduct: Interactions with the GOEO and its staff, described by stakeholders as dismissive of concerns about fairness and process, indicate a failure to engage in inclusive, courteous communication, particularly toward those questioning the decision.
3.3 Respecting rights to opinions and diversity of views
Standard: One must respect the rights of others to privacy, personal space, and to have and express their own opinions, and recognize that there is strength in diversity.
Analysis – Respecting rights to opinions and diversity of views: Nothing undermines respect for others’ right to have and express differing opinions on the proper use of public funds like minimizing or taking steps to prevent public disclosure.
3.4 Valuing different perspectives for problem‑solving
Standard: Understand that different perspectives on issues can be valuable for solving problems and generating new ideas.
Analysis – Valuing different perspectives for problem‑solving: The GOEO did not appear to seek out, let alone use, critical feedback from filmmakers, film‑related nonprofit executives, festival organizers, and film‑industry advocates as an opportunity to refine its approach, failing to meet the expectation described in §3.4 to treat different perspectives as valuable inputs for solving policy and process problems.
3.5 Resolving disagreements constructively
Standard: When disagreements occur—and they will—it is imperative that every effort is made to identify the underlying causes immediately and try to resolve them constructively.
Analysis – Resolving disagreements constructively: The GOEO’s failure to seek input from film‑industry experts ensured that no disagreements would be voiced, to say nothing of identifying their underlying causes and attempting constructive resolution.
3.6 Avoiding exclusionary behavior
Standard: Any kind of violence, victimization, discriminatory or exclusionary behavior, or harassment toward others for any reason will not be tolerated.
Analysis – Avoiding exclusionary behavior: Designing or approving a grant pathway that is effectively accessible only to one organization—without open notice or a replicable path for similarly situated organizations—constitutes exclusionary behavior in the economic‑opportunity sense, contrary to §3.6.
3.7 Avoiding uncomfortable or threatening environments
Standard: An environment where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is neither productive nor creative.
Analysis – Avoiding uncomfortable or threatening environments: When state‑backed favoritism is perceived, other organizations, festivals, vendors, and film workers understandably feel their livelihoods and opportunities are at risk; this fosters the kind of uncomfortable, insecure environment that §3.7 warns against as neither productive nor creative.
Evaluation Findings
When mapped against the enumerated UFA™ Code of Ethics & Conduct, the GOEO’s approach to the IAA grant shows systemic conflicts with core expectations of Professionalism (§§1.1–1.6.1), Integrity (§§2.1–2.8), and Respect (§§3.1–3.7), centering on a lack of transparent criteria, absence of equal opportunity, and failure to engage and protect the broader film community affected by its decision.
Of all these concerns, the board’s handling of the underlying SB 2 appropriation stands out as the most alarming breach of the Ethics Code: by treating condition‑bound, contingent funds as discretionary money that had simply “come back,” and by repurposing those dollars without updated, explicit legislative authorization, the GOEO departed not only from the spirit of §2.8 but from basic, widely understood norms of lawful and transparent stewardship of public funds.
Framed against the UFA™ Ethics Code, this situation justifies treating both the GOEO and the nonprofit organization for which it approved a grant as ineligible for any form of endorsement by or association with the Utah Filmmakers™ organization. In no uncertain terms, the pattern of behavior—culminating in the decision to describe and deploy SB 2’s lapsed, contingent appropriation as if it were an unrestricted pool of discretionary money—disqualifies both the GOEO and the proposed grant recipient from participating in any UFA™ project or program and, due to such a profound and public ethical failure, must not be held out—formally or informally—as endorsed resources or associated in any way, shape, or form with the Utah Filmmakers™ Association.
1.0 Organizational trust and positions of responsibility
A prior internal case showed that when an official UFA™ representative, while occupying a position of trust and public recognition, violated core ethical expectations, the consequences were dismissal from their positions of responsibility and revocation of credentials, guided by legal counsel and a structured evaluation under this same Ethics Code. That precedent establishes that occupying any role that influences how Utah filmmakers view “legitimate” resources requires a high bar of Professionalism, Integrity, and Respect, not just the absence of criminal conduct.
By analogy, the GOEO held a similar position of practical and public trust with respect to Utah’s creative economy, effectively signaling to the community at large—in a manner that was technically public but practically obscure—that the proposed IAA grant recipient was a vetted, high‑value resource by recommending it as the beneficiary of a special, one‑time subsidy of two million dollars ($2,000,000 USD). When that decision is demonstrably inconsistent with basic ethical norms, good‑governance practice, and unambiguous legislated instructions, it fails the same trust test the Utah Filmmakers™ Association applied to its own representative.
2.0 Awareness and complicity of the nonprofit principals
The way the nonprofit organization in question surfaced—an unknown entity with a redundant mission that suddenly became the target of extraordinary state assistance—only makes sense if its principals understood the unusual lengths the GOEO was willing to go on their behalf.
2.1 Red Flags
Key red flags that reasonable industry actors would recognize include:
- A new, largely unheard‑of nonprofit being fast‑tracked for a large, bespoke grant outside a transparent, competitive process.
- A mission overlapping heavily with existing film‑aligned nonprofit organizations, festivals, infrastructure, and other community‑oriented programs, signaling redundancy rather than clearly differentiated public value.
- Political and PR framing that positioned the unknown entity as a marquee economic‑development asset despite having no track record, a move any experienced organizer would recognize as disproportionate to its demonstrated capacity.
For a nonprofit’s principals, accepting that arrangement is not ethically neutral; it indicates a willingness to benefit from opaque, preferential treatment, which conflicts directly with UFA™ expectations around integrity, fairness, and avoiding even the appearance of exploiting public systems for private advantage.
3.0 UFA™ Values and the Associate Program
Utah Filmmakers™ explicitly defines its mission as championing reputable, Utah‑based film industry resources and guiding filmmakers by promoting its Core Values of Professionalism, Integrity, and Respect. The Associate Program is by invitation only and reserved specifically for “vetted and select individuals, organizations, and events” that the UFA™ is comfortable presenting as examples of what filmmakers should want to work with.
3.1 Vetting considerations
The vetting mandate has several implications:
- The UFA™ must actively screen for alignment with salient ethical and governance norms, not just basic legality.
- The UFA™ cannot credibly recommend organizations that accept or depend on opaque government favoritism at odds with the industry standards the UFA™ publicly encourages others to adopt.
- Prior cases show that when someone’s conduct contradicts those norms, the UFA™ withdraws trust and formal association, not by “overlooking” the behavior for strategic reasons.
Given what is now known about the proposed grant recipient—its opaque origin, redundant mission space, and reliance on ethically compromised state action—that entity, its principal members, and any successor brand rooted in that relationship cannot meet the threshold for invitation into the Associate Program or even an informal endorsement as a “reputable” resource.
4.0 Failure of basic ethical standards (common‑sense commerce)
The conduct described fails not just the specifics of the UFA™ Ethics Code, but a set of basic, widely understood expectations for doing business and stewarding public money:
- Public funds should be allocated through clear criteria, non‑discriminatory eligibility, and transparent processes that give similarly situated entities a fair chance.
- Organizations should avoid arrangements that reasonably appear to be “inside deals,” especially where public trust and community ecosystems are at stake.
- New nonprofits entering a crowded mission space should differentiate themselves through genuine service value, not by leveraging political access for disproportionate subsidies.
These are “common knowledge” norms in nonprofit management and economic‑development practice; ignoring them is inconsistent with the basic business literacy that the Utah Filmmakers™ Association encourages its individual members and member organizations to adopt. When a state board and its favored grantee disregard such fundamentals together, their credibility as partners or exemplars in the Utah film ecosystem collapses.
5.0 Implications for GOEO and the proposed grant recipient vis‑à‑vis Utah Filmmakers™
Taken together, the pattern of behavior justifies the conclusion that:
- The GOEO’s Business Development Board, as an institution, has disqualified itself from serving as any kind of informal ethical reference point for the Utah film community until it transparently acknowledges and corrects the practices that led to its unanimous approval of a $2 million proposal that, as of the preparation of this memorandum, remains innocuously described by them only as an “Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) Grant.”
- Alternatively, all members who were present and voted in favor of the motion could simply resign from the Business Development Board.
- The proposed grant recipient organization and its principals—whose emergence and early viability depended on that compromised patronage—cannot be treated as a reputable, model partner for filmmakers under UFA™ standards, regardless of later rebranding or program growth.
In no uncertain terms, that places both the GOEO and the proposed grant recipient in the same practical category as the former UFA™ representative who was stripped of responsibilities: entities that, due to profound and public ethical failure, must not be held out—formally or informally—as endorsed resources or associated in any way, shape, or form with the Utah Filmmakers™ Association.
Prepared by:
Joseph L. Puente
Founder/President
Utah Filmmakers™ Association
ATTACHMENT(S)/ENCLOSURE(S)
“Ethics & Conduct Evaluation—Addendum”
(20260220_GOEO_EvalAdendum.PDF)
Ethics & Conduct Evaluation — Addendum (online facsimile)
Inclusive use of “GOEO” to represent both the state government Agency/Entity and Public Body.
For purposes of this evaluation, “GOEO” is used inclusively to refer to both (1) the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity as a state government agency/entity and (2) its Business Development / Board of Economic Opportunity as a public body.
1.0 Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity (Entity) and Business Development Board (Public Body)
Using “GOEO” inclusively for both the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity and its Business Development / Economic Opportunity Board is justified because, in law and practice, the board is structurally and functionally part of the office, not an independent entity.
1.1 Statutory and structural linkage
Utah Code creates “the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity” as a single office and then creates “the Board of Economic Opportunity” within that office, making the board an internal governing body rather than a separate organization. The statute also requires the office to obtain the advice of “the GOEO board” before changing policies, explicitly treating the board as part of the same institutional framework.
2.0 Administrative and public‑facing practice
State records list the Business Development / GOED Business Development / GOEO board under the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, with shared address, staff contacts, and mission language. GOEO’s own “Boards” and “About GOEO” pages describe the board as part of GOEO’s governance and advisory structure, reinforcing that decisions made by the board are, in effect, actions of GOEO itself.
3.0 Ethics‑analysis rationale
Because the UFA™ evaluation is focused on how public power and resources were exercised around the approval of an IAA grant, treating the office and its board jointly as “GOEO” reflects the real chain of responsibility:
- The office administers programs and manages the money.
- The board advises, approves, and authorizes key actions under that office’s authority.
For purposes of an ethics assessment, there is no practical separation between “GOEO staff” and “the Board” in terms of impact on the film community; both operate under the same statutory mandate and brand, so referring to them collectively as “GOEO” accurately captures the unified institutional actor whose conduct is being evaluated.
Prepared by:
