Dear Senator Stevenson and Representative Peterson:
The question presented is straightforward: if the Legislature made the availability of the Sundance funding contingent on a stated condition, and that condition was not satisfied, does GOEO have any lawful authority to reappropriate, retain, obligate, expend, or otherwise preserve access to those funds? Relatedly, does GOEO have any authority to disregard, evade, or administratively nullify a lapse provision enacted by the Legislature?
My concern is that GOEO’s conduct reflects more than a mere interpretive disagreement. The available record suggests an effort to proceed without a sufficiently transparent written basis, coupled with approval of minutes that appear too vague and incomplete to permit meaningful public scrutiny of what the board actually did. In a matter involving conditional appropriations and lapse language, that lack of clarity directly undermines legislative control over public funds and impairs the public’s ability to assess whether the executive branch is acting within lawful bounds.
As reflected in the materials collected at https://goeo.joepuente.org, the dispute concerns not only the underlying availability of funds, but also the integrity of the public record used to justify GOEO’s position. Those materials include the timeline of events, GRAMA appeal materials, transcript-to-minutes analysis, and supporting documents addressing whether GOEO’s later characterization of board action is supported by the actual record.
I raise this issue because I am a filmmaker, an advocate for Utah’s film industry and nonprofit sector, and a citizen deeply committed to ethical and representative government. I have also devoted five years of my life to military service, and I take seriously any indication that legislatively imposed limits on appropriated funds may be treated as optional by an executive office.
I am copying Christine R. Gilbert, as the drafting attorney, and Steven M. Allred, as the fiscal analyst, because this issue goes directly to statutory construction, appropriations control, and the intended legal effect of the condition and lapse language enacted in S.B. 2. Their inclusion is meant to ensure that any response is informed by the bill’s drafting context and fiscal structure, and to clarify whether GOEO’s present position is consistent with the legislation as written and understood at the time of enactment.
Accordingly, I respectfully request a written response addressing:
Whether, in your understanding as the bill’s sponsors, S.B. 2 permits GOEO to treat conditional Sundance funds as available if the condition precedent was not met.
Whether a lapse provision in S.B. 2 may lawfully be ignored, bypassed, or reinterpreted by GOEO in the administration of those funds.
If such authority is believed to exist, the specific statutory text or legal basis supporting that conclusion.
Whether GOEO’s present course of action is consistent with the legislative intent underlying the appropriation and lapse language adopted in S.B. 2.
I would appreciate a direct written response stating whether, in your view, the Legislature intended these funds to lapse if the statutory condition was not satisfied.
Respectfully,
(signed)
Salt Lake City, Utah
(attachment: [20260311_SB2SponsorsGOEO.pdf])