Date: May 20, 2026 at 7:00:08 PM MDT
To: [GovernmentRecordsOffice DGO]
Cc: [Todd Jenson,AAG…]
Attached is a Supplemental Statement of Facts submitted by the Petitioner in the matter of PUENTE v. GOED (2026-058).
Document: 20260520_Supplemental_Statement_of_Facts.pdf
[Attachment]
____________________________________
N.b. The Office of the State Auditor was contacted separately.
____________________________________
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE
OF THE STATE OF UTAH
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Joseph L. Puente submits this supplemental statement to directly address four specific deficiencies in GOED's May 20, 2026 Statement of Facts. GOED's filing presents a procedurally adequate but substantively incomplete response that:
Asserts records do not exist without certifying any good-faith search;
Applies Utah Code § 63G-2-305(35) as a categorical blanket without meeting the statute's two-part conjunctive threshold;
Mischaracterizes the January 8, 2026 Board vote as an informal advisory act in direct contradiction of the contemporaneous transcript; and
Ignores entirely several categories of records that the exemption cannot lawfully cover.
Nothing in this supplemental statement repeats arguments already made in Petitioner's March 16, 2026 Notice of Appeal and accompanying exhibits (AppEx_01 through AppEx_17). This statement is offered to focus the Director's attention on points raised for the first time — or left unaddressed — in GOED's own submission.
____________________________________
I. GOED'S "RECORDS DO NOT EXIST" CLAIM IS UNCERTIFIED AND IMPLAUSIBLE
GOED asserts that certain records — specifically, a formal application, an award letter, and a grant contract — "did not exist" at the time of the GRAMA request because no formal application had been submitted to the Executive Director. GOED's Statement of Facts at 4.
This claim is non-responsive to the bulk of Petitioner's request. Petitioner requested three categories of records:
(1) the complete IAA grant application and attached materials;
(2) any written documentation (letters, emails, memoranda) related to the IAA grant transmitted between GOEO staff, board members, applicants, other state offices, and third parties; and
(3) any award letter, scoring sheets, and executed contracts for FY 2025 and/or 2026.
GOED's "records do not exist" response is directed only at categories (1) and (3) — the formal application and the final contract. It is silent regarding category (2): the broad universe of written communications between staff, board members, Nuovo representatives, and other public and private entities that may have been in communication with the GOED regarding this specific matter leading up to, and surrounding, the January 8 Board meeting.
The January 8 Board meeting record makes the existence of such communications not merely plausible — it makes their non-existence implausible. The meeting (see AppEx_03 and AppEx_04):
Was publicly noticed with a specific agenda item labeled "Nuovo Film Festival Incorporated";
Included an "All Materials" packet distributed to board members in advance (AppEx_07);
Featured a detailed, multi-part presentation by Scott Anderson covering five operational "pillars," specific cost comparisons, named partners (Harbor Fund, "Ushi"/USHE), and a proposed governance structure;
Proceeded directly to a pre-drafted written motion that was read into the record — twice — naming the specific grantee ("Nuovo Film Festival Incorporated"), the specific fund ("Industrial Assistance Account"), and the specific dollar amount ("$2,000,000");
Concluded with a formal roll-call vote and a declaration of "Motion passes."
This level of preparation and specificity does not happen spontaneously. Staff memoranda, briefing materials, email coordination, the draft motion itself, any application-equivalent submission by Nuovo, and any internal communications about the funding source (including how the IAA funds were made available following Sundance's departure) are all records that virtually certainly exist. GOED has offered no sworn statement, no description of its search methodology, and no representation that it conducted a thorough, good-faith search of staff email accounts, shared drives, or board communication systems.
Under GRAMA, the burden is on the governmental entity to justify its denial. See Utah Code § 63G-2-403(11)(b). A bare assertion that no formal application exists does not carry that burden for the far larger category of written communications Petitioner actually sought.
____________________________________
II. GOED FAILED TO APPLY THE TWO-PART CONJUNCTIVE TEST OF § 63G-2-305(35)
The entirety of GOED's legal argument rests on Utah Code § 63G-2-305(35), which classifies as "protected" records that would:
"reveal negotiations regarding assistance or incentives offered by or requested from a governmental entity for the purpose of encouraging a person to expand or locate a business in Utah, but only if disclosure would result in actual economic harm to the person or place the governmental entity at a competitive disadvantage..."
This statute contains a two-part conjunctive threshold. A record is protected only if both conditions are met: (1) the record would reveal "negotiations" for incentives, and (2) disclosure would result in "actual economic harm" or place GOED "at a competitive disadvantage."
GOED's filing satisfies neither prong with specificity.
A. Not All Requested Records Are "Negotiations"
GOED treats every written communication related to the Nuovo IAA grant — without exception — as a "negotiation" record. This is legally overbroad. The following categories of records Petitioner sought are not, by their nature, "negotiations":
GOED offers no record-by-record analysis. It applies § 63G-2-305(35) as a categorical shield over everything, which the statute does not permit.
B. GOED Did Not Demonstrate "Actual Economic Harm" or Specific "Competitive Disadvantage"
GOED's argument on the second prong — the harm threshold — consists of a single, generalized paragraph asserting that public disclosure "could have a chilling effect, because businesses and organizations would not want to negotiate with GOED if their strategic plans were subject to public disclosure." GOED's Statement of Facts at 6.
This is a policy argument about hypothetical future negotiations with unidentified future parties. It is not a showing that disclosure of the specific records Petitioner requested would cause "actual economic harm" to Nuovo Film Festival Inc. or place GOED at a competitive disadvantage in any identifiable, concrete way.
The statute requires more. The word "actual" in "actual economic harm" means real and demonstrable, not speculative or generalized. GOED has not identified:
What specific records, if released, would reveal Nuovo's proprietary competitive strategies;
How Nuovo — a newly formed Utah nonprofit explicitly created in the context of a public post-Sundance initiative — faces competitive exposure from other states;
What specific negotiation with what specific competing state is ongoing or imminent such that disclosure would undermine GOED's position; or
Any evidence that Nuovo itself has asserted harm or invoked confidentiality.
Notably, the statute's "competitive disadvantage" prong is designed to protect GOED's ability to compete with other states for businesses weighing relocation. GOED's Sundance example actually illustrates the opposite point: Sundance already left for Colorado. There is no ongoing competition with Colorado over Sundance. The current negotiation, to whatever extent one exists, concerns a newly created Utah-based nonprofit whose stated purpose is to build a Utah film ecosystem — an entity with no competing state bidding for its location.
C. The Statute Explicitly Bars Withholding Final Contract Records
Section 63G-2-305(35) contains a carve-out that GOED acknowledges but does not fully address: "this section may not be used to restrict access to a record evidencing a final contract." GOED asserts no final contract exists yet — but this conditional acknowledgment implicitly recognizes that the moment a contract is executed, it is unambiguously public. Petitioner notes this for the record and renews the request for any such records if and when they come into existence.
____________________________________
III. THE JANUARY 8 BOARD VOTE WAS NOT AN INFORMAL ADVISORY ACT
GOED characterizes the January 8 Board action as an "informal presentation" of an "idea" made to the Board in an "advisory role," stressing that only the Executive Director — not the Board — has authority to award IAA grants. GOED's Statement of Facts at 3.
This framing is factually contradicted by what was said at the board meeting (Transcript AppEx_04) and the "Concept vs. Motion" comparison document (AppEx_05) already in the record.
The transcript shows the following sequence:
Staff introduces the item to the Board as an IAA grant proposal, not a conceptual discussion;
A pre-drafted motion is read into the record, naming the grantee, the fund, and the dollar amount;
Scott Anderson delivers a detailed operational presentation;
Board members ask substantive governance and implementation questions;
The chair returns to the motion, has it read a second time, and calls for a motion and second;
Named board members move and second the motion;
A full roll-call vote is conducted, with each member voting "yes" individually;
The chair announces: "Motion passes"; and
The chair congratulates Anderson and states that the Board looks forward to "helping make this happen for the state of Utah."
A formal motion, a named roll-call vote, a declaration of passage, and congratulatory remarks about building the project are not the procedural markers of an informal advisory discussion. They are the procedural markers of a formal institutional action. The legal label GOED attaches to that action — "recommendation" rather than "approval" — may be accurate under the IAA statute's allocation of authority to the Executive Director, but it does not transform the factual record into something it is not.
The significance for GRAMA purposes is this: if the Board was conducting a formal, recorded, public action (even a recommendatory one) regarding a $2 million public expenditure, then the preparatory records underlying that action — the briefing packet, the staff memo, the draft motion, the emails coordinating the presentation — are records of government activity subject to GRAMA's presumption of openness. They are not transformed into "negotiations" simply because GOED now characterizes the Board's role as advisory.
IV. GOED DID NOT ADDRESS SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF RECORDS FROM PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
GOED's filing makes no reference to, and offers no response to, the following materials Petitioner submitted as part of AppEx_01 through AppEx_17:
AppEx_14 (SB 2, FY 2025 Appropriations Act): Petitioner raised, with documentary support, the question of whether IAA funds used for the Nuovo grant originated from the lapsed conditional Sundance appropriation. GOED did not address this. The appropriation's conditions and lapse provisions are directly relevant to whether the IAA was lawfully available for this purpose — a matter of public accountability, not private negotiation.
AppEx_15 (State Auditor Complaint, Case 016517): Petitioner submitted a formal whistleblower complaint to the Utah Office of the State Auditor. GOED did not address this.
AppEx_17 (UFA Ethics & Conduct Evaluation): Petitioner submitted a detailed ethics evaluation raising concerns about Scott Anderson's dual role as both a presenter/advocate for Nuovo and an apparent incorporator/board member of the recipient entity, as well as the role of a Jefferson Moss appointee sitting on Nuovo's board while Moss holds final grant approval authority as GOED Executive Director. GOED did not address any conflict-of-interest question.
No press release: GOED issued press releases for other grant approvals at the January 8, 2026 Board meeting but did not issue one for the Nuovo IAA grant. GOED's statement does not explain or acknowledge this disparity, which bears on whether the agency treated this grant consistently with its own standard practices.
These omissions do not waive Petitioner's arguments on these points. They are noted here to inform the Director that GOED's statement does not constitute a complete or responsive defense to the record as assembled.
____________________________________
V. REQUESTED RELIEF
For the reasons stated in Petitioner's March 16, 2026 Notice of Appeal and this supplemental statement, Petitioner respectfully asks the Director to:
Find that GOED has not carried its burden to demonstrate that the requested records either do not exist or are wholly exempt from disclosure under § 63G-2-305(35);
Order GOED to conduct a thorough, documented, good-faith search for all records responsive to Petitioner's February 9, 2026 GRAMA request — including staff memoranda, briefing packets, the draft motion, internal and external emails, and any application-equivalent materials submitted by or on behalf of Nuovo Film Festival Inc. — and to certify by sworn statement the scope and methodology of that search;
Order GOED to produce all responsive records that are not properly classified as protected, and to release all reasonably segregable public portions of any records containing some protected information, with an itemized, record-by-record explanation of the specific statutory basis for each withheld portion;
Find that § 63G-2-305(35) cannot be applied as a categorical shield to non-negotiation records, including board meeting preparatory materials, staff analyses, and the pre-drafted motion; and
Grant any additional relief the Director deems appropriate to ensure GOED's full compliance with GRAMA.
____________________________________
Respectfully submitted this 20th day of May, 2026.
(SIGNED)
Joseph L. Puente
867 S Concord St
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
Email: joe@joepuente.com
Petitioner, Pro Se
____________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Petitioner's Supplemental Statement of Facts, Reasons, and Legal Authority has been served via email to the Assistant Attorney General, Deputy Division Director, State Agency Counsel Division, on the same date it was submitted to the Government Records Office:
(SIGNED)
Joseph L. Puente
Salt Lake City, UT
Submitted to:
Todd Karl Jenson
Assistant Attorney General
160 East 300 South, 5th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856
Email:...
Government Records Office
Division of Archives and Records Service
Attn: Executive Secretary
346 South Rio Grande Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Email:...
____________________________________
Exhibit references in this statement correspond to AppEx_01 through AppEx_17 as filed with Petitioner's March 16, 2026 Notice of Appeal. No new exhibits are attached to this supplemental statement; all referenced materials are already in the record.