Subject: Request to facilitate a Performance Audit of the Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED)
Dear Representative Romero,
I’m reaching out to you as a constituent, a Salt Lake City resident, and a disabled veteran. I am also a filmmaker and nonprofit volunteer.
I am writing to request that you sponsor a performance audit of the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED) through the Legislative Audit Subcommittee, and that it be given the highest priority.
This request concerns issues I initially raised with your office in a letter dated January 20 of this year.
$2 million grant approved by the GOEO Board
On January 8, the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity (GOEO) Board voted unanimously to approve a one-time $2 million Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) grant for Nuovo Film Festival, Inc. (NFFI). During that meeting, GOEO staff told the board that the grant funds were originally appropriated by the Legislature for Sundance and had “come back” after Sundance announced it was leaving Utah—on March 27 the previous year.
The staff failed to mention that the legislation that authorized a grant for Sundance (S.B. 2, 2025) was conditional on Sundance remaining in Utah and that their announced departure activated a provision with clear instructions:
“...If the Sundance Institute chooses to leave the state of Utah, GOEO shall not disburse the funds provided for this purpose and shall allow them to lapse.” (emphasis added)
This matter has already triggered multiple oversight mechanisms, including a formal complaint filed with the State Auditor on January 28 (Case No. 016517). The case remains open, and additional evidentiary materials continue to be submitted as they become available.
GRAMA Request and misleading denials
A GRAMA Records request submitted to GOEO on February 9 was denied within 24 hours—at least in writing—by their Public Information Officer, Patrick Fitzgibbon, who claimed that a grant application had not been submitted and “…no decision has been made…” (emphasis added). The denial letter was dated February 10, but was not transmitted until February 17.
On February 18, the denial was appealed to GOEO’s Executive Director, Jefferson Moss, who eventually upheld the denial on March 3—after follow-up communications to confirm it had been received—and included the following description of what took place at the January Board meeting:
“…While Scott Anderson presented a new concept to support the film industry to the GOEO Board on January 8, 2026, the presentation was intended to promote public awareness and transparency about a preliminary idea. That presentation concluded with the Board's recommendation that GOEO support the concept…” (emphasis added)
Moss also claimed that “no application exists” and “...records either do not exist or are protected under GRAMA…”
GOEO’s own public records contradict the justifications used by both Messrs. Moss and Fitzgibbon:
The meeting agenda, posted to the state Public Notice Website on January 6, listed the item only as an "Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) Grant" described with “the board would vote to approve one IAA grant,” without naming the recipient or the dollar amount, even though other agenda items included such details and more.
On February 10, the approved minutes of the board meeting were published and included an incomplete summary of Scott Anderson’s presentation, during which he stated that “...after Sundance announced its move…the governor tasked a group to come up with a replacement film festival.”
Anderson offered no date for the Governor’s assignment. Still, he did register “Nuovo Film Festival, Inc.” on May 23, 2025—less than two months after Sundance’s announcement and over seven months before the GOEO Board meeting—more of a “preliminary” action than just an “idea.”
Instead of a new festival, this “group” of unnamed parties returned—again, no date was specified—to the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and GOEO leadership with an alternative model that Anderson presented to the Board, consisting of multiple objectives, several of which duplicate existing public and private efforts that serve the local film industry. Anderson's presentation relied heavily on qualitative descriptions and clichés rather than the quantitative analyses typically required by the IAA program—except for one measurable data point: the explicit request for “$2 million in seed funding.”
Anderson’s vapid proposal was tied to a pre-written motion that was read into the record, moved, seconded, and “passed with unanimous consent,” which does not square with Fitzgibbon’s statement that “…no decision has been made…” nor Moss’s insistence that all the Board did was recommend “…that GOEO support the concept…”
To say that what took place at the January Board meeting was grossly mischaracterized by Moss and Fitzgibbon would be, at best, polite.
To put it more simply, Jefferson Moss and Patrick Fitzgibbon, acting in their official capacities as Executive Director and Public Information Officer of GOEO, respectively, denied a GRAMA Request and justified their decision with verifiable disinformation. Even though their justifications can be definitively proven untrue simply by accessing the state’s Public Notice Website, they insisted on documenting their falsehoods in writing on official agency letterhead. They willingly attached their legal names, official titles, and personal signatures to these lies and transmitting them from a government email address to a concerned citizen who asked only for the truth.
Appeal to the Government Records Office
The GRAMA denial was appealed to the Director of the Government Records Office. In preparation for the subsequent hearing, records that Moss and Fitzgibbon insisted “do not exist” were submitted to the GRO Director for review by Assistant Attorney General Todd Jenson—Counsel for GOEO—on May 20.
On May 21, the page for the January 8 GOEO Board Meeting on the Public Notice Website was revised to include two documents categorized as “Public Information Handout[s]”:
“Proposed Motion for IAA grant.pdf”
Date added: 2026/05/21 02:57 PM
“IAA - Slide deck presentation to GOED board.pdf”
Date added: 2026/05/21 02:57 PM
Metadata for the “Proposed Motion” indicated the PDF document was created on the morning of May 21—though the source document from which it was exported may have been drafted prior to that. Regardless, it appears to contain information that probably should have been included in the Agenda posted on January 6.
As of the date of this letter, it is not publicly known if these documents were included with the materials submitted to the GRO for the hearing, although they do appear to meet the records criteria submitted in the GRAMA request.
At the May 28 appeal hearing, concerns were raised that GOEO was acting, or at minimum stating an intention to act, as though it could unilaterally repurpose funding that the Legislature had appropriated for a specific purpose subject to an explicit condition and a definitive lapse requirement.
GRO Director Lonny Pehrson stated from the bench that the relevant materials were responsive to the GRAMA request, that, within the records provided, the materials are repeatedly referred to as an “application,” and were treated as an application in practice; completely undermining Moss’s claim that “no application exists.” Director Pehrson also emphasized that the grant proposal “was really outside the normal process,” and that being outside GOEO’s standard workflow increases, rather than decreases, the case for public scrutiny under GRAMA, concluding: “…I'm granting this appeal…”
Despite the GRO Director’s May 28 ruling to grant the appeal, the subsequent June 8 written Decision and Order contains several inconsistencies—including a deviation from “granting this appeal” to the appeal being “...GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part”—that make the ruling ambiguous and subject to a degree of interpretation that can potentially undermine the relief sought in the appeal, and ignores the scope of the matter discussed during the hearing.
Following requests for clarification from the Government Records Office that were denied for various and inconsistent reasons, the petitioner has retained legal counsel. As of the composition of this letter, a request for arbitration among the petitioner, counsel for the GOEO (now “GOED”), and Director Pehrson is being prepared for the Government Records Ombudsman to seek an amended decision and order to ensure there is no ambiguity regarding the appeal having been granted. Regardless, if GOED’s resistance up to this point is any indication, it would come as no surprise if the agency still failed to meet the requirements of the relief sought in the appeal, despite it being granted.
Petitioner’s present course of action
Every effort is being made to exhaust all available administrative and legislative oversight remedies before filing a petition for judicial review of the GRO Director’s order and decision in District Court.
That being said, as the Petitioner, I am not presently involved in any litigation on this matter. Regardless, I believe the problems brought to light during this process may indicate more serious concerns about statutory compliance, constitutional authority, and ethical misgivings that squarely belong in the Legislature’s oversight lane. I would also ask that the Legislative Auditor General’s office be informed that this request arises in a context where administrative and oversight channels are already active and not in parallel with any court case at this time.
Grounds for a legislative performance audit
This request is not solely intended to seek readjudication of an individual records dispute. It concerns a demonstrable—if not deliberate—failure of the GOED to adequately manage its internal controls, documentation practices, public notice procedures, and legal-fiscal review processes when the agency advances major funding proposals—the decision to depart from its normal process raises additional concerns of ethics and propriety.
It is a request that the Legislature hold an executive agency accountable when the public record appears to show a significant discrepancy between what S.B. 2 (2025) directed and how it was interpreted.
The core concern that GOED has consistently ignored throughout this process is whether agency leadership and staff—and identified executive and legislative-branch actors—complied with the Legislature’s conditions in the 2025 Sundance appropriation, understood the lapse language attached to that funding, how they may have interpreted it, or if they chose to undermine legislative intent post-session by simply ignoring it.
GOED has already demonstrated its disregard for transparency statutes to obscure the true nature, source, and status of the Nuovo proposal. The issue is not simply whether agency staff used imprecise language. It raises a broader concern about protecting the Legislature’s constitutional authority over public spending. It calls into question whether the Legislature’s instructions in an appropriations act remain binding if an agency deems them inconvenient, thereby increasing the risk that an agency will infer it may convert condition‑bound appropriations into discretionary funds through administrative interpretation alone.
In addition to the open case with the State Auditor and the Government Records Office's findings, the available record suggests a need for more diligent oversight of the grant process and demands legislative review. This case is especially appropriate for legislative oversight focused on governance, legality, and accountability.
It is respectfully submitted that the scope of the audit include:
Whether GOED (FKA “GOEO”) acted consistently with the Legislature’s conditions, restrictions, and lapse directives governing the funds at issue.
Whether GOED staff and executive branch officials discussed the specific conditions and the lapse provisions governing the Sundance appropriation in S.B. 2 (2025) and if they suggested or concluded that a conditional appropriation with a mandatory lapse provision could be repurposed absent new legislative authorization, especially after the lapse condition was triggered on March 27 of last year when Sundance announced that it was leaving Utah.
Whether funding‑source verification, legal review, records retention, and approval controls were sufficient internal controls for a multimillion‑dollar proposal.
Whether complete and accurate records were maintained by GOED, the Governor’s office, and other related officials, bodies, and agencies, documenting the dates, scheduling, and conduct of all meetings related to the Nuovo proposal—including the initial meeting between the Governor, Anderson and “the group,” the return meeting Anderson described, and any additional meetings—that occurred between March 27, 2025, and January 6, 2026, including associated notes, emails, memoranda, and other records.
Identifying the individuals that comprised the group “the governor tasked…to come up with a replacement film festival.”
Determining the precise roles, if any, the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and GOED leadership played in developing, reshaping, or advancing the Nuovo proposal before it reached the GOED Board.
Whether GOED maintained adequate records, the application or equivalent materials, findings, benchmarks, funding-source documentation for the proposal, and monitoring terms ordinarily expected for Industrial Assistance Account grants
Whether GOED staff, and executive and legislative branch officials, adequately identified, documented, and self‑reported any potential conflicts of interest related to the Nuovo proposal, and whether existing conflict‑of‑interest policies and procedures were followed and enforced.
Whether the GOED Board was accurately informed on—or before—January 8, 2026, about the legal status of the funding source, the agency’s assumed authority, and the implications of the vote it was being asked to take.
Whether GOED provided adequate and meaningful public notice of the agenda, board materials, and consistent disclosure for the Nuovo item compared with other incentives and comparable matters considered at the same meeting.
Why this item was handled outside GOED’s standard process, and who authorized that deviation.
Whether there are broader patterns in GOED’s use of the Industrial Assistance Account, grant-development process, or records practices that place major economic-development decisions outside standard procedures or meaningful public scrutiny.
The May 28 GRO Appeal hearing, and subsequent independent analyses, have already documented GOED’s failure to comply with applicable statutes regarding transparency, the IAA Grant application process, and their own internal procedures to ensure the public and the agency’s Board were sufficiently informed of all relevant data and actions taken up to that point before voting on the Nuovo grant.
Utah residents should be able to trust that when the Legislature says funds are conditional and must lapse if the condition is not met, that instruction will be followed unless the Legislature itself says otherwise.
A comprehensive performance audit would better serve the public in a measured and constructive waLegislature's y that would help pconfidence and the institutional role of the Legislature in controlling public expenditures. It could clarify what happened, and identify any breakdowns in processes or controls.
As one with an open mind and conscious of where their areas of understanding are limited, I value the opinions of those with more knowledge and experience in any field. I would appreciate any clarification that can be provided, or any other appropriate steps that could ensure that conditional appropriations and lapse provisions are honored as written.
The exercise of oversight measures such as audits and inquiries may serve as a precursor to considering clarifying legislation or implementing additional public notice and disclosure requirements.
However, it is the opinion of this constituent that drafting additional laws and regulations would be a waste of the Legislature’s time and resources. Safeguards to prevent individuals and agencies from sidestepping legislative conditions on public spending through informal reinterpretation, opaque procedures, or attempts to weaponize bureaucracy already exist—as are penalties for deliberate violations.
It would appear that legal guardrails, established protocol, and common courtesy were consciously ignored. Thus, statutory changes would be meaningless to those who are, at best, indifferent to the law, or, at worst, demonstrate a complete lack of respect for it.
The mere appearance of impropriety that’s already been documented warrants significant and meaningful action to ensure renewed trust in our state government. A simple change in personnel would save a lot of time. To quote an Ethics & Conduct Evaluation published earlier this year:
“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…”
To that conclusion, I would add that, in addition to the Board members, Jefferson Moss, Patrick Fitzgibbon, any other GOED staff, and all Executive branch officials connected in any way with the Nuovo proposal, would better serve the citizens of the State of Utah by submitting their resignations immediately.
Thank you for considering this request.
Respectfully,
(signed)
Joseph L. Puente
Salt Lake City, Utah
Documents referenced in the PDF version of the letter above are publicly accessible through the following link: 2026_AuditRequest_Attachments