From: Joe Puente...Subject: ATTN: GRO Director - Re: Request for Clarification and Supplemental Order (Re: Decision and Order)Date: June 8, 2026 at 5:29:39 PM MDTTo: GovernmentRecordsOffice DGO...Cc: Todd Jenson, Jefferson Moss[Attachment: 20260608_Puente_Clarification_2026-058.pdf]
____________________________________
____________________________________
Submitted via email
2026-06-08
Re: Request for Clarification and Supplemental Order
Puente v. Governor’s Office of Economic Development (FKA “GOEO”)
Appeal No. 2026‑058 – Decision and Order dated June 8, 2026
Director Pehrson:
Thank you for your time and attention in Appeal 2026‑058 and for your June 8, 2026 Decision and Order. Your ruling correctly holds that the Respondent misclassified the Nuovo IAA records and that the records you reviewed in camera must be produced as public records, subject only to redaction of attorney‑client communications.
I am writing to respectfully request clarification and, if appropriate, a supplemental order to ensure that the relief granted fully reflects the scope of my original request and your oral ruling at the May 28, 2026 hearing.
1. Oral ruling vs. “GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part”
During the May 28 hearing, you stated on the record: “I’m granting this appeal,” without indicating at that time that any portion of the appeal was being denied. The written Decision and Order later characterizes the result as “GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part,” apparently based on the conclusion that attorney‑client communications are properly protected and may be redacted pursuant to Utah Code §§ 63G‑2‑305(17) and ‑308.
To avoid ambiguity, I respectfully request clarification that, apart from those specific privileged portions of the records, no other aspect of the relief sought in § VI of my March 5, 2026 appeal has been denied.
2. Scope of production: beyond the in camera subset
The Decision and Order states that you “review[ed] responsive records in camera” and that “the reviewed records should be released to Mr. Puente as public records,” with specified redactions. During the hearing, you also stated: “I’m going to direct that the records that I’ve reviewed in camera are produced.”
Taken literally, this language could be interpreted to limit the Respondent’s production obligation to only the subset of records the Respondent chose to submit in camera, even if additional responsive records exist that were not provided to your Office. Because neither I nor the public know what specific records the Respondent submitted, and because the Respondent previously asserted that certain records did not exist, I am concerned that a narrow reading of the order could allow a partial or selective response that does not satisfy GRAMA or the intent of your ruling.
I respectfully request clarification that the Respondent’s obligation is to produce all records responsive to my February 9, 2026 GRAMA request (as clarified in my appeal and at the hearing), not only those previously submitted for in camera review, subject only to:
Properly justified attorney‑client redactions under Utah Code §§ 63G‑2‑305(17) and ‑308; and
Any other specific exemptions expressly identified in your Decision and Order.
3. Time frame and subject‑matter scope
In § VI of my March 5 appeal, I requested that the Respondent be ordered to “conduct a comprehensive search for all records identified in the request,” including any written documentation (letters, emails, memoranda, etc.) related to the IAA grant and the applicant, transmitted between Respondent staff, board members, other state offices and agencies, and any third parties.
At the May 28 hearing, I further clarified that the scope should “begin no later than March 27, 2025 and include all records and communications related to the post Sundance replacement effort and its funding, the Governor’s involvement, relevant communication with any third parties, and all information available to the Board when it approved a multimillion dollar expenditure of taxpayer funds on January 8, 2026.”
Your Decision and Order discusses the January 8, 2026 Board meeting and the nature of the Nuovo proposal, and it correctly concludes that the proposal was “essentially an application or a proposal which was presented for approval by the Respondent’s Board” and that it “falls appropriately within the realm of public scrutiny under GRAMA.” However, the order does not explicitly restate the temporal and subject‑matter scope of the search that the Respondent must perform.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I respectfully request that the order be clarified to state that the Respondent must conduct a comprehensive search for all responsive records from at least March 27, 2025 onward, covering:
The Nuovo IAA proposal and any related drafts or materials;
The broader effort to identify and fund a “replacement” for the Sundance Film Festival;
Communications with the Governor’s Office, the Respondent’s staff and Board members, and third parties related to this effort and its funding; and
All information provided to, or available to, the Respondent’s Board in connection with the January 8, 2026 vote.
4. Records concerning S.B. 2 and the Sundance‑related appropriation
In § VI of my appeal, I also requested that the Respondent be required to “identify and produce records demonstrating how the rationale and reasoning behind the Board’s approval of the Grant does not conflict with the language, intention, conditions, and lapse provision of S.B. 2, § 1(1)(a), item 22, lines 236–257 (2025).”
The Decision and Order does not address that specific request, even though the origin and legal status of the funding were part of the public justification for the project presented at the January 8, 2026 Board meeting. The legal interpretation and application of S.B. 2 fall outside the core GRAMA classification question, but records reflecting the Respondent’s understanding and application of that statute are directly relevant to the public’s ability to scrutinize this grant.
I respectfully ask that the order be clarified to confirm that records addressing the Respondent’s understanding and application of S.B. 2 with respect to this IAA‑related funding are within the scope of the required search and production, to the extent such records exist and are not independently exempt under GRAMA.
5. Comprehensive search and brief certification
Finally, to ensure that your order is implemented consistently with GRAMA’s presumption of public access, I request that the Respondent be directed to:
Conduct a comprehensive search for responsive records consistent with the clarified scope; and
Provide your Office and the requester with a brief written statement describing the search (locations, custodians, and time frames) and confirming, to the best of its knowledge, that all responsive records have been identified and either produced or expressly claimed as exempt, with citation to the specific GRAMA provisions relied upon.
This would align the Respondent’s obligations in this case with GRAMA’s requirements and with your finding that the proposal and related materials “fall appropriately within the realm of public scrutiny under GRAMA.”
6. Relationship to judicial review
I am seeking this clarification and, if appropriate, supplemental relief promptly so that I can make an informed decision about whether judicial review under Utah Code § 63G‑2‑404 is necessary. I understand that any petition for judicial review must be filed within 30 days of the Decision and Order, and I do not intend this request to waive or shorten any statutory deadlines.
Thank you again for your careful attention to this matter. Please let me know if you would like any additional information from me, or if there is a preferred procedural mechanism for submitting this request (for example, a more formal motion for clarification).
Sincerely,
(signed)
Joseph L. Puente...
Salt Lake City, Utah...
From: GovernmentRecordsOffice DGO...Subject: Re: ATTN: GRO Director - Re: Request for Clarification and Supplemental Order (Re: Decision and Order)Date: June 10, 2026 at 2:27:58 PM MDTTo: Joe Puente...Cc: Todd Jenson...,Jefferson Moss...Mr. Puente,
The Director will not be issuing an amended order for this appeal. The respondent will need to provide a notice of compliance (see Utah Code 63G-2-403(15)) if they do not opt to appeal to the district court. At that point, if you have any concerns about records provided by the respondent, you may want to consider mediation per Utah Code 63G-2-404(1)(b).Respectfully,~RebekkahGovernment Records OfficeDivision of Archives and Records ServiceUtah Department of Government Operations
Ms. Shaw,
Thank you for your response and for confirming that the Director will not be issuing an amended order in this appeal.
For the sake of a clear record, I would appreciate one point of clarification from the Director (or your office on the Director’s behalf) regarding the existing order:
Am I correct in understanding that, apart from the specific aspect addressed in the Director’s decision, no other portion of the relief sought in § VI of the notice of appeal has been expressly denied?
My question here is limited to the scope of the current order itself so that I can accurately understand what, if anything, remains unresolved or denied before considering next steps.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Joe Puente
From: GovernmentRecordsOffice DGO...Subject: Re: ...Clarification on Existing OrderDate: June 11, 2026 at 2:15:44 PM MDTTo: Joe Puente...Cc: Todd Jenson...Mr. Puente,What is explicitly granted is stated in explained in the order. The order provides what the respondent needs to do to comply with the Director's decision. Anything that is not granted, you can consider denied. For example, #7 of your relief sought is "award costs and attorney fees". That is not something the Director has jurisdiction to grant because that relief you cite in 63G-2-405 can only be granted by the court. It was not granted in the order so you can consider #7 denied.Respectfully,~RebekkahGovernment Records OfficeDivision of Archives and Records Service
Ms. Shaw,
Thank you for your response. To clarify my concern, I am not asking what was “explicitly granted” in the order. I am asking how to reconcile the Director’s oral ruling at the hearing with the wording of the written order.
At the hearing, the Director stated, “I’m granting this appeal.” My appeal, at § VI item 2, specifically requested that the responsive records be produced “subject only to narrowly tailored redactions for information that meets specific GRAMA exemption criteria, with a detailed written explanation justifying each redaction.” The Director appeared to adopt that standard on the record.
The written order, however, states that “the appeal of Petitioner, Joseph L. Puente, is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.” The only category of information that seems to be treated as “denied” rather than simply redacted is attorney–client privileged material, which itself “meets specific GRAMA exemption criteria,” consistent with what I requested and what § VIII of the order recognizes in referring to “specific, justified redactions.” In that context, the “in part” denial appears unnecessary and redundant, and it creates ambiguity about what, if anything, has been denied beyond the appropriately exempt portions that I expressly acknowledged would be subject to redaction.
Separately, your email uses § VI item 7 as an example of relief that I should “consider denied” because it falls outside the Director’s jurisdiction. Respectfully, item 7 did not ask the Director to award attorney fees. It simply requested that my “right to seek costs and attorney fees” be preserved “in any subsequent judicial review.” Under GRAMA, the authority to award attorney fees and costs lies with the district court, not with the Director, and nothing in the Director’s order can limit or waive whatever rights the statute affords a requester in later judicial proceedings.
For those reasons, I remain concerned that the phrase “granted in part, and denied in part,” coupled with the suggestion that I may “consider #7 denied,” is imprecise and potentially misleading. To avoid confusion in how the order is interpreted and implemented, I respectfully request a clarification stating that the appeal is granted as to access to the responsive records, subject only to specific, justified redactions under GRAMA, and that the “denied” portion refers only to the properly exempt material that will be withheld or redacted. I am seeking this clarification so that the agency can comply with a clear, accurate order and, if necessary, so that any subsequent judicial review can focus on the merits rather than on ambiguity in the wording of the decision.
Respectfully,
Joseph Puente
From: GovernmentRecordsOffice DGO...Subject: Re: ...Clarification on Existing OrderDate: June 12, 2026 at 9:35 AM MDTTo: Joe Puente...Mr. Puente,My understanding is that the "denied in part" is in reference to the denied redactions provided in #10 of the order. While it may read as redundant, it does specify what is allowed to be withheld. When an appeal is granted, nothing is withheld. If you need any further assistance, please contact the Government Records Ombudsman…Respectfully,~RebekkahGovernment Records OfficeDivision of Archives and Records Service
Thank you, Rebekkah.
I appreciate your patience with me throughout this process. As I mentioned during the hearing, I’m a neurodivergent individual, and I tend to be very focused on precision in communication and fairness— traits that, I suspect, are common among the many accountants, lawyers, auditors, and other professionals who quietly keep government systems working, diagnosed or not.
I agree that contacting the Government Records Ombudsman is the right next step and expect that mediation will be helpful. Thank you again for your patience, understanding, and assistance, and for all of the work you do—I recognize there are a lot of proverbial plates to keep spinning in your role.
Cheers,
Joe
