Government Records Office Appeal hearings Public Notice
Notice Posted On
May 21, 2026 11:22 AM
Notice Last Edited On
June 01, 2026 02:25 PM
Download Attachments
File Name
May 28, 2026 audio.m4a
Category
Audio Recording
Date Added
2026/06/01 02:25 AM
(Public Link)
https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1441453.m4a
(OFFSITE BACKUP of UNALTERED COPY)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vJxSLa-diEGWsQxJW-8Ksze2SwQF2hM6/view?usp=sharing
This transcript was digitally generated from an original recording by the Petitioner:
Pehrson—0:35
Check.
Good morning, Rebecca.
Hey.
I said we've got our new logo.
Shaw—0:41
Got a new logo and everything.
Pehrson—0:43
Doesn't it look nice?
GOED_Jenson—0:45
Fancy.
Pehrson—0:47
Exciting day.
All right, well, we're ready for another hearing day here at the government records office.
We have our first parties.
RECORDING SYSTEM—1:01
This meeting is being recorded.
Pehrson—1:16
Morning, Mr. Jensen.
Mr. Puente, can you hear me okay?
PUENTE—1:22
Yes, I can.
Thank you.
Pehrson—1:24
Great.
Thank you.
Mr. Jenson, can you hear me?
GOED_Jenson—1:27
Yes, I can.
Thank you.
Pehrson—1:28
All right, great.
Looks like we have everyone here.
Good morning and welcome to the government records office hearings.
I'm director Lonnie Pehrson.
Looks like our first hearing on the agenda is Joseph Puente versus the Governor's Office of Economic Development.
That's appeal number 2026-058.
And we have Mr. Jensen here representing.
Is it goed now or is it goeo still?
GOED_Jenson—1:55
It is officially goed now….
Pehrson—1:58
Representing goed.
Thank you.
GOED_Jenson—2:01
And I believe director Aaron Price, who is the chief compliance officer for goed.
I think he may be online as well.
Pehrson—2:10
Okay, do you want to just hold off until we decide we need to call him as a witness?
GOED_Jenson—2:15
Sure, that's fine….
Pehrson—2:17
And then we have Mr. Puente representing himself…
I need to go ahead and swear you in, sir.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury?
PUENTE—2:31
Yes, sir, I do.
Pehrson—2:33
Okay, thank you very much.
As far as how we.
How we operate here, each party will have up to five minutes for an initial presentation.
I may have questions on.
Each party will have an additional five minutes for a rebuttal and conclusion.
I typically make a ruling here at the hearing and then issue a written decision within seven business days that can be appealed to District Court within 30 calendar days from the date of the written decision.
A note about mediation communications.
Anything related to mediation is not admissible in this proceeding.
So no mention of anything in regards to mediation, please.
I think that's all we have, so we'll go ahead and start with you, Mr. Puende.
You have up to five minutes for your initial presentation.
PUENTE—3:15
Thank you, sir.
Good morning.
My name is Joseph Puente, petitioner and appeal number 2026 058.
As a filmmaker and nonprofit admin, I place great importance on candor and transparency, especially in matters of business and public service.
The domain in which the governor's office of economic development is tax task to operate.
—3:35
Clear documentation and consistency between what is said and what the record shows are fundamental.
—3:40
Whether in film production contracts or in adhering to statutes when serving the public.
—3:46
This matter came to my attention following Goad's January 8, 2026 board meeting.
—3:51
The agenda listed an item titled Industrial Assistance Account IAA Grant with the description the Board will vote to approve one IAA grant.
—4:00
That's it.
—4:01
No recipient, no dollar amount, no description of purpose.
—4:05
By contrast, each of the two other incentives on the same agenda included pages of detailed information.
—4:12
The approved minutes for the meeting describe a presentation by Scott Anderson of Nuovo Film Festival, Inc.
—4:18
Requesting $2 million in seed funding and confirm the Board's vote to approve that request as an IAA grant.
—4:26
The public learned of this largely through the press rather than through a transparent competitive process.
—4:32
As the admin of a film focused Nonprofit for over 20 years, I was stunned to learn about such a substantial grant only after it had already been approved.
—4:42
My organization and others had no opportunity to submit an application because no one knew about it.
—4:48
At least no one outside of a handful of state employees.
—4:52
Mr. Anderson and his associates.
—4:54
That's why I submitted a grammar request.
—4:57
The GOED didn't just deny my request.
—5:00
Their reasoning only raised more questions.
—5:04
Patrick Fitzgibbon, goad's Public Information Officer, claimed that relevant documents do not exist and that no decision had been made, which begs the question, what is a motion passed in a public forum if not compelling evidence that a decision had indeed been made?
—5:19
Jefferson Moss, the GOAD director, similarly described Mr. Anderson's presentation as a new concept, saying, unironically, I might add, the presentation was intended to promote public awareness and transparency about a preliminary idea that concluded with the Board's recommendation to support the concept.
—5:41
That description seemed to indicate that Moss was either not fully aware of what was discussed discussed on January 8, or he assumed that I had not listened to the published audio recording of that meeting, perhaps expecting that because of his title and position, I would just take him at his word and let the matter go.
—6:00
I did in fact listen to the audio recording, and neither Fitzgibbons nor Moss's claims square with what was actually said at that meeting.
—6:09
Scott Anderson told the board that following Sundance's announced departure, the Governor asked him and other unnamed individuals to come up with a replacement film festival.
—6:18
The Sundance announcement was on March 27, 2025.
—6:22
From this we may infer that the governor's assignment was made sometime between those two dates.
—6:28
Anderson continued to tell the board.
—6:34
Anderson continued to tell the board that this group later returned to the Governor and the speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and Jefferson Moss with a revised recommendation to build an ecosystem instead of a replacement festival.
—6:49
That description strongly suggests that communications, planning documents, emails, texts, meeting notes, etc.
—6:55
Existed well before January 2026 and involved GOED, the governor's office, legislative leadership and others.
—7:04
Following Mr. Anderson's presentation, Jesse Turley identified the funding source for the $2 million grant as money previously allocated to Sundance that had come back even though the funds had never actually been spent.
—7:18
Important context that is conspicuously absent from the approved minutes.
—7:23
Fitzgibbons and Moss's assertions that the Board recommended supporting a preliminary concept do not align with the fact that a written motion was already prepared, put on display and read into the record 12 twice along with a roll call vote.
—7:38
All of this can easily be confirmed by anyone who attended and paid attention to the January 8th board meeting or took the time to listen to the audio recording published on the state's public notice website that same day.
—7:52
To suggest that a $2 million grant was unanimously approved based solely on an oral presentation about a concept with no written documentation prepared or shared with the Board is is not credible.
—8:04
These facts point to the existence of underlying records.
—8:08
My request has never been limited to a single document labeled Grant application under Gramma.
—8:13
The real question is whether records exist that functioned as an application.
—8:18
Now respond the Respondents Counsel has described supporting evidence as outside the scope or statutory authority of the Office.
—8:26
It should be noted that those materials were not submitted for a ruling but to provide pertinent fact based contemporaneous context and to serve as a reminder to all of us that being factual is not the same as being truthful, especially when relevant information is withheld from the public.
—8:45
In regard to Section six of our March Notice, we respectfully request that the scope of the search be understood to 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.
—9:15
Thank you.
Pehrson—9:17
Okay, thank you.
One question for you sir, and that is you describe in your materials as the records you're requesting.
You say records showing how GOAD analyzed its authority and what legal or fiscal reviews it conducted.
Yes, but that's not what you put into your request itself.
I'm just wondering why the discrepancy there.
I mean if that's what you were after.
Because your request asked for a grant application.
Written documentation, you know, award letters that Sort of thing.
Yes, but your focus is really on this statutory authority and what fiscal or legal reviews were conducted.
PUENTE—9:59
My request is for any documents related.
Related to.
To the grant.
—10:06
Since Jesse Turley did bring up the Sundance appropriations, which was part of SB2, which was included in the materials, it shows that the legislature did not authorize GOED or GOEO at the time to spend that money in any other way.
—10:28
It was conditional funding, not discretionary funding.
—10:31
And there was a lapse provision in place so that when Sundance announced that it was leaving, GOAD was specifically instructed to allow the funding to lapse.
—10:42
And they appear to have ignored that lapse, perhaps provision when they approved this grant, considering they cited the Sundance funding as the source of the.
—10:52
Of the funding for the grant.
Pehrson—10:54
Thor, are you more focused on.
On that statutory provision and the funding or on the this application itself?
PUENTE—11:03
Again, I'm focused on any material information related to the grant.
And as I, as I, as I said, I think knowing their understanding of the language under which they were authorized to spend that money, how they justified, how they would justify using that money to fund a grant when the legislation specifically said that they were too allow it to lapse, I think that is relevant and is especially important for the public to know.
Pehrson—11:40
Okay, thank you.
All right, Mr. Jensen, we'll go to.
You have up to five minutes.
GOED_Jenson—11:47
Thank you.
Director Pearson, just to clarify a couple of things.
This isn't really related to the Grandma Pill, but I just have the concern that there's misinformation being spread about what GOED is doing and the source of funds.
—12:02
So in 2025, the legislature had appropriated funds for Sundance film festival in SB2.
—12:08
As Mr. Puente noted, in 2026, in SB3, those funds were removed.
—12:16
They're not there.
—12:17
The Industrial Assistance account has funds independent of any appropriation made for Sundance Film Festival.
—12:23
It typically has millions of dollars in that account for different economic development projects.
—12:29
And as I stated in our, in our statement of facts, the executive director of GO ED is the administrator of the Industrial Assistance camp.
—12:40
He has the sole authority to approve those funds.
—12:44
The January 8th meeting was an effort to make the grant proposal idea more public and more transparent than even needs to be under the statute.
—12:59
So GOAD was actually going above and beyond what the code says regarding the Industrial Assistance account.
—13:06
And the funds used for any grant come from the industrial assistance account, not from the 2025 appropriation, which is no longer there.
—13:15
Those funds have been removed under SB2 in 2026.
—13:19
So just to clarify that, we cited different code sections that Protect contemplated courses of action.
—13:28
Jeff Moss is the chief executive officer.
—13:30
The chief Administrative Officer of G.O.
—13:32
Ed, in his denial of the appeal before him, noted that he hasn't approved any grant for this Nuovo Film Festival project and nor has an application been submitted.
—13:46
And so the idea is still in the idea phase.
—13:50
It's early.
—13:52
The discussion about that is still ongoing.
—13:55
And so different sections of 305 and grammar protect that.
—14:01
Subsection 29, contemplated courses of action by the governor's office, which could be revealed.
—14:06
Also subsection 35 negotiations, offers requests for financial assistance or incentives.
—14:14
Those are protected as well.
—14:16
So the internal deliberations about what the office is considering doing, the planned course of action of the governor's office or the governor's Office of Economic Opportunity or economic Development, those are all protected records.
—14:28
And then there are some, you know, I've been involved in this project as well, so my communications are privileged, attorney client privileged communications under subsection 17.
—14:37
And then any draft.
—14:39
There are some draft documents that have been in circulation within GO ed and those are not considered records underground.
—14:47
So not subject to grammar.
—14:48
But also, you know, a lot of the information we're talking about is available publicly online.
—14:52
It's available at the Utah Public Notice website.
—14:55
And also you can go online to the appropriations bills from the legislature, SB2 and SB3 from 2026, which clarify that the funds for Sundance Film Festival were appropriate in 2025, but they were put back into the general Fund under or SB3 in 2026.
—15:16
So those aren't the funds we're talking about.
—15:20
And that's.
—15:21
That concludes my presentation.
Pehrson—15:24
Okay, thank you.
So would you say that this board presentation process in motion, was that outside kind of the typical normal negotiation process for grants awarded under that IAA.
GOED_Jenson—15:39
Over.
The history of the iaa, the Industrial Assistance Account Grant program.
—15:45
At different times, the statute called for the board to be involved for consultation purposes.
—15:50
But I think it was in 2024, the code was amended so that was no longer necessary.
—15:55
And so grant applications didn't go before the board.
—15:59
However, Jeff Moss, he believes in open, transparent government and he wanted this to be part of, of the public meeting and to get consultation from the board.
—16:08
He wanted it to be a public process.
—16:10
So I guess it's sort of the no good deed goes unpunished idea.
—16:15
The idea was shared for comment from the, from the board.
—16:20
But again, they sit in an advisory role and the motion, the text of their motion just says that they, they voted to recommend.
—16:28
They didn't approve the grant.
—16:30
They voted to recommend it for a grant.
—16:33
So even the motion, the wording of the motion itself contradicts what Mr. Puente is, is suggesting that they have approved, you know, finally approved a grant.
—16:43
They don't have authority to do that on their code, and even their motion doesn't say that.
Pehrson—16:48
So what is the typical negotiation process,.
GOED_Jenson—16:51
If you will, for these sorts of grants?
Pehrson—16:54
Well, that's referred to in 305.
GOED_Jenson—16:56
35.
Right.
—16:57
You know, yes.
—16:59
So there, there are internal discussions back and forth, but then there will be a formal grant application process.
—17:06
GOED has an online portal where the grant is submitted.
—17:09
They fill out fields and submit information, submit documents through a formal application process.
—17:15
And that has not been done yet.
—17:18
So in other, in other IA grants, that is the standard operating procedure for Goethe.
—17:25
The, the applicant for the grant has to submit it through a.
—17:30
An application process, a formal application process.
—17:32
And there is a record created of that.
—17:34
But again, in this case, that has not happened.
—17:37
And so there are no records to provide.
—17:40
Jeff Moss, in his denial letter, he stated as much as well.
Pehrson—17:45
So are those formal applications submitted through the portal, are those public or not?
GOED_Jenson—17:51
Again, those would be considered under subsection 35, a request for an incentive.
—17:57
So we would view those and we would consider those to be a protected record and not subject to public disclosure.
Pehrson—18:05
But again, so you just see, you just see those as part of the negotiate.
—18:09
The application itself as part of the negotiation process, as referred to there.
—18:13
Because the statute says records that would reveal negotiations regarding assistance or incentives.
—18:19
So you typically treat the application as part of the negotiation process.
GOED_Jenson—18:25
Yes, the code section, I'll just read from it directly.
—18:30
And subsection 35 says records that would reveal negotiations regarding assistance or incentives offered by or requested from a government entity.
—18:39
And so the request from a government entity, the application for a grant is considered by GOAD as a request from a government entity for the purpose for an incentive.
Pehrson—18:54
But would it reveal negotiations regarding the request?
Pehrson—18:57
But the application itself revealed negotiations regarding that request?
GOED_Jenson—19:04
Yes.
I mean, the application asks for something, it's making an offer, it's asking for a certain amount of funding for different budgetary items, and then goed then has the opportunity to review that request, review that application, and can approve or deny it or can modify it, can go back to the applicant and say, well, we've seen your application, but you know, we're not, we're not interested in this part of it.
—19:31
We feel like this is, you're asking too much here, or you haven't provided enough of a budget here to justify it.
—19:37
And so there's still back and forth.
—19:39
That can happen even after an application.
Pehrson—19:42
Okay, thank you.
Now that's helpful.
—19:43
I just wanted to understand better what the negotiation process is, how these are typically handled.
—19:48
Thank you.
—19:48
We'll go back to you.
—19:49
Mr. Puente.
—19:49
You have up to five minutes for rebuttal and conclusion.
PUENTE—19:52
Thank you, sir.
—19:54
This case is not just about what was decided at the January 8, 2026 board meeting.
—19:59
It is about the documentary trail that led to that meeting and whether GOED was has conducted an adequate search and provided a legally sufficient justification for withholding records.
—20:10
The evidence places the start of this chain of events no later than March 27, 2025, when Sundance announced it would leave Utah.
—20:17
Scott Anderson told the board that this effort began with a request from the Governor after the announcement and that the group returned to the governor, legislative leadership and Jefferson Moss with a revised recommendation.
—20:29
That is direct evidence that the proposal for a 2 million dollar grant did not suddenly appear in January 2026.
—20:36
It developed over months with involvement at the highest levels of state government.
—20:39
That kind of planning generated emails, memos, notes, draft proposals, appointments, schedules, communications with governor's office and records reflecting how the proposal evolved from a replacement festival to an ecosystem model.
—20:52
The broader timeline matters for another reason.
—20:55
Jesse Turley told the board on January 8 what the funds that the funds had previously been allocated to Sundance.
—21:03
What he did not mention was the conditional nature of those funds and elapsed provision that had already been in effect for months.
—21:11
Records showing what the GOED and the governor understood about the post Sundance funding situation go to the heart of why the board's funding explanation matters and why the public interest in disclosure is so strong.
—21:25
Under Gramma, such records are presumed public unless the GOED can identify specific exemptions and and justify them record by record.
—21:34
Blanket assertions that all communications are protected.
—21:38
Negotiations are not enough, especially where the issue was brought to a public board for a formal vote involving taxpayer funds.
—21:46
When I submitted a grammar request, the responses I received from GOED were not just denials.
—21:54
The reasoning they used to justify them went farther than their obvious efforts to minimize public knowledge about the grant to begin with.
—22:03
In plain language, they lied.
—22:05
I want to be precise about what I mean by that.
—22:09
These were not casual misstatements or nuance.
—22:14
These were written claims made in an official capacity on official government letterhead bearing the names, titles and signatures of GOED leadership and staff and are directly contradicted by their own public record.
—22:28
In practical terms, they're asking the Government Records Office and the public to accept a description of events that conflicts with the public record.
—22:37
There is a clinical term for what happens when someone in a position of authority denies an observable reality and insists you believe their version over your own documented evidence.
—22:50
It's called gaslighting.
—22:52
It is recognized as a form of psychological manipulation.
—22:55
And I use that word deliberately, carefully, because it fits the dynamic here.
—23:01
I recognize it because I have personally experienced this treatment before.
—23:05
It is most often discussed in the context of abuse.
—23:08
It has no place in a professional setting, and especially not in a government agency with a statutory mandate for transparency and a fiduciary responsibility to the public.
—23:19
Serving contact is often recommended when dealing with a gaslighter in private.
—23:23
But walking away from a government agency abusing its power is not realistic.
—23:27
And if they are willing to do it to me, they will do it to anyone.
—23:31
In short, the respondent's argument is an attempt to gaslight the government records office.
—23:37
I am asking this office to be mindful of this tactic, recognize how it's been deployed against me and the public, and with that awareness, to base their final decisions on what the complete record actually shows, not what the respondent says about the record to date.
—23:56
The public record on this grant consists of a vague agenda item, an audio recording that relatively few people are likely to have heard in minutes, confirming approval of a $2 million grant.
—24:10
Behind that sparse public record, the agency has offered shifting descriptions, loose interpretations of its authority, and a narrow reading of grammar that minimizes the existence and importance of underlying records.
—24:25
For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask this office to reverse Goed's denial, along with the other stipulations described in Section 6 of our March 16 notice of appeal, again with the understanding that the scope of the search begins no later than March 27, 2025, and includes all related records and communications, the involvement of other branches and offices of the state government, and relevant communications with any third parties.
—24:57
Thank you.
Pehrson—25:00
Okay.
Thank you very much.
—25:02
I will just note, Mr. Puente, you know, I look at the language of your request itself, and what you're describing in your argument seems to be much, much broader than what you actually listed as the records you were requesting.
—25:16
And I understand that, you know, sometimes maybe the information you receive through the request process might kind of shift how your request, you know, is framed.
—25:28
But as I look at your request itself, you ask for the grant application, written documentation related to the grant application, and then award letter scoring sheets, etc.
—25:44
So how do you square those two?
—25:46
Because now you're asking for basically every communication Related to this entire matter, it sounds like, and more so focused on, you know, the handling of the funding and that sort of thing.
—25:58
Are there follow up requests?
—26:00
Have there been follow up requests?
PUENTE—26:06
Well, to rebut what Mr. Jensen said about there being no application.
—26:14
That raises an important question.
—26:15
If there has been no formal application, then why was.
—26:20
Why did the board vote to approve it?
—26:26
Everything that the public record says, including the press, it's all been out there.
—26:31
Oh that, that is the message that the public record says.
—26:36
GOED approved a $2 million grant.
—26:39
The board approved it.
—26:40
That's what the public record says.
—26:42
The agenda said specifically the board will vote to approve an IAA grant.
—26:47
And then they come and tell me that, oh no, the.
—26:50
Mr. Moss, he says, oh well, they don't, they don't approve it.
—26:53
The agenda says they approve it.
—26:55
The record confirms.
—26:56
The minutes of the meeting confirmed that they approved it.
—26:59
There was a pre written motion moved seconded read into the record twice.
—27:06
That.
—27:06
That sounds like there's done.
Pehrson—27:08
There's some discrepancy as to whether there was an application.
—27:12
I'm hoping Mr. Jensen can address that.
PUENTE—27:15
He already acknowledged that it was outside their normal standard operating procedure.
PUENTE—27:21
And I think that's kind of sneaky.
Pehrson—27:24
Thank you.
—27:25
All right, we'll turn back to you.
—27:26
Mr. Jensen.
—27:27
You have up to five minutes for about a conclusion.
GOED_Jenson—27:30
Thank you.
—27:31
So again, just to kind of clarify, the industrial assistance account makes funds available for goed to use to further economic development projects in the state.
—27:43
It's not, it's not a grant program where people can just apply for a grant for whatever they want.
—27:52
This is certainly not a, like a competitive process.
—27:55
It's not an RFP with Sundance leaving the state.
—27:59
The state, as we've stated in our amended, amended statement of facts and then the correspondence denying the request.
—28:08
The state of Utah is interested in replacing Sundance with something else.
—28:12
And so that's an ongoing process and ideas are being discussed on how to do that, including the Nuolo Film Festival.
—28:21
The, the, the motion for the meeting that happened back in January.
—28:29
Again, the, the wording of the motion itself, I, I can pull it up if, if we want to.
—28:38
I can read directly from the motion.
—28:41
All the board did was vote to recommend the grant.
—28:46
They, the, the text of the motion says what the board did.
—28:51
I know that some press outlets, some websites out there, I've.
—28:55
I've seen news reported about this and they misreported it, which sometimes happens with media.
—29:01
And I believe Mr. Puente has contacted some of those media organizations to further this disinformation that the grant was approved and funded, which is false.
—29:13
It hasn't been approved.
Pehrson—29:14
No interruptions, please.
GOED_Jenson—29:15
Thank you.
—29:16
And so again, the.
—29:19
The board heard this in an advisory role to provide consultation.
—29:24
That's all they did.
—29:25
The text of their motion, which is publicly available on the Utah public notice website, states what they approved.
—29:31
They only recommended this for a grant.
—29:36
The discretion to do that by code is left up to the executive director.
—29:42
And that.
—29:43
And that's the only person who has authority to approve a grant.
—29:47
No grant application has been submitted.
—29:49
There's been some informal discussions.
—29:50
There was an informal proposal made before the board, but it just hasn't happened.
GOED_Jenson—2:29
There haven't been any subsequent requests by Mr. Puente.
—2:36
He has contacted the auditor's office and the legislature with his concerns.
—2:41
But again, those are all outside of the scope of this grammar appeal.
Pehrson—2:47
Okay.
You seem to be making a distinction between the proposal and an application.
I just want to be clear on that.
—2:54
When you say there's been no application, you mean no formal application through the portal process.
—3:01
But you acknowledge that there is this proposal that was made and it could variously be referred to as an application, right?
GOED_Jenson—3:09
I mean, no, it's a technical difference, but it's an important one.
—3:15
The application that is submitted through the online portal that is part of the GOED standard operating procedure that's their protocol before they will approve a grant that has to be submitted.
—3:28
Now, I refer to the presentation made at the GOED board meeting in January.
—3:34
ADS proposal.
—3:35
You could call it a sales pitch, you can call it a presentation, but it is, it's not an application.
—3:41
And again, this idea for Nuovo Film Festival is still under discussion, what it would be, what it would encompass.
—3:52
So there.
—3:54
It's still just in the idea phase, as, as director Jeff Moss said in his denial for this grandma, this grandma appeal it, which is just not that far along yet.
Pehrson—4:09
Okay, could you just address what you view as the interplay between the.
—4:13
The 30529, which is the governor's executive privilege provision, and this 305 35.
—4:20
Right, the go ed negotiations provision.
GOED_Jenson—4:25
Yeah, the two can work together and in this instance, the two overlap.
—4:31
So the governor's office will.
—4:34
Will have budget recommendations and then contemplated courses of action, and that's what we're dealing with here.
—4:40
There is definitely interest in the state of Utah for replacing the Sundance Film Festival with some other type of festival.
—4:47
Sundance Film Festival brought millions and millions of dollars to our economy.
—4:51
And with them leaving the state, that money, that source of revenue for the state, for hotel industries, is lost.
—4:57
So it's been a concern of goed for the past few years, ever since Sundance announced that they were going to accept bids from other areas around the country to host Sundance Film Festival.
—5:08
So the contemplated course of action from the governor's office and how to replace this Sundance Film Festival is an ongoing discussion.
—5:21
And so part of that is Nuovo Film Festival.
—5:24
But that's not the only idea under consideration.
—5:29
So again, those types of planning projects, contemplated courses of action are protected or classified as protected under subsection 29.
—5:38
And with that, in the past, GOED had provided grants and financial assistance to Sundance Film Festival.
—5:46
And so getting to subsection 35 records that would reveal negotiations or assistance or incentives offered by or requested from a government entity, which is GO ed.
—5:57
That comes into play as well here, because Go ED and the state of Utah will support another film festival that's going to come in and have a good economic impact to bring out of state travelers, businesses, film production companies here to the state of Utah because it generates money for lodging, hotels, transportation, restaurants, just like Sundance Film Festival.
—6:20
So the two subsections 29 and 35 really work together specifically with regarding the Governor's Office of Economic Development.
Pehrson—6:31
Okay, thank you.
—6:32
Yeah, I agree.
—6:33
I think that there's some overlap there.
—6:35
Obviously.
—6:36
I feel like 30529 is more focused on the Governor's role in this process.
—6:43
I think this request here is focused more on this particular grant proposal or this presentation to the board, etc.
—6:52
But I appreciate your feedback on that.
—6:55
Mr. Puente.
—6:56
I'll go ahead and give you the last word.
—6:57
You can take a couple of minutes if you have anything to add.
PUENTE—7:00
I do.
—7:02
First, I really resent Mr. Jensen's assertion that I was disseminating misinformation to the press.
—7:13
My communications with the press have only been to inform them of things that exist again that are in the public record.
—7:23
And the fact of the matter is what is available in the public record.
—7:26
As I said, it contradicts the statements that have been made by by go ahead and private.
—7:36
I, I take serious issue with the deviation from standard operating procedure in the way this has been handled.
—7:46
I, I, I reject their goed's assertion that they would use separate funds when they identified funding specifically in their own board meeting as supposedly coming from the SB2 appropriation for reasons already expressed that are that are problematic.
—8:14
And again I point out that a lot of things that were said by Mr. Judson here indeed factual, but there's an underlying truth and that is being ignored.
—8:29
And I think the positions of authority are being, are being abused in this matter.
—8:39
I'd also like to add that Having listened to Mr. Anderson's presentation, almost everything that he talks about are things that are already happening, things that are already being accomplished.
—8:55
Everything he said that he wants to do with his multi point pillar plan are already things that are being undertaken by existing agencies and non profits.
—9:07
In other words, he's bringing nothing new to the table.
—9:10
And as far as any organ, any event to quote unquote replace Sundance, There are over 30 existing successful international film festivals in this state that are in much better positions to fill the vacuum left by Sundance than any anything that could become that a group of people with little if any connection to the film industry can come up with in, in, in nine months to a year or however much time has elapsed so far.
Pehrson—9:49
I think I appreciate that additional feedback and I think I'm prepared to make a ruling.
—9:55
I did have a chance to review in camera the records that were provided in relation to this.
—9:59
And the first thing I will note is that the in those records the proposal is repeatedly referred to as an application.
—10:09
I don't know what the distinction is between a formal application through the portal process or but I think in practical terms you can see from those records that it was essentially treated as some sort of an application Be it a proposal or whatnot.
—10:26
I find that the records related to the responsive to this request.
—10:31
And again, I'm looking at the terms of this request itself, the grant application, written documentation about the board meeting, the grant proposal or application, however you want to call it, and how that matter was handled.
—10:45
I find that the records related to that are not properly classified as protected under 305.
—10:52
35.
—10:53
They would not reveal negotiations regarding assistance or incentives.
—10:58
I think the negotiation process is, as Mr. Jensen described, a whole separate part of that.
—11:04
You have a proposal.
—11:06
There's back and forth about, you know, altering a proposal.
—11:10
I think that's the negotiation process, and I don't think that that happened here.
—11:14
I think that this was really outside the normal process.
—11:17
And while Mr. Jensen, as you said, no good deed goes unpunished, that may be the case, but because we're outside the normal process here, I think it brings it within the realm of public scrutiny under Gramma.
—11:32
And so.
—11:33
And I also don't think that the records that have been compiled that I reviewed, if they were released, would cause any actual economic harm to Nuovo.
—11:42
There's been no showing of that.
—11:44
And I do not think that they would place GOET at a concrete competitive disadvantage.
—11:50
And so for those reasons, I'm going to direct that the records that I've reviewed in camera are produced.
—11:57
The one caveat I will make is that, as you said, records that specifically describe or portions that specifically describe communications between counsel and a client in this case go Ed may be redacted as privileged under 305.17.
—12:16
I noticed, Mr. Jensen, you had some red boxes within those records.
—12:19
Is that what you had marked as potentially privileged, the red boxes?
Jensen—12:25
That's correct.
—12:26
They were identified and marked for a redaction.
Pehrson—12:29
So I find those redactions to be appropriate under 305.17.
—12:34
So I. I'm granting this appeal.
—12:36
I'll issue a written decision within seven business days, and neither party can appeal to District Court within 30 calendar days.
—12:42
From the date of that decision.
—12:44
Thank you for your participation today.
—12:46
Have a good day.
PUENTE—12:47
Thank you for your time.
Pehrson—12:54
Okay.
(Revised 01 JUN 2026. Corrected spelling of GRO Director's name)