NOTICE OF APPEAL (facsimile)

TO STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE

Filed Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-402 and § 63G-2-403

Date: March 5, 2026

To: Lonny Pehrson, Director
Government Records Office
346 S. Rio Grande
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1106

Copy To: Jefferson Moss, Executive Director
Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity
60 East South Temple, Suite 300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Copy To: Todd Karl Jenson, Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 140856
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856

I. APPELLANT INFORMATION

Name: Joseph L. Puente...
Salt Lake City...

II. APPEAL FILING BASIS

This Notice of Appeal is filed pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-402 and § 63G-2-403 to appeal the decision of Jefferson Moss, Executive Director of the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity (GOEO), dated March 3, 2026, which denied Appellant's appeal of the denial of his GRAMA records request dated February 9, 2026.

This appeal challenges: (1) the denial of access to public records, and (2) GOEO's implicit claim of extraordinary circumstances without proper statutory notice, extending response deadlines beyond the limits established by Utah Code § 63G-2-204.

III. TIMELINE OF RECORD REQUEST AND DENIALS

  1. February 9, 2026: Appellant submitted GRAMA request for records related to Nuovo Film Festival, Inc. IAA grant application, including expedited consideration request.

  2. February 10, 2026: GOEO Public Information Officer Patrick Fitzgibbon issued written denial (dated February 10, but not transmitted to Appellant until February 17, 2026).

  3. February 17, 2026: Appellant received denial letter via email—actual date of notice for appeal calculation purposes.

  4. February 18, 2026: Appellant filed timely appeal to Chief Administrative Officer Jefferson Moss, requesting expedited consideration.

  5. March 2, 2026: Appellant sent follow-up requesting status update and written response, noting absence of any communication regarding appeal or claim of extraordinary circumstances.

  6. March 3, 2026: Executive Director Moss issued decision denying appeal.

  7. March 5, 2026: This Notice of Appeal filed within 30-day deadline pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-403(1)(a).

IV. RECORDS REQUESTED

Appellant's February 9, 2026 GRAMA request sought three categories of records related to the Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) grant for Nuovo Film Festival, Inc., approved by the GOEO Board on January 8, 2026:

  1. The complete Industrial Assistance Account grant application and any attached materials submitted under the name Nuovo Film Festival, Inc. or any entity applying for an IAA grant to support the Nuovo Film Festival.

  2. Any written documentation (letters, emails, memoranda, etc.) related to this IAA Grant and the applicant, transmitted between GOEO staff, board members, applicants, other state offices, agencies and employees, and any third parties.

  3. Any award letter, scoring sheets, and executed contracts for fiscal years 2025 and/or 2026.

V. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

A. Denial Based on Factually Incorrect Assertions

The Chief Administrative Officer's March 3, 2026 decision denies access to requested records based on three assertions that are contradicted by GOEO's own public records and actions:

1. Claim That "No Application Exists"

GOEO's Position: "At this time, there are no public records available to provide regarding a grant application... Nuovo Film Festival Inc. (NFFI) has not submitted an application to GOEO for a grant."[1]

Contradictory Evidence:

The official Utah Public Notice for the January 8, 2026 GOEO Board meeting states unambiguously: "The Board will vote to approve one IAA grant" under the agenda item titled "Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) Grant."[2] This language indicates a decision-ready grant proposal.

The official meeting minutes, published February 10, 2026, record that:

  1. A formal motion was read: "The Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity Board recommends Nuovo Film Festival Incorporated (NFFI) for an Industrial Assistance Account grant of $2 million to operationalize key film ecosystem objectives through the establishment of specialized programming, workforce, and infrastructure."[3]

  2. This motion was moved by Judd Cook, seconded by Jeremy Andrus, and "passed with unanimous consent."[3]

  3. A transcript of the meeting confirms that GOEO staff stated there was "a proposed motion" for the Nuovo item, which was read into the record before presentation.[4]

Utah Code § 63N-3-101 et seq., governing the Industrial Assistance Account, contemplates a structured application process requiring written documentation of the economic opportunity, costs, job impacts, performance benchmarks, and reporting expectations. The Board's approval of a specific $2 million grant to a named entity necessarily implies the existence of documentary materials satisfying these statutory requirements, even if GOEO declines to label them a "formal application."

GRAMA does not permit an agency to avoid disclosure by adopting an artificially narrow internal definition of "application" when functionally equivalent documents exist that were used to justify board action and public expenditure.

2. Claim That Process Remains "Conceptual"

GOEO's Position: "The concept and prospective grant to NFFI remains in the conceptual stage."[1]

Contradictory Evidence:

  1. The public agenda stated the Board would "vote to approve" the IAA grant, not discuss a concept.[2]

  2. The Board conducted a formal vote using a pre-drafted motion specifying the grantee, amount ($2 million), and fund source (Industrial Assistance Account).[3][4]

  3. Following the unanimous vote, the Board Chair stated the Board would "be supportive in making the project happen for the state," treating the matter as decided.[4]

  4. Independent media outlets reported the funding as awarded. The Utah Review stated: "A new Utah-based nonprofit tentatively named Nuovo Film Festival, Inc. has received $2 million funding."[5] The Salt Lake Business Journal headline declared: "Initiative gets $2 million from state."[6]

  5. Analysis of the meeting transcript reveals that staff described the motion as a "one-time grant of $2 million," but the official minutes omit the "one-time" qualifier, recording only "Industrial Assistance Account grant of $2,000,000."[16] This omission materially changes the apparent nature of the authorization and may violate Utah Code § 52-4-203(2)'s requirement to record "the substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided."

  6. The official minutes also fail to record the roll-call vote by individual member as required by Utah Code § 52-4-203(2)(d), stating only "passed with unanimous consent" despite the transcript confirming that each Board member was called by name and responded affirmatively.[16]

  7. The meeting transcript shows that staff explained the funding source by stating that money "previously allocated to Sundance has come back," framing the Nuovo funding as a repurposing of Sundance funds.[4] The official minutes contain no mention of this funding source explanation, despite its centrality to understanding the budgetary authority for the grant.[16]

A detailed analysis comparing the transcript and minutes to Executive Director Moss's March 3 characterization reveals material omissions of the formal decision sequence, including the pre-drafted motion, identified grantee and dollar amount, funding source explanation, and recorded vote.[7]

The characterization of this process as "conceptual" is inconsistent with GOEO's own public notice, minutes, and the structure of the Board's action.

3. Claim That Utah Code § 63G-2-305(35) Protects All Communications

GOEO's Position: All written communications are protected as "ongoing negotiations" under Utah Code § 63G-2-305(35).

Legal Deficiency:

Utah Code § 63G-2-305(35) provides protection for 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 two critical limitations:

  1. Harm Requirement: Protection applies "only if disclosure would result in actual economic harm to the person or place the governmental entity at a competitive disadvantage." GOEO has provided no specific analysis of how disclosure would cause such harm.

  2. Final Contract Exception: The statute explicitly states "this section may not be used to restrict access to a record evidencing a final contract."

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that categorical withholding of entire record classes based on generalized claims violates the principle that exemptions must be narrowly construed.[8] GOEO must identify specific records and explain why disclosure of each would cause the statutory harm—not invoke a blanket classification for all responsive documents.

Moreover, once a grant proposal has been presented for public board approval in a noticed meeting and subsequently described in the press as funded, the "ongoing negotiations" rationale loses force. At that stage, the public interest in transparency regarding the expenditure of $2 million in taxpayer funds substantially outweighs speculative claims of competitive disadvantage.

B. Violation of Extraordinary Circumstances Notice Requirement

Utah Code § 63G-2-204(4)(b)(iii) requires that when extraordinary circumstances exist that make it impossible to respond within the statutory timeframe, the governmental entity "shall notify the requester and provide: (A) the particular extraordinary circumstances; and (B) an estimated date when the record will be provided."

Utah Code § 63G-2-204(6)-(7) enumerates specific circumstances qualifying as "extraordinary," including voluminous requests, requests requiring legal review, or simultaneous multiple requests preventing timely response.

Timeline Violations:

  1. Initial Request (Feb. 9, 2026): Appellant requested expedited response (5 business days). GOEO denied request on February 10 but did not transmit denial until February 17—seven days later. No notice of extraordinary circumstances was provided.

  2. Appeal (Feb. 18, 2026): Appellant filed appeal requesting expedited handling. As of March 2, 2026 (12 business days later), GOEO had not responded. No written notice of extraordinary circumstances or estimated decision date was provided.

  3. Appeal Acknowledged (Feb. 18, 2026, 10:34 AM): Assistant Attorney General Todd Jenson sent brief email acknowledgment stating "Received. Thank you."[20] This acknowledgment provided no information about whether expedited consideration would be granted, what timeline would apply, or any other substantive response to Appellant's appeal.

  4. Follow-Up (Mar. 2, 2026): After receiving no substantive response for 12 business days, Appellant sent written follow-up requesting status and noting absence of any communication regarding appeal decision or claim of extraordinary circumstances.[15]

  5. GOEO Response (Mar. 2, 4:04 PM): Patrick Fitzgibbon responded by email, stating: "Our counsel sent you an acknowledgement of receipt that same day [February 18]... we are following the standard review period outlined in code, which sets the deadline for a formal response this Wednesday, March 4."[17]

  6. Final Decision (Mar. 3, 2026): Executive Director Moss issued decision one day earlier than the March 4 deadline stated by Fitzgibbon, noting no expedited review was granted but providing no prior written notice that standard timeline applied.[1]

The March 3, 2026 decision states: "Because your appeal did not demonstrate that an expedited decision would primarily benefit the public rather than your own interest as required by Utah Code § 63G-2-401(5)(a) this decision is being provided within the standard ten business days."[1]

Legal Deficiency:

Even if GOEO determined expedited consideration was unwarranted, Utah Code § 63G-2-204 and § 63G-2-401 require timely written communication of that decision. The statute does not permit silent extension of deadlines without proper notice.

While Assistant Attorney General Todd Jenson sent a brief acknowledgment on February 18, 2026 stating "Received. Thank you.,"[20] this short email provided no substantive information required by GRAMA, including:

  1. Whether Appellant's request for expedited consideration was granted or denied

  2. What timeline would govern the appeal review (5 days vs. 10 business days)

  3. Whether extraordinary circumstances existed justifying additional time beyond statutory limits

  4. An estimated date for the substantive decision

A bare acknowledgment of receipt does not satisfy GRAMA's requirement for meaningful communication about the status and timeline of records requests and appeals. GOEO's failure to provide any substantive response explaining the applicable timeline until March 2 (12 business days after the appeal, and then only after Appellant's follow-up explicitly requested clarification) constitutes a violation of GRAMA's transparency and timeline requirements.

Furthermore, GOEO's reliance on the "public benefit" standard for expedited consideration (Utah Code § 63G-2-401(5)(a)) does not relieve GOEO of the obligation to respond within the standard 10-business-day timeframe or to provide notice if extraordinary circumstances justify additional time. Fourteen calendar days elapsed between the February 18 appeal and the March 3 decision, with no interim communication to Appellant until after Appellant requested clarification on March 2.

C. Public Interest in Disclosure

The requested records concern the expenditure of $2 million in public funds through the Industrial Assistance Account to a nonprofit corporation formed less than nine months before receiving GOEO Board approval. The public interest factors strongly favor disclosure:

  1. Public Accountability: IAA grants are funded by taxpayers and are subject to legislative oversight. The public has a right to understand the basis for such awards.

  2. Competitive Fairness: Other Utah nonprofit organizations operating in the film sector were not provided notice of this funding opportunity or an equal chance to compete for it.

  3. Statutory Compliance: Records are necessary to verify compliance with statutory criteria for IAA grants under Utah Code § 63N-3-101 et seq.

  4. Appropriation Law Compliance: Records are necessary to verify compliance with the 2025 New Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations Act (S.B. 2, Section 1, Subsection 1(a), Item 22, Lines 236–257), which appropriated $3.5 million to GOEO "From General Fund Restricted - Industrial Assistance Account" for "Film Commission" with explicit intent language directing GOEO to "provide a direct award grant of $3,500,000 to the Sundance Institute for the Sundance Film Festival," and further stating: "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."[18]

  5. Legislative Intent and Lapse Provision: The public has a substantial interest in understanding whether GOEO properly followed S.B. 2's mandatory lapse provision or improperly repurposed condition-bound funds for an unrelated purpose without fresh legislative authorization.

  6. Oversight and Audit Functions: On January 28, 2026, a complaint was filed with the Utah State Auditor (Case #016517) raising concerns about GOEO's handling of the Nuovo grant, including potential violations of Utah Code Title 63N, Chapter 3, Part 1, inadequate public notice, and improper redirection of legislatively appropriated funds.[19] Public access to records supports effective oversight.

  7. Policy Development: Public access enables informed discussion of whether this grant serves legitimate economic development purposes or reflects preferential treatment.

Utah Courts have held that GRAMA's presumption favoring disclosure is particularly strong where records concern the expenditure of public funds and the operations of government.[9] Appellant's original request noted the public benefit of disclosure, including use for news reporting and public accountability purposes.[10]

D. Specific Records Known to Exist

Even if GOEO maintains that no document titled "grant application" exists, the following categories of records are known or reasonably certain to exist and are responsive to Appellant's request:

  1. Board Materials: Written summaries, presentations, or briefing documents provided to GOEO Board members in advance of or during the January 8, 2026 meeting to support the $2 million IAA grant decision.

  2. Internal Communications: Emails, memoranda, or other communications between GOEO staff discussing the Nuovo Film Festival proposal, its evaluation, and preparation for board consideration.

  3. Draft Motions and Agreements: The pre-drafted motion read into the record at the January 8 meeting, and any draft award letters, memoranda of understanding, or agreements prepared in connection with the grant.

  4. Correspondence with Applicant: Communications between GOEO and A. Scott Anderson (incorporator of Nuovo Film Festival, Inc.) or other principals regarding the grant proposal and funding.

  5. Scoring or Evaluation Documents: Any internal scoring sheets, evaluation criteria checklists, or staff recommendations prepared to assess the Nuovo proposal against IAA statutory criteria.

  6. Budgetary and Statutory Authority Documentation: Records demonstrating the source of funding and legal authority to commit $2 million from the Industrial Assistance Account to the Nuovo project, including analyses of compliance with S.B. 2's Sundance appropriation conditions and lapse provisions (Lines 236–257), and any determinations that reallocating those funds to Nuovo was legally permissible.

  7. Legislative Consultation Records: Any communications with legislative leadership, the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, or Attorney General's office regarding whether the Sundance appropriation could be repurposed for the Nuovo grant after Sundance's departure triggered the lapse provision.

These records are not speculative. GOEO's standard practice for other incentive decisions approved on January 8, 2026 (MCM Engineering II and Integrated Rail and Resources, Inc.) included detailed executive summaries, project highlights, company overviews, and formal proposed motions—all included in the public meeting materials packet.[11] The absence of comparable documentation for the Nuovo grant in the publicly posted materials does not mean such records do not exist; it suggests they were withheld from the public packet.

VI. RELIEF SOUGHT

Appellant respectfully requests that the State Records Committee:

  1. Reverse the denial of Appellant's records request and order GOEO to conduct a comprehensive search for all records responsive to the three categories identified in Appellant's February 9, 2026 request.

  2. Order disclosure of all responsive records, subject only to narrowly tailored redactions for information that meets specific GRAMA exemption criteria, with a detailed written explanation justifying each redaction.

  3. Reject GOEO's categorical withholding under Utah Code § 63G-2-305(35) and require GOEO to perform a record-by-record analysis demonstrating actual economic harm or competitive disadvantage for any record it continues to withhold.

  4. Find that GOEO violated the extraordinary circumstances notice requirements of Utah Code § 63G-2-204(4)(b)(iii) by failing to provide timely written notice explaining any delays and estimated response dates.

  5. Require GOEO to identify and produce records demonstrating the statutory and budgetary authority for committing $2 million through an Industrial Assistance Account to the Nuovo project, including any analyses prepared under Title 63N, Chapter 3, Part 1, and related budget or appropriation documents, so that the Committee and the public can verify that this grant is grounded in specific legislative authorization and program requirements.

  6. Require GOEO to identify and produce records demonstrating how the rationale and reasoning behind the GOEO Board's approval of the IAA Grant on January 8, 2026—a matter of public record—does not, in any way, conflict with the language, intention, conditions and lapse provision of the 2025 New Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations Act (S.B. 2, §1(1)(a), it.22, lines 236–57).

  7. Award costs and attorney fees if applicable and appropriate under Utah Code § 63G-2-405(4).

  8. Grant any other relief the State Records Committee deems just and proper to ensure compliance with GRAMA and vindicate the public's right of access to government records.

VII. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

Factual Background

On January 8, 2026, the GOEO Board held a public meeting at which it considered and approved a recommendation for a $2 million Industrial Assistance Account grant to Nuovo Film Festival, Inc. (NFFI), a Utah nonprofit corporation incorporated on May 23, 2025.[12] The public notice for the meeting stated: "The Board will vote to approve one IAA grant."[2]

The agenda item provided minimal detail compared to other incentives considered the same day. While the MCM Engineering II and IRRX proposals included multi-page executive summaries with detailed financial projections, job creation numbers, capital investment figures, and formal proposed motions, the Nuovo item had no comparable written materials in the publicly posted packet.[11]

During the January 8 meeting, GOEO staff introduced the item as an "Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) grant to discuss today in our board meeting" and stated that "there is a proposed motion related to the Nuovo item."[4] The motion, as recorded in the official minutes, recommended NFFI for "an Industrial Assistance Account grant of $2,000,000 to operationalize key film ecosystem objectives through the establishment of specialized programming, workforce, and infrastructure."[3]

Scott Anderson, identified as the incorporator of NFFI, presented the proposal, describing a five-pillar ecosystem including filmmaking labs, enhanced incentive programs, an AI sound stage, engagement with Harbor Fund, and education/workforce initiatives.[3] Board member Jeremy Andrus asked about governance structure, and Anderson described the nonprofit's board composition and planned activities.[3]

Following the presentation and brief discussion, the Board voted. The minutes record: "Judd Cook made the motion, Jeremy Andrus seconded the motion, and it passed with unanimous consent."[3] The meeting transcript confirms that after the vote, the Board Chair addressed Anderson in terms assuming the project would proceed, stating the Board looks forward "to being supportive in making the project happen for the state."[4]

On February 9, 2026, Appellant submitted a GRAMA request seeking the complete grant application, all written documentation related to the grant, and any award letters, scoring sheets, or executed contracts.[10] Appellant requested expedited consideration based on public interest.

On February 10, 2026, GOEO Public Information Officer Patrick Fitzgibbon issued a written denial, asserting: (1) no formal application exists because the process is in its "infancy"; (2) communications are protected as "ongoing negotiations" under Utah Code § 63G-2-305(35); and (3) no award letters, scoring sheets, or contracts exist because "no decision has been made."[13] This denial was not transmitted to Appellant until February 17, 2026.

Appellant filed a timely appeal to Executive Director Moss on February 18, 2026, demonstrating that the denial was inconsistent with the public record.[14] After receiving no response, Appellant sent a follow-up on March 2, 2026, requesting written confirmation of appeal status and either a decision or notice of extraordinary circumstances.[15]

On March 3, 2026, Executive Director Moss issued a decision affirming the denial, maintaining that the grant "remains in the conceptual stage" and that NFFI "has not submitted a grant application."[1] The decision acknowledged that press reports suggested the grant had been funded but stated those reports "do not reflect the current status of this project, and no funding has been approved."[1]

This characterization conflicts with: (1) the public notice stating the Board would "vote to approve" the grant; (2) the official minutes recording a formal motion, vote, and passage by unanimous consent; (3) the transcript showing a pre-drafted motion and formal decision sequence; and (4) media reports describing the funding as awarded.[2][3][4][5][6]

A detailed analysis prepared by Appellant comparing Executive Director Moss's March 3 statement to the meeting transcript and minutes identifies material omissions and discrepancies, including the omission of the formal motion language, the $2 million amount, the identified grantee, the funding source explanation, and the recorded vote sequence.[7]

Legal Standards

GRAMA's Presumption of Openness: Utah Code § 63G-2-201(2) establishes that "all records are public unless otherwise expressly provided by statute." GRAMA embodies a strong presumption in favor of disclosure, and exemptions must be narrowly construed.[9]

Burden of Proof: The governmental entity bears the burden of establishing that a record falls within a specific exemption. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(11)(b). Categorical withholding based on general classifications is insufficient; the agency must demonstrate that each withheld record meets the exemption criteria.

Protected Records – Negotiations Exception: Utah Code § 63G-2-305(35) protects records revealing negotiations regarding incentives "only if disclosure would result in actual economic harm to the person or place the governmental entity at a competitive disadvantage." The harm must be specific and demonstrated, not speculative. Moreover, the statute "may not be used to restrict access to a record evidencing a final contract."

Segregability Requirement: Even if portions of records are protected, Utah Code § 63G-2-201(8) requires disclosure of non-exempt portions: "If only part of a record is classified as not public, the governmental entity shall allow access to the public portion of the record."

Extraordinary Circumstances Notice: Utah Code § 63G-2-204(4)(b)(iii) mandates written notice when extraordinary circumstances delay response, specifying the particular circumstances and an estimated date of compliance. Failure to provide such notice violates GRAMA's transparency requirements.

Standard of Review: The State Records Committee reviews the Chief Administrative Officer's decision de novo. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(11).

Application to This Case

GOEO's denial fails under GRAMA's standards for three reasons:

First, the factual basis for denial—that no application exists and the process remains conceptual—is contradicted by GOEO's own public records. The Board's formal approval of a $2 million grant to a named entity from a specified fund, following a pre-drafted motion and recorded vote, cannot reasonably be characterized as conceptual. Documents supporting that decision necessarily exist.

Second, GOEO's categorical withholding under the "ongoing negotiations" exemption is overbroad and unsupported. GOEO has not identified specific records or explained what economic harm would result from disclosure. The blanket assertion that all communications are protected is precisely the type of categorical denial GRAMA prohibits.

Third, GOEO violated the extraordinary circumstances notice requirements by failing to communicate timely decisions about expedited consideration, failing to respond to Appellant's appeal within the standard timeframe without explanation, and failing to provide any written notice when Appellant specifically requested clarification on March 2, 2026.

The public interest in disclosure is substantial. The expenditure of $2 million in public funds to a newly formed nonprofit requires transparency and accountability. Other film-sector nonprofits were denied equal opportunity to compete for this funding. The public cannot assess whether statutory criteria were satisfied or whether this grant reflects preferential treatment without access to the underlying records.

VIII. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED

  1. Copy of Chief Administrative Officer's decision dated March 3, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_01_20260303_GRAMA_AppealDenial.pdf]

  2. Utah Public Notice for GOEO Board meeting, January 8, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_02_20260108_GOEO_Board_JAN26_PublicNotice_1372663.pdf]

  3. GOEO Board Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2026 (published February 10, 2026)
    [Document ID: AppEx_03_20260210_GOEO_Board_8JAN26_Minutes_1389373.pdf]

  4. GOEO Board Audio to Text Generated Transcript, January 30, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_04_20260130_GOEO_Boar..o_to_Text_generated_Transcript.pdf]

  5. Analysis: "Concept or Actionable Motion?" comparing transcript to official statements
    [Document ID: AppEx_05_20260305_ConceptVsMotion.pdf]

  6. Copy of Appellant's GRAMA request dated February 9, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_06_20260209_GRAMA_Request_IAA.pdf]

  7. GOEO Board Meeting Agenda and Materials, January 8, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_07_20260108_AllMaterials_GOEOBoard_1.8.26_1372663.pdf]

  8. Articles of Incorporation for Nuovo Film Festival, Inc. (filed May 23, 2025)
    [Document ID: AppEx_08_20250523_Articles_Incorporation_NUOVO_FILM_FEST_INC.pdf]

  9. Copy of GOEO's denial letter dated February 10, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_09_20260210_GRAMA_Denial_PF_PIO.pdf]

  10. Copy of Appellant's appeal to Chief Administrative Officer dated February 18, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_10_20260218_GRAMA_Appeal.pdf]

  11. Copy of Appellant's follow-up letter dated March 2, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_11_20260302_GRAMA_AppealFollowUp.pdf]

  12. Analysis: "GOEO Meeting v. Minutes" documenting OPMA violations
    [Document ID: AppEx_12_20260210-20260305_GOEO_Meeting_V_Minutes.pdf]

  13. Copy of Patrick Fitzgibbon's email response dated March 2, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_13_20260302_Response_GRAMAAppealFollowup.pdf]

  14. 2025 New Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations Act (S.B. 2, §1(1)(a), it.22, lines 236–57)
    [Document ID: AppEx_14_20250325_SB02_Sec1_Subsec1a_It22.pdf]

  15. Utah State Auditor Complaint Submission (Case #016517, filed January 28, 2026)
    [Document ID: AppEx_15_20260128_UTStateAuditor_Info_Case_016517.pdf]

  16. Copy of Todd Jenson's acknowledgment email dated February 18, 2026
    [Document ID: AppEx_16_20260218_GRAMAAppealRecieved.pdf]

  17. Utah Filmmakers™ Association Ethics & Conduct Evaluation (February 20, 2026)
    [Document ID: AppEx_17_20260220_UFA_GOEO_EthicsConductEvaluation.pdf]

IX. CONCLUSION

The public's right to access government records is fundamental to democratic accountability. GOEO has denied that right based on factually inaccurate assertions that conflict with its own public meeting records, and has done so without following GRAMA's procedural requirements for notice and timely response.

The State Records Committee should reverse the denial, order disclosure of all responsive records (with only specific, justified redactions), and ensure that GOEO complies with its statutory obligations under GRAMA.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of March, 2026.

Joseph L. Puente...
Salt Lake City, Utah...

References

[1] Moss, J. (2026, March 3). Decision on GRAMA Appeal. Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity.
[Document ID: AppEx_01_20260303_GRAMA_AppealDenial.pdf]

[2] Utah Public Notice Website. (2026, January 6). Public Notice for GOEO Board Meeting – January 8, 2026. https://www.utah.gov/pmn/sitemap/notice/1049891.html
[Document ID: AppEx_02_20260108_GOEO_Board_8JAN26_PublicNotice_1372663.pdf]

[3] Governors Office of Economic Opportunity. (2026, February 10). GOEO Board Meeting Minutes – January 8, 2026. https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1389373.docx
[Document ID: AppEx_03_20260210_GOEO_Board_8JAN26_Minutes_1389373.pdf]

[4] Puente, J. L. (2026, January 30). GOEO Board Audio to Text Generated Transcript.
[Document ID: AppEx_04_20260130_GOEO_Board_Audio_to_Text_generated_Transcript.pdf]
(Original audio recording posted January 8, 2026, at 11:07 AM following adjournment: https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1373837.m4a)

[5] The Utah Review. (2026, January). Sundance 2026: A thriving Utah ecosystem of filmmaking begins to consider a future post-Sundance. https://www.theutahreview.com/sundance-2026-a-thriving-utah-ecosystem-of-filmmaking-begins-to-consider-a-future-post-sundance

[6] Salt Lake Business Journal. (2026). Lights, camera, AI: Initiative gets $2 million from state. https://slenterprise.com/index.php/news/8960-lights-camera-ai-initiative-gets-2-million-from-state

[7] Puente, J. L. (2026, March 4). Concept or Actionable Motion? Analysis of GOEO Executive Director Statement.
[Document ID: AppEx_05_20260305_ConceptVsMotion.pdf]

[8] U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978).

[9] Society of Professional Journalists v. University of Utah Board of Trustees, 2008 UT 45, 186 P.3d 890 (Utah 2008).

[10] Puente, J. L. (2026, February 9). GRAMA Request – Nuovo Film Festival IAA Grant.
[Document ID: AppEx_06_20260209_GRAMA_Request_IAA.pdf]

[11] Governors Office of Economic Opportunity. (2026, January 8). All Materials – GOEO Board 1.8.26. https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1372663.pdf
[Document ID: AppEx_07_20260108_AllMaterials_GOEOBoard_-_1.8.26_1372663.pdf]

[12] Utah Division of Corporations. (2025, May 23). Articles of Incorporation – Nuovo Film Festival, Inc. Entity ID 14576555-0140.
[Document ID: AppEx_08_20250523_Articles_Incorporation_NUOVO_FILM_FEST_INC.pdf]

[13] Fitzgibbon, P. (2026, February 10). GRAMA Response – Nuovo Film Festival. Governors Office of Economic Opportunity.
[Document ID: AppEx_09_20260210_GRAMA_Denial_PF_PIO.pdf]

[14] Puente, J. L. (2026, February 18). GRAMA Appeal – Records Related to Nuovo Film Festival IAA Grant.
[Document ID: AppEx_10_20260218_GRAMA_Appeal.pdf]

[15] Puente, J. L. (2026, March 2). Follow-up on Expedited GRAMA Appeal Denial.
[Document ID: AppEx_11_20260302_GRAMA_AppealFollowUp.pdf]

[16] Puente, J. L. (2026, March 3). GOEO Meeting v. Minutes: Analysis of Open and Public Meetings Act Compliance.
[Document ID: AppEx_12_20260210-20260303_GOEO_Meeting_V_Minutes.pdf]

[17] Fitzgibbon, P. (2026, March 2, 4:04 PM). Re: Follow-up on Expedited GRAMA Appeal Denial Dated 2/10/26 [Email].
[Document ID: AppEx_13_20260302_Response_GRAMAAppealFollowup.pdf]

[18] Utah State Legislature. (2025). 2025 New Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations Act, S.B. 2, Section 1, Subsection 1(a), Item 22, Lines 236–257. Enrolled Copy.
[Document ID: AppEx_14_20250325_SB02_Sec1_Subsec1a_It22.pdf]

[19] Puente, J. L. (2026, January 28). Complaint Submission to Utah State Auditor – GOEO IAA Grant Process [Case #016517]. https://hotlineform.utah.gov/impropergovernmentactivity
[Document ID: AppEx_15_20260128_UTStateAuditor_Info_Case_016517.pdf]

[20] Jenson, T. K. (2026, February 18, 10:34 AM). RE: GRAMA Appeal – Records Related to Nuovo Film Festival IAA Grant [Email]
[Document ID: AppEx_16_20260218_GRAMAAppealRecieved.pdf]

________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 5, 2026, a true and correct copy of this Notice of Appeal was served via email upon:

Jefferson Moss, Executive Director
Governors Office of Economic Opportunity
60 East South Temple, Suite 300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Email: ⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎

Todd Karl Jenson, Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 140856
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856
Email: ⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎⬛︎

(signed)

Joseph L. Puente