State Records Committee Appeal 06-06


MONIQUE CROWLEY, Petitioner, vs.

SANDY CITY, Respondent.


Case No. 06-06

By this appeal, Monique Crowley seeks access to records regarding personnel matters, and dismissal action against Monique Crowley. The State Records Committee, having reviewed the materials submitted by the parties, and having heard oral argument and testimony on August 10, 2006, now issues the following Decision and Order.


1. The Government Records Access and Management Act ("GRAMA") specifies that "all records are public unless otherwise expressly provided by statute." Utah Code Ann. 63-2-201(2). Records that are not public are designated as either "private," "protected," or "controlled." See Utah Code Ann. 63-2-302, -303 and -304. Sandy City denied Crowley the records she seeks on the grounds that said documents are protected.

2. The Committee is persuaded that the information requested is protected or private and disclosure of the information is therefore not required. HR notes (handwritten) are not records under Utah Code Ann 62-2-103(19)(b)(i). Documents prepared in anticipation of litigation, attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product are protected under Utah Code Ann 62-2-304(16) and (17). Disclosure of employee's identifying information is clearly an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and would further have a chilling affect among the employees of Sandy City. Draft documents are protected records and must only be disclosed if they were circulated to entities other than those enumerated in Utah Code Ann. 63-2-301(3)(j) or relied upon in carrying out an action or policy as stated in Utah Code Ann. 63-2-301(3)(k).

3. Sandy City has therefore properly classified the records described as "Other documents prepared by or for the City Attorney or counsel for the city in this lawsuit in the City Attorney's file" as "protected" under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-304(16), (17) and (18).

4. Sandy City has therefore properly classified the item described as "notes by Human Resources Division employees in a meeting with counsel for the City about the meeting as not a "record" as defined by Utah Code Ann 62-2-103(19)(b)(I).

5. Sandy City has therefore properly classified the records described as "Identifying information about individual employees including their names, home telephone and home address in Charge of Discrimination claims received by the Utah Anti-discrimination and Labor Commission" as "protected" under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-304(9).

6. Sandy City has therefore properly classified the records described as "Information identifying individuals contained in memorandum dated April 1, 2001 about supervisors whom the writer claimed mistreated the complainant in her work" as "private" under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-302(2)(d).

7. Sandy City has therefore properly classified the records described as "draft letter dated December 8, 2005 prepared by Brian Kelly addressed to Monique Crowley with a draft document attached, Request for Leave Without Pay" as "protected" under Utah Code Ann. 63-2-304(22).


THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Monique Crowley is denied. The Department's determination regarding the classification of these records is affirmed.


Either party may appeal this Decision and Order to the District Court. The petition for review must be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this order. The petition for judicial review must be a complaint. The complaint and the appeals process are governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and Utah Code Ann. 63-2-404. The court is required to make its decision de novo.

In order to protect its rights on appeal, a party may wish to seek advice from an attorney.

Entered this 17th day of August, 2006.


Patricia Smith-Mansfield, Chairperson
State Records Committee


Page Last Updated .