Appeal hearing scheduled for Tuesday afternoon
by Dan Schroeder
In a move reminiscent of the previous administration, Ogden city officials are refusing to grant access to two collections of city records: the city’s line-item budget, and the city’s data on water use by utility customers.
In both cases, the city’s principal rationale for denying access is that the records are stored in electronic databases.
I requested these records as part of my ongoing effort to understand the city’s budget in general, and utility operations in particular. Readers may recall that a year ago I
immersed myself in the utility rate revision process. Among other things, I
discovered that the city has been using the utility operations as cash cows, funneling several million dollars each year from the utility funds into the general fund. I also
projected that the utility rate increases approved last May would bring in somewhat more revenue than needed to cover infrastructure upgrades and operating expenses.
But it was hard to be precise about these projections, because I had only incomplete data on current revenue and expenses. For example, it appeared that additional money was being funneled into the general fund for “services” that were never itemized. I also wanted to understand a mysterious payment of $111,300 made to Pineview Water in February 2012. Most importantly, I needed better data on the number and classification of city utility customers, and on how much water they typically use.
Over much of the last year I tried to get answers to these questions through informal channels. After repeated nagging, I did get some partial answers from Chief Administrative Office Mark Johnson, and later from Mayor Mike Caldwell. Eventually, however, both Johnson and Caldwell refused to answer any further questions. And so, reluctantly, I resorted to filing formal requests under the Utah
Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA).
In December I filed a request for all records documenting or justifying the payments for “services” mentioned above. In response, the city indicated that there were no records to document how the amounts of these payments (which now total about $1.8 million per year) were determined. However, the city did provide me with five pages excerpted from a lengthy line-item budget document, showing a line for each category of such payments.
Up until then, I had naively assumed that the “budget” consists of the document that the city council approves every June, which is
posted for all to see on the city’s web site. But that document doesn’t have anywhere near as much detail as the five pages that I received in December. Delighted to learn that such a detailed line-item budget document exists, I filed a formal request for the whole document in early January. And much to my surprise, even though they had already given me five pages of the document, the city refused to give me the rest of it. Apparently the complete Ogden City line-item budget is a secret.
Meanwhile, because the 2012 calendar year had just ended, I filed a separate request for utility customer and water use data (with names and addresses removed) for the year 2012. I already had similar data files for 2010 and 2011, which had been compiled and provided to the consultants during last year’s water rate study. But those files don’t have enough information about the customers to calculate revenue precisely, and of course, a third year of data would provide more accurate and up-to-date statistics.
Knowing that it would require some effort to extract the utility data from the billing database, I offered to pay up to $100 for the staff time required. After two and a half weeks, however, the city recorder told me that the estimated cost would be $700, computed as three full days spent by a programmer who earns $32/hour. When I tried to ask why the process would be so complicated, the city changed its position and denied my request outright.
According to the official denial letters, the city’s denials are based on a
provision of GRAMA saying that, in response to a request, the government is not required to “create a record” or to provide it “in a particular format.” Apparently, the city interprets this provision to mean that when records can’t be provided in the same format in which they are stored (e.g., cumbersome database files that are ordinarily accessed through proprietary software), they needn’t be provided at all.
This interpretation completely ignores other provisions of GRAMA that
require the government to segregate private from public records upon request, and that
prohibit the government from using “the physical form, electronic or otherwise, in which a record is stored to deny, or unreasonably hinder the rights of a person to inspect and receive a copy of a record.”
Ever since the first denial, on January 9, I’ve been trying to resolve these disputes through informal channels. I’ve asked to speak to the city employees who maintain the records, and received no response. I’ve gone to the newly appointed
Utah GRAMA Ombudsman, and asked her to facilitate an informal discussion. After she tried for two weeks to set up a meeting, the city refused to participate.
I’ve therefore appealed both GRAMA denials to the city’s Records Review Board, which will hold a public hearing on the matters this Tuesday, February 19, at 3:30 pm, in the City Recorder’s conference room on the second floor of the Municipal Building. I look forward to finally discussing these matters with city officials face to face, and I am optimistic for a speedy and successful resolution.
For those who are interested in all the gory details, here is the
complete hearing agenda packet, including my GRAMA requests, the city's denials, and my appeals.
