Posted: August 30, 2010
Code of Judicial Administration
CJA 02-0103. Open and closed meetings. Amend. Clarify that a meeting can be closed to discuss the professional competence of an individual and add discussion of a non-public document as grounds to close a meeting.
CJA 04-0202.02. Records classification. Amend. Classify a record of a Children’s Justice Center investigative interview as a protected record before the conclusion of legal proceedings and as a sealed record after the conclusion of legal proceedings.
CJA 04-0202.06. Response to request to access or classify a court record. Amend. Incorporate amendments to GRAMA by HB 278 and HB 133. Require that, if a records request claims to qualify for an expedited response, the records custodian will, within 5 business days, respond or notify the requester that the request does not qualify. If the request is to access a record of a Children’s Justice Center investigative interview, refer to Section 77-37-4.
CJA 04-0408.01. Responsibility for administration of trial courts. Amend. Designate Manti as a state court operation rather than by contract with the county.
CJA 04-0702. Electronic citations required. New Require that citations filed after January 1, 2012 be filed electronically.
CJA 07-0308. Expungement procedures. Repeal. All provisions of this rule are contained in URJP 56 or Section 78A-6-1105.
I represent the cities of Spanish Fork and Salem. In reviewing this proposed rule with the police departments, there will be a significant cost involved to comply with it. Not only is there expensive software to purchase, but there is an annual maintenance fee.
While we support increased efficiencies and electronic technology, this seems like an unfunded mandate from the State to the cities and counties of the State. An initial estimate of the cost was $100,000 for the first year. While this estimate may or may not be very accurate, the fact the State is considering this type of unfunded mandate when local budgets are as tight as they are seems unfair and unwise.
Before such an exception can be approved, there should be a list of “non public record” exceptions provided by the Council. It seems this could lead to a long list of exceptions and the reason for such an exception should be clearly explained. “Non public record” seems to be a wide and expansive exception.
This seems to open a Pandora’s box of problems. What does “non public record” really mean? It seems like they are trying to hide behind some obscure verbiage just to throw people off. This needs a lot more detail for a lay person such as me. Perhaps the legal community members know what this means, but they are not the only people who should be able to understand what this action means. We are all taxpayers and I don’t feel that changes just for the good of the Judiciary Council are justified. It seems just one more way for these folks to operate behind closed doors with the false justification that it’s for the public’s good. I, for one taxpayer, am tired of backroom deals.
What is the public need for this? Where is the case study demonstrating the current system ineffective? And finally, who will fund this?
This change does not further governments ability to serve the people, creates further waste of our limited public funds, and is a move away from having an “open and transparent governance.”
Until these questions are addressed, these changes should not be made, and the funds spent on more meaningful projects.
The policy regarding open meetings for the Utah Judicial Council does not need to be changed or amended. The need for transparency far outweighs any benefits that might accrue by closing these meeting to public scrutiny.
I am concerned about legislation being considered that would alter the Open Meetings Act in respect to the Utah Judicial Council. I think it is in the public interest to not amend the act to allow any further restriction on our right to know the actions of this Council. Thank you for your time.