Halftime is over at the State Capitol and we are headed into the final stretch. The House has already passed some dramatic revisions to the public records law, known as GRAMA, that will eliminate a time-tested balancing test for eight of the 56 categories of protected records.

In addition, Rep. Doug Aagard’s bill will broaden the definition of records that are protected from disclosure to the public. In the current version of the law, only records prepared “solely” in anticipation of litigation are classified as protected. But by striking the word solely from the equation, government officials may be entitled to retroactively place government records out of the public’s reach by claiming that the preparation of the documents was at least partially motivated by a fear of potential litigation. Remember that these are records prepared at taxpayer expense.

I was immediately suspicious of the GRAMA legislation because the Legislature just underwent a substantive rewrite of the law in 2005. And all of the changes weigh against public access. The motivation for the latest changes appears to stem from three events: the police standoff in Farmington that resulted in the death of Brian Wood, the Utah Supreme Court’s December 2008 decision in favor of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), and the media’s request for the personnel files of Officer Hammond in Ogden.

While the bill’s proponents tout the fact that there were 12 requests for records the day after Mr. Wood’s death, they typically fail to mention that all of those requests were promptly denied under the existing law. And even if there are problems that exist under the existing law as it relates to police personnel records, then the fix ought to be specifically tailored to that narrow exception. Instead, the bill proposes sweeping changes that creates the potential for abuse.

The SUWA case shows that the existing law is working. The records request was denied, and was considered by the state records committee. The committee upheld the denial and the dispute went to the state court. The district court also upheld the denial but that decision was overturned in a very detailed ruling by the state supreme court. The top court concluded that requested records were created by a Legislative mandate that did not restrict access to them or otherwise designate them as non-public.

Having been involved in both sides of many GRAMA issues over the years, I tend to lean toward public access and disclosure. I fear that many lawmakers are supporting HB 122 this year merely because they don’t support SUWA. Unfortunately, the impact of this bill does nothing to overturn the SUWA decision, but will create new opportunities for the government to shield documents from its taxpayers.

Switching gears, I believe that Sen. Chris Buttars’ recently publicized remarks against homosexuals has embarrassed himself and all of the people and organizations that he purports to represent. The most ironic part of the controversy is that he has unknowingly done more to advance the cause of his opponents than anything they could have accomplished on their own. In that regard, Sen. Buttars simply doesn’t get it.

There are three additional health care reform bills that have all passed out of the committee with a unanimous vote and have also passed the House with a substantial majority. I have no problem in supporting the concepts behind these three bills.

HB 165 is designed to simplify the way that health care is billed. HB 188 is designed to allow small companies (with 50 employees or less) to have a Internet portal for insurance choice. Lastly, HB 331 encourages small employers to have insurance by granting them favorable treatment in the awarding of state contracts.

Right now, we all pay extra to provide health care for those without coverage, and HB 331 is designed to address that situation.