Subject: GRAMA Appeal – Records Related to Nuovo Film Festival IAA Grant (Fwd: Response to GRAMA Records Request)
Date: February 18, 2026
To: GOEO Director, Et. Al.
Dear Director Moss,
I’m writing to formally appeal the denial of my GRAMA request—submitted on February 9, 2026—concerning the Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) proposal associated with “Nuovo Film Festival, Inc.” I had requested an expedited release of information with the understanding that I could get a response in five (5) days—I assumed five business days. When I received an email from Patrick Fitzgibbon with a PDF attachment yesterday, February 17, precisely five business days since my request, I was initially pleased with what I thought was a timely response.
However, the PDF document was just a denial letter from Mr. Fitzgibbon dated February 10. If the decision to deny my GRAMA request was made last Tuesday, a formal letter written—using the GOEO’s official letterhead—dated, and signed one day after receiving the request, I find it odd that it was not sent to me right away, or even the following day. Had the letter been dated February 17—or, even February 12 or 13—it would have at least carried with it the appearance of having performed some due diligence surrounding the nature of the documentation I requested. That some modicum of effort was put into assembling the reasons given to justify the denial. That does not appear to have been the case. Why would anyone sit on a written denial for an entire week (or five business days) if the decision to deny my request was so cut and dry? Why make me wait? Why draw out something that’s ostensibly so routine?
In his response, Mr. Fitzgibbon characterizes the January 8, 2026 board presentation by Scott Anderson as merely “a preliminary step intended to seek the Board’s advice and discussion,” emphasizes that the GOEO Board is advisory only, and concludes that “no decision has been made,” that “the grant has not been awarded,” that “a formal grant application has not yet been generated or submitted,” and that essentially all responsive written communications are protected as “ongoing negotiations.”
However, the public record paints a different picture. The official Utah Public Notice Website listing for the January 8, 2026 GOEO Board meeting explicitly states, under the agenda item for “Industrial Assistance Account (IAA) Grant” that “The Board will vote to approve one IAA grant.” This is presented alongside other items that clearly contemplate formal board action, not merely informal discussion. The notice does not treat the IAA item as a conceptual or preliminary conversation.
https://www.utah.gov/pmn/sitemap/notice/1049891.html (Public Notice for January 8 Board Meeting posted January 6, 2026)
The same public notice entry also links to the full materials packet for the meeting (“All Materials – GOEO Board – 1.8.26.pdf”)—the meeting agenda—hosted on the state system. Those materials include detailed, written summaries and analysis for other incentives on that agenda, reflecting GOEO’s usual practice of having a detailed, written package in place before a board votes on a multi‑million‑dollar action. Yet there is no publicly posted, comparable narrative or application‑style document for the Nuovo item, even though the public agenda describes it as a discrete IAA grant to be approved, not as an amorphous concept still in its infancy.
The minutes and subsequent materials for the January 8 meeting further reinforce that this item was handled as a real IAA grant decision. Later public posting of the minutes and “2026 GOEO Board Meeting Dates” documents on Utah’s site frame the IAA grant as something the Board did in fact approve, in line with the “will vote to approve” language of the notice. This contradicts the implication in the GRAMA response that the process is too undeveloped for any application‑type record or decision‑evidencing documents to exist.
https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1389373.docx (Official Minutes of January 8 Board meeting posted February 10 with Public Notice for the February 12 Board meeting)
https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1372663.pdf (January 8 Board meeting agenda)
Additionally, independent press coverage has already described the project as funded, with a specific amount and a concrete organizational identity tied directly to this IAA item. The Utah Review reported that “a new Utah‑based nonprofit (tentatively named Nuovo Film Festival, Inc.) has received $2 million funding to launch an initiative that would augment and extend the many components of the state’s filmmaking ecosystem.” This article connects a $2 million public grant to Nuovo by name, characterizes it as an initiative to replace or supplement Sundance, and quotes Utah film‑sector leaders referring to those dollars explicitly as “public funds” that will be “leveraged to support Utah’s film community.”
The Salt Lake Business Journal was more direct, the headline for its article: “‘Lights, camera, AI’: Initiative gets $2 million from state.” (emphasis added)
https://slenterprise.com/index.php/news/8960-lights-camera-ai-initiative-gets-2-million-from-state
This public framing is difficult to square with the Mr. Fitzgibbon’s assertion that “no decision has been made regarding this funding, the grant has not been awarded, and no award letters, scoring sheets, or executed contracts currently exist.”
If the Board met with an IAA item explicitly described as a grant to be approved, if the GOEO followed its typical practice of preparing written materials to support such an item—as was the case for the EDTIF/REDTIF incentives approved on January 8 for MCM Engineering II, Inc. and Integrated Rail and Resource Acquisition Corp.—and if external press has already reported the project as having “received $2 million funding,” it is not plausible that there are no existing records evidencing:
A written application or application‑equivalent submission for the Nuovo project (even if not on a standardized form).
Internal or staff‑level summaries provided to board members to support the Jan. 8 vote.
Some form of decision or award documentation sufficient to support a public claim that $2 million has been “received” for this purpose.
The GRAMA response also relies on Utah Code § 63G‑2‑305(35), arguing that “specific records regarding ongoing negotiations are classified as ‘protected’” because they would reveal assistance negotiations and that disclosure “would result in actual economic harm” or put GOEO at a competitive disadvantage. But that subsection cannot be used to categorically withhold all records merely by invoking “ongoing negotiations,” especially once a grant has been presented for approval in a public meeting and then publicly described as funded in the press. At minimum, the statute explicitly prohibits using this protection to withhold “a record evidencing a final contract.” Even prior to a fully executed contract, non‑negotiation documents such as agenda support materials, board packets, and high‑level project descriptions are frequently released with appropriate redactions for true trade secrets or confidential financial projections.
In addition, the Industrial Assistance Account program and the broader state‑grants framework under Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 6b contemplate a written application and a structured grant arrangement, not an entirely oral, undocumented process. Public guidance and statute make clear that an IAA applicant must submit information about the nature of the economic opportunity, anticipated costs, job or investment impacts, performance benchmarks, and reporting expectations. GOEO’s own practice has been to require written proposals or forms satisfying these requirements before taking an item to the board. That practice, combined with the January 8 public notice that the Board would “vote to approve one IAA grant,” strongly suggests that one or more written application‑type documents exist, even if GOEO internally chooses not to label them as a “formal grant application.”
The denial letter’s assertion that “a formal grant application has not yet been generated or submitted” appears to depend on a very narrow internal definition of “formal application,” rather than the broader, common‑sense meaning that GRAMA is meant to capture: any documentary submission made by or on behalf of the applicant to support a request for public funds. GRAMA does not permit an agency to avoid disclosure simply by declining to label a document as an “application,” especially when the document fulfills the functional role of one in the IAA process.
Furthermore, once GOEO chose to present this as an IAA grant “the Board will vote to approve,” and once public messaging has described $2 million as already “received” by the Nuovo nonprofit, the claim that there are no “award letters, scoring sheets, and executed contracts” should be examined narrowly, not accepted as a blanket basis to deny access to all responsive records. If awards are structured in stages, or if staff work from internal scoring or evaluation sheets, those documents either exist or they do not; and to the extent they exist, they are presumptively public unless a specific, narrow exemption applies to particular content.
Because of these discrepancies between the denial letter and the publicly available evidence, I respectfully request that, on appeal, GOEO:
Re‑evaluate the assertion that no “application” exists, and instead conduct a good‑faith search for any written materials submitted by or on behalf of “Nuovo Film Festival, Inc.” (or any related entity) that were used to support or frame the January 8, 2026 IAA grant item, and release them with appropriate, narrowly tailored redactions if necessary.
Re‑examine the scope of the § 63G‑2‑305(35) “ongoing negotiations” classification and release all non‑negotiation records (including staff summaries, board packets, and high‑level proposals) that can be segregated from genuinely sensitive negotiation content, rather than withholding entire categories of records.
Identify and disclose any existing documents that evidence a decision to commit $2 million in IAA or related funds to the Nuovo project, including internal approval memoranda, notices of award, or draft agreements, especially in light of the public representation that this “new Utah‑based nonprofit” has “received $2 million funding.”
Provide a written explanation, in the event any specific documents are still withheld, identifying the precise statutory subsection applied to each withheld record and explaining how disclosure of that specific record would cause the economic harm or competitive disadvantage contemplated by § 63G‑2‑305(35), rather than relying on generalized references to “ongoing negotiations.”
I appreciate that GOEO “strives for transparency,” as the denial letter states, and I recognize the need to protect legitimately sensitive details during some negotiations. However, when a multi‑million‑dollar grant proposal is placed on a public board agenda “for approval,” subsequently discussed in a public meeting, and then presented in the press as already funded, the public’s right of access under GRAMA should presumptively extend to the core records that explain what is being proposed, on what terms, and under what safeguards.
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal for an expedited GRAMA request—a copy of the original request has also been attached as a courtesy.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Joseph L. Puente
Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. Concerns over the GOEO’s lack of transparency regarding this matter, especially leading up to the January 8, 2026, board meeting, were reported to the Office of the State Auditor on January 28 using their online form, confirmed to have been received that day, and assigned a case number (#016517).
