Hearing officer orders UVU to disclose names of people who emailed about Sharon McMahon speech

A Department of Government Records hearing officer ordered Utah Valley University to provide unredacted names of individuals who emailed the university president about a planned Sharon McMahon commencement speech, concluding that the names were not protected personal data under the cited GRAMA exemptions.

Courtney Tanner told the hearing she requested emails sent to UVU's president between March 30 and April 30 about Sharon McMahon's speech and that sender names were redacted. She argued names associated with uvu.edu addresses are public under Utah law and that the public has a right to know who contacted a public university president about a controversial speaker. "Utah code 63 g 2 3 0 1 2 b specifically states what should be expressly considered public records, and that includes the name," Tanner said.

UVU counsel Ms. Ferguson argued that while the content of the emails had been released, disclosure of names could enable doxing, harassment, or threats in a still-charged environment connected to the Charlie Kirk incident and the canceled speech. "If their name is released, someone in the public could easily do that," Ferguson said, describing safety risks and urging application of privacy exemptions.

After hearing arguments and considering the claimed safety risks, the hearing officer found that the names were not properly classified as private under the cited provisions and granted the appeal, directing UVU to provide the names unredacted while allowing the university to redact email addresses or contact information. The officer said a written decision would follow within seven business days and noted appeal rights to district court within 30 days.

The ruling emphasizes the DGO's role in weighing public interest against privacy and safety claims; the officer said that, in this case, the public interest in identifying who wrote to a public university president outweighed the evidence presented for withholding names. The decision does not require publication by any news organization; it orders disclosure to the requester and creates a formal record for any subsequent appeal.

The parties were advised of appeal rights and the hearing was adjourned.