GRO denies Nash appeal challenging charter board redactions; director upholds draft and shared-record classifications

Director Pearson denied an appeal by Nicholas and Madison Nash challenging redactions made by the Utah State Charter School Board, saying an in‑camera review showed the board’s classifications and withheld drafts were appropriate and that shared materials should be sought from Wasatch Peaks Academy.

The Nash appeal (2025‑174) focused on several redacted email excerpts and withheld documents that the petitioners said were public. Nicholas Nash told the Government Records Office that while he accepted much of the board’s production, he wanted the office to examine specific redacted portions and a December 26 letter from an identified third party. “The portions that we wanted to talk about are these redacted portions,” Nash said during his initial presentation, and he asked the office to determine whether record‑by‑record redaction justifications were provided.

Counsel for the charter board, Mr. Goff, told the director the board’s ability to reclassify material was constrained because many of the contested items were designated by Wasatch Peaks Academy as shared or protected. “I’m not gonna comment on the propriety of it, because it’s not my designation… My hands are tied, and the statute says shall not,” Goff said, explaining the board had relied on WPA’s designations in preparing its production.

After an in‑camera review of the withheld records, Director Pearson found the board’s redactions and classifications appropriate, accepted the board’s unapplied‑redaction materials and classification log as helpful, and agreed that draft materials could be withheld under the law. He told the parties he would issue a written decision within seven business days and noted that either party may appeal to district court within 30 calendar days.

The decision leaves open the route for petitioners to seek shared records directly from Wasatch Peaks Academy; Director Pearson said those shared records can be requested from WPA and that the remaining disputes appeared to belong in the separate appeal involving WPA.