Director denies records appeal over DWS transit analysis, cites executive privilege

Courtney Johns, the petitioner in appeals 2026‑061 and 2026‑076, asked the Department of Government Records to order in‑camera review and release of transportation planning and access records she says are responsive to her GRAMA request. "I respectfully request an in camera review of the unredacted traffic impact study and any withheld transportation access records responsive to request number 12," Johns told Director Pearson.

Johns said Exhibit M and related documents show Office of Homeless Services staff circulated analyses in July 2025 that recommended a scenario targeting UTA passes for approximately 25% of residents and labeled scenario C the lowest‑cost option, at "a little over $1,000,000 annually." She argued those records do not reveal confidential purchase terms and are relevant to the public interest in transportation access to a proposed campus.

Department counsel responded that portions of the transit study and related communications were submitted to the governor's office and therefore fall under the executive privilege protections the office has applied in prior rulings. The department said it provided a redacted traffic study to the petitioner but withheld or fully protected documents that were part of the governor's budget submission or drafts not relied upon.

Director Pearson reviewed materials in camera and said the redactions and withholdings were "properly classified" under the cited statutory protections (the director referenced provisions covering executive deliberative materials and procurement/real‑estate exemptions). He found segregation to be infeasible in some instances because sufficient redaction would render documents unintelligible and denied the appeals, promising a written decision within seven business days and advising the parties of their right to seek district court review.

Why it matters: The ruling preserves the department's ability to withhold materials tied to executive budget deliberations and an ongoing procurement while leaving open the petitioner's right to seek review in court. Johns argued the records were central to understanding how officials evaluated transportation access for residents; the director agreed the issue was important but concluded statutory protections outweighed the public‑interest claim in this record.

The director's decision focused on legal classifications and procedural history rather than factual findings about the transit‑use assumptions; the parties were directed to follow posted appeal procedures if they seek further review.