New UIPA board weighs changes for transparency, public engagement

Brice Wallace 

A recently reworked Utah Inland Port Authority Board is hoping to provide more transparency and broaden public engagement.

A board meeting earlier this month featured a discussion about several possible policy changes related to board meeting schedules, notices, closed-door sessions, recordings, minutes and public comments.{mprestriction ids="1,3"}

“We hope that this helps to clarify the requirements, outline our policies and our practices that are followed by the port authority, and it helps move forward public engagement,” said Jill Flygare, deputy executive director and chief operating officer.

The changes focus on “how we can make sure that we’re both accomplishing our objective of using everybody’s time effectively, being mindful of trying to make sure there’s enough time for everybody to comment, and at the same time, running smooth meetings,” said Miles Hansen, board chairman.

The changes could come as the board has changed membership and leadership after a legislative bill this year changed the number of voting members from 11 to five. A vote on the policy proposals were scheduled to take place at a board meeting last week, after The Enterprise press deadlines.

Regarding public comment, Hansen said the recommendations focus “on how we can make these meetings more effective for the public, to facilitate public engagement, make them effective also for the team as well and for us board members to make sure that not just during the meetings but between meetings we’re able to receive public comment because it’s so critical to the process.”

Board meetings have occasionally been raucous and contentious. In April 2019, activists shut down one meeting. At a meeting two months later, police removed several protesters, including one who had handcuffed himself to a door handle before a scuffle with police. In July of that year, protesters angry about the port authority and other matters stormed the Chamber of Commerce Building and clashed with police.

Board meeting notices now list several items related to meeting decorum. They include a ban on “items that disrupt the meeting, intimidate other participants or cause safety concerns.” That includes jeering, cheering, clapping and waving signs that may intimidate other speakers and cause a disruption. Other elements relate to the placement of recording equipment and call for people to give written remarks, documents or other items for board review to staff rather than approaching the board dais.

Among the proposed policy changes are those related to meeting schedules. The board had been meeting quarterly but recently has been meeting weekly. The board plans to post a regular meeting schedule on July 1 for that upcoming fiscal year. Hansen said the board will post a schedule of “necessary meetings” and post notices of others “as soon as possible.”

“We’re hoping not to do weekly meetings,” he said. “I do appreciate the flexibility of both the inland port team as well as the public as we try to get into a cadence, get caught up to speed. We’re hoping we can turn down the volume and frequency of meetings before too long. …”

Regarding closed-door sessions, state statute lists the reasons for closing meetings. Those are listed at the end of meeting notices, and the body of the agenda states the reason for the secret sessions.

Three closed-door discussions have occurred during the past month or so.

“I know it has felt to the public like there have been a lot of reasons stated, but … but if you go into the body of agenda, you will note that we’re only closing the meeting for very specific reasons,” Flygare said.

Board member Jerry Stevenson, a Republican state senator from Layton, said the closed meetings “will wane off” as the board resolves issues related to personnel, real estate and other matters. “Once that takes place, a closed-door meeting will be an absolute anomaly,” Stevenson said.

The proposed policy for recordings and minutes call for them to be available both at the UIPA website and the state public meeting notice website. State statute requires recording to be posted within three working days of a meeting and minutes within 30 days. When approved, the minutes will be posted within three days.

The changes also would make meeting materials available to the public prior to board meetings. That would include presentation materials from the staff or others. However, the board may receive confidential, proprietary or draft-form information — including company financial details, negotiation matters or real estate information — that will continue to be unavailable to the public.

Another change specifies how public-comment periods of meetings will take place.

Board member Mike Schultz, a state representative from Hooper, said he hopes the changes will result in “good, constructive comments from the public that really help us move forward in the proper manner.”

“A lot of times, if you’re always the one commenting, you’re always the one bringing up the same issues over and over again, people tend to tune you out, and your words and your comments generally don’t become constructive at that point in time and help further the cause,” he said.

“We see that happen a lot in our legislative meetings. They’re the same people coming in over and over, and say the same things or very similar things. I’ve watched it happen, [and] the committee generally tunes them out. And I don’t want that to happen [here] because I truly believe in the public process and the comment process. …”{/mprestriction}