Court fees kill in-depth news

Small businesses fail left and right. Higher education remains under the financial knife. Newspapers fight to maintain profitability. No industry is truly immune to this current recession, not even the state government.
The Utah State Court is now also scurrying to find another line of revenue to augment their hemorrhaging cash flow. State online court assistance fees brought in $75,000 in revenue for 2009; with a new budget appropriation for 2010, their revenue raised 57 percent to $251,000. Obviously the courts realize how substantial of an increase in revenue will be gathered with a new rule change. However, this most recent attempt by the courts to implement new fees is at a cost that not only affects media organizations, but also whether or not Utahns will receive in-depth news stories.
According to the Utah legislature Web site, money in the budget for the state court system is mainly funded by the state general fund. However, a “significant amount of revenue is generated by court fees.” These fees are moved into the state’s general fund and given to the courts by the legislature. A definite revenue generator for the courts and new amendment to Rule 4-202.08 would pose a significant threat to hard news reporting and in-depth investigations informing the public.
With only one and a half weeks of warning, the Utah State Court coyly mailed a letter stating the new rule would go into effect Feb. 1 and all complementary media subscriptions to the online court database Web site known as Xchange would now cost $30 a month. Those free accounts that provided all media in Utah with open transparency to state cases now would bear a financial weight.
The Signpost was displeased to note an omitted yet crucial part of the agreement on the letter sent to media organizations. According to the full detail of Rule 4-202.08, numerous changes were made, which were not included in the letter. It was not listed that in addition to a $0.10 per search charge for searches over the monthly allotment of 200, there would also be a $2.50 charge every time a document was accessed or the actual court docket was opened for viewing purposes.
If The Signpost were to do the exact same project done last year investigating felons working at Weber State University with this new rule implemented, it would cost $120 ($0.10 per search) for searching 1,400 employee names in addition to the initial 200 monthly searches provided. There would be a one-time setup fee of $25 plus a monthly $30 charge for membership. This is not too steep of a price to pay for a good, hard news investigation. However, it gets exponentially worse looking at the court dockets. Multiply 1,400 dockets to be searched at $2.50 per access and now the total is about $3,500. Now add the membership needed to accomplish this project over the seven months of the investigation — $235 including the start-up fee.
In total, this same investigation, which exposed at least eight felons working at Weber State University and led to the dismissal of at least three, came at no cost to The Signpost. However, with the new changes it would cost nearly $4,000 to complete. This cost estimate is a low-ball representation of the financial impact because these figures are only including a one-time search. In order to give accurate information a reporter would usually need to open a docket multiple times to fact-check and review dispositions, thus multiplying the fees yet again.
These cost implications for following cases online substantially hinders organizations from checking court dockets on an ongoing basis to keep current on an individual case.
As a watchdog for government agencies, we should not be discouraged from investigations based on financial limits. To keep government transparent this rule change is unreasonable at best for a large news media organization and insurmountable for college newspapers.
Because of outcry from state media organizations, the Feb. 1 implementation has now been postponed for a public comment period. It is imperative for citizens to comment during this period to ensure criminal and civil case reporting will continue to be brought to the people. Comments may be made or read by visiting  the 2010-03-16 Code of Judicial Administration portion of the site at www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/comments.