Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. reiterated this week that the idea of keeping secret the amounts of Utah incentive money awarded to companies for job creation might not become policy.

But in a meeting Tuesday with the Deseret Morning News editorial board, the governor also said that doing so could help Utah avoid getting into an "arms race of sorts" with other states offering money to the same companies.

"I don't know if we've had enough in the way of making these kinds of offers to . . . really have established a policy," Huntsman said. "We're trying to find something that we're comfortable with right now. And I really don't know what that's going to be. . . .

"We've had our first meeting on the incentives committee, and I think we'll probably try to strike that balance going forward."

Huntsman was referring to the Industrial Assistance Fund committee, a subset of the state Board of Business and Economic Development. That committee normally meets in private to discuss and decide which companies should receive IAF money if they fulfill their commitments to adding high-paying jobs in the state through expansion or relocating operations to Utah.

The full board — in a public meeting — votes based on the committee's recommendations and has traditionally revealed the dollar amount and other terms of the incentive. A few times, the board has kept the company name confidential.

On May 20, board chairman David Simmons and Martin Frey, co-director of the Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, said the IAF committee has suggested that the dollar amounts not be made public. The logic behind the move is that Utah's amount, if known, could more easily be topped by another state.

One alternative being considered is revealing the dollar amount, but only after the company has created the jobs or met other approval criteria.

"I don't know that we've made a final decision on that, first of all," Huntsman told the editorial board. "Second of all, I think disclosure is a good thing. The question becomes, when do you make that disclosure? Do you disclose it as soon as it is made available, so that your competing state then knows about it and ups the ante and you have an arms race of sorts?

"I don't know if that, just from a pure pragmatic business standpoint, is the right thing to do. I think you lose more longer-term because you up the ante if it's done state-by-state, an open-bidding kind of thing."

The new approach did not elicit much board discussion the previous Friday. Board member Clifford White said after the meeting that he preferred keeping incentive amounts public but, after hearing Frey discuss the rationale behind the possible change, said he wants to get more input before deciding on the matter.

One thing possibly hindering the discussion was a lack of attendance: Five of the 15 members, including three of six new members, were absent. Three other members attended by conference call.

The discussion could spill over into the board's next meeting, which will be via conference call June 17.

---

E-mail: lisa@desnews.com; bwallace@desnews.com