F24-07
Posted on Jun 21, 2024 in Formal OpinionsOpinion Ltr. No. F24-07
June 21, 2024
Interview Materials and Information
Requester sought copies of records about his job interview from the Department of Budget and Finance (B&F). B&F granted in part and denied in part his request, and Requester appealed. OIP issued U MEMO 18-12 in 2018, concluding that B&F (1) properly withheld interview questions and interviewers’ notes; (2) other applicants’ names on B&F’s selection report could be withheld; (3) the guidelines for recruitment process, introduction sheet, and interview ratings must be disclosed; and (4) position titles, position numbers, departments, and names of government employees who were on Requester’s interview panel must be disclosed. Over two years after OIP issued U MEMO 18-12, Requester contacted B&F to obtain copies of these records. Requester also sent B&F a new October 2020 request, which B&F granted in part, and provided him with redacted responsive records. Requester submitted a December 2020 request for “[a]ll interviewing rating sheets for all applicants [not including himself] completed by all interview panel members.” B&F responded to the December 2020 request by informing Requester that it conducted a search for the records but was unable to locate them because they had been destroyed in accordance with its retention schedule. Requester appealed B&F’s response to his October and December 2020 requests, which resulted in this appeal.
First, OIP found that B&F properly disclosed redacted copies of all records as directed by OIP in U MEMO 18‑12. Next, although the records relating to Requester’s December 2020 Request were destroyed prior to the issuance of U MEMO 18-12, OIP found that the destruction was not improper because at the time of destruction, the records were not the subject of a pending request. OIP also found that B&F properly maintained the requested records that were the subject of U MEMO 18-12 while it was pending, and that staff conducted a reasonable search for records.
Next, as to Requester’s allegations that fees charged by B&F were too high, OIP found that, although B&F disclosed only six pages of redacted records, it’s explanation that a “considerable amount of time” was spent reviewing the files because Requester sought the records over two years after the issuance of U MEMO 18-12, and a substantial period of time passed since his original 2014 request, was credible. Further, OIP found that B&F’s time spent to search for, review, and segregate records subject to U MEMO 18-12 and the October 2020 request was not excessive.
Finally, OIP concluded that the itemization requirement in OIP’s administrative rules is satisfied when an agency indicates what record request each portion of the bill pertains to and how much of the amount chargeable for each request is respectively due to search, review, and segregation time (with the amount of time indicated) or to other lawful fees (with an explanation of each type of cost such as postage or copy charges and a multiplier as appropriate). B&F met its obligations under section 2-71-19(d), HAR, by providing the information sought on how it calculated the review and segregation fees of $30 in the manner it did. OIP concluded that B&F met its obligation to “provide an itemized bill of fees assessed” to Requester under OIP’s administrative rules.