Director orders disclosure of personnel action form page in Beach v. DHHS appeal

Harrison Beach told the director he needs a personnel action form to determine whether Aurora Hosey was terminated, resigned voluntarily, or was allowed to resign after allegations involving a staff-client relationship at Odyssey House. Beach said the department's explanations had shifted during the process and that the personnel action form was the single record most likely to answer the factual question.

DHHS counsel Miss Beal urged the director to classify the records as private under GRAMA and the state government-data-privacy act (GDPA), saying the records contain highly sensitive personal data and were gathered as part of a licensing investigation. "These records contain incredibly sensitive information, including bank account information, Social Security numbers... Releasing these records would clearly be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," Beal said.

After in-camera review the director concluded the personnel file material is generally private, but that page one (the personnel action form) should be disclosed with redactions for personal identifiers because the public interest in knowing whether the employee was fired or resigned outweighed the privacy interest in that single page. "That record can be redacted of any personal information... and I'm going to order disclosure of that 1st page," the director said. He ordered a written decision within seven business days and noted either party may appeal within 30 calendar days.

Why it matters: The order shows a narrow balancing approach: even when most of a personnel file is private, a limited, redacted disclosure can be appropriate when it answers a discrete, concrete public question about official action.

Next steps: The director will issue a written order with the permissible redactions within seven business days; the department must disclose the first page with redactions as ordered.