Employee Job Description
| Submitted | Jan. 22, 2019 |
| Due | Feb. 20, 2019 |
| Est. Completion | None |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Penny Allen
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:
Date of hire, job descriptions, and qualifications of the following employees whether current or former:
Charles W. Stevenson
Saeed Saber
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Penny Allen
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Jan. 22, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Kitsap County Human Resources
Good Morning,
Your request was forwarded to our Public Records Manager and you will receive a response shortly.
Regards,
Luci Bench
-
~WRD000
From: Kitsap County Human Resources
Ms. Allen,
In regards to your public disclosure request of January 22, 2019 for:
"Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:
Date of hire, job descriptions, and qualifications of the following employees whether current or former:
Charles W. Stevenson
Saeed Saber
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes."
The dates of hire and separation for the two individuals are:
* Stevenson, Charles Date of Hire: 03/01/2016 - Separation Date: 07/01/2018
* Saber, Saeed Date of 07/08/1996 - Currently Employed
Attached please find records responsive to your request. The required qualifications for each job is included in the provided job descriptions.
To the extent that the employee application would provide their qualifications we have provided those applications, however, per RCW 42.56.250(2) employment and licensing information of applicants for public employment are exempt from disclosure. Therefor there are white boxes (redactions) on various pages of the responsive documents being provided. A white box may be small or large depending on the amount of information redacted. There may also be multiple redactions on one page. On the page or within the redaction itself, there may be one or more reference codes [e.g. 2A, 2B, ..]. Each code identifies the statutory exemption(s) applicable to the redacted information. If there is only one reference code identified on the page, but numerous redactions, that one statutory exemption applies to all of the redactions on that page. Otherwise, the reference code printed within the redaction designates the exemption for that redaction. The Exemption Code key identifies the statutory basis for the exemption as well as provides brief explanation for why the exemption applies to the redacted information. When reviewing the responsive documents provided, please refer to the Exemption Code Key to identify the exemption and its applicability. We have attempted to apply consistent redactions on document that contain the same information. The disclosure of information in the records being produced does not in any way constitute a waiver of attorney-client and/or work product privileges.
This is our final definitive response and we are closing our file.
If you have any questions, concerns or if we can assist with any future public disclosure requests please feel free to contact our office at any time.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Brockman
Mark J. Brockman
Public Records Coordinator
614 Division St. MS-7
Port Orchard, WA 98366
360-307-4261
-
image001
From: Penny Allen
Hi,
Thanks so much for your help with this request! I really appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Penny Allen
From: Penny Allen
Hello Mr. Brockman,
Thank you for the portions of the request which were fulfilled. Respectfully, I appeal the decision to redact the portions: "job applications"
The Washington State law says that only exempt portions should be redacted and I have received completely whited out pages.
(a) Redactions. If a portion of a record is exempt from disclosure, but the remainder is not, an agency generally is required to redact (black out) the exempt portion and then provide the remainder. RCW 42.56.210(1). There are a few exceptions.6 Withholding an entire record where only a portion of it is exempt violates the act.7
Other Information. The extent to which information about employees can be considered to be private and of no legitimate concern to the public has not been fully defined but has been addressed as applying to intimate details of personal life that a person “does not expose to the public eye, but keeps entirely to himself or at most reveals only to his family or close personal friends.” Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. (2008). The discussion of “invasion of privacy” is in Chapter 2.1B. Information that could be protected includes health information, marital status, disability, and reasonable accommodations.
4. Public Employees’ Home Information and Identification: RCW 42.56.250(3) and (8)
For public employees, volunteers, and individual home health care workers, this section exempts their home addresses and telephone numbers, personal cell phone numbers and email addresses, social security and driver’s licenses or state identicard numbers, and emergency contact information.
For employees of criminal justice agencies, their photographs and month and year of birth are also exempt, except if requested by the news media. This section is intended to protect these employees from the offender population, as shown by the exclusion from the definition of news media of persons held in custody of these agencies.
B. No Stand-Alone "Privacy" Exemption
The PRA does not have a stand-alone “privacy” exemption. The PRA has a description of when privacy is invaded, described at RCW 42.56.050, but that statute is not an exemption. RCW 42.56.050 expressly states that it does not, by itself, “create any right of privacy beyond those rights that are specified in this chapter as express exemptions from the public's right to inspect, examine, or copy public records.” RCW 42.56.050 also explains that, when an exemption within the PRA protects “privacy,” it allows withholding only if disclosure: (1) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. This two-part test requires proof of both elements. King County v. Sheehan (2002)
The subjects named in the sought records are government/public employees and their qualifications for their positions and previous work experience which qualified them for their positions and educational backgrounds are not reasonably private as it is not highly offensive to a reasonable person and it is of public interest.
I request reconsideration of the redacted portions of the documents to disclose the qualifications, education or training presented by the government employees on their applications for employment which qualified them for their positions. The requested information is not what an employee “does not expose to the public eye, but keeps entirely to himself or at most reveals only to his family or close personal friends.
Very truly,
P. Allen
From: Kitsap County Human Resources
Ms. Allen,
My office has received your request (attached) to appeal the redactions of "job applications" provided in response to your public disclosure request number 79. We are reading your request to be a request for an administrative review pursuant to Kitsap County Code 3.76.120. Accordingly I will forward your appeal to the Prosecuting Attorney for consideration.
If you have any questions, concerns or if we can assist with any future public disclosure requests please feel free to contact our office at any time.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Brockman
Mark J. Brockman
Public Records Coordinator
614 Division St. MS-7
Port Orchard, WA 98366
360-307-4261
-
image001
From: Kitsap County Human Resources
Ms. Allen,
Please find an attached letter in response to your appeal to request public records.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact our office.
Thank you.
Karyn A. Szymanski
Legal Assistant
General Felony & Drug Units
Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office
Desk: 360-337-7239
Fax: 360-337-4949
kszymans@co.kitsap.wa.us<mailto:kszymans@co.kitsap.wa.us>
[Kitsap County Prosecutor's office]
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This message contains information that may be confidential per RCW 13.50.050 or 42CFR, Part2. If this message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure, or distribution of its contents is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please contact me at the email address listed above and delete this message without printing, copying, or forwarding it. Thank you.
-
image001
From: Penny Allen
Dear Mr. Brockman,
I received the prosecuting attorney's office letter supporting your denial of the originally requested record. However, the denial fails to address my appeal specifically where the RCW explains that "if a portion of a record is exempt from disclosure, but the remainder is not, an agency generally is required to redact the exempt portion and then provide the remainder. RCW 42.56.210(1).
The decision to deny my appeal did not consider the specific points of my concern where my appeal was not for the entire records themselves but that the records were "overly redacted". The denial fails to consider that while specific information provided by the applicants may be exempt, portions f the documents that are not exempt were also redacted.
Please provide copies of the original applications with only the private information redacted. To clarify, I would expect to see any headings on forms, the date of the application. The questions asked or field titles such as "name" "prior experience" "references" Only redacting the information the employee provided but not the form itself.; the portions of the forms that are not private.
Very truly,
P. Allen