Back in July, I raised questions about a quarterly report of personal services contracts that the city is required to produce. The problem is that names of those receiving these contracts are removed from the report somewhere between the time it is prepared by the city’s Department of Human Resources and the point it is entered as a public record into the city’s Docushare system.

The names have been stripped off all the quarterly reports filed since Mayor Hannemann took office. Prior to that time, the complete reports, including names of contractors, were part of the public record.

These quarterly reports have been required since 1997, and are intended to deter political favoritism in award of these jobs. But it’s hard to use the report to hold the city accountable for its hiring practices if key information is treated as confidential and withheld from public view.

When I raised the issue in July, there was some push back by the city. At that time I was nearing the end of my brief stint on the staff of the late City Council Member Duke Bainum. I was working at the council when I noticed the discrepancy between the original report (complete with names of contractors) and the one filed as a public record (with names omitted).

After blogging about the issue, a complaint was received apparently alleging that I had misused confidential information in violation of the city’s ethics law by referring to the original document containing the names. That document is circulated to council offices with a stamp indicating it is considered “confidential”.

When queried, I responded that the complete document is a public record, was treated as a public record until Mayor Hannemann took office, and that it may be illegal for the city to pretend otherwise.

In any case, the matter didn’t go any further. But the pushback did get my attention.

So when the most recent report, covering the three months ending September 30, became available via the Docushare sytem, I quickly checked it out. Once again the names were removed before it was filed as a public record.

On October 27, I filed a document request with the city seeking a copy of the unredacted report, citing Chapter 92F HRS, the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified). I addressed the request to the Department of Human Resources, which prepares the original reports, with a copy of Managing Director Kirk Caldwell.

I haven’t received any response yet from the city. OIP rules require the document to be produced or an explanation provided within ten working days of receipt of the request. Allowing several days for my request to be delivered, we are probably still within that 10 day window, but the clock is ticking.

Furlough Fridays will also delay the response. This notice is posted on the OIP web site:

NOTICE Regarding Furlough Days:

Under the UIPA and OIP’s administrative rules, the time limits for agencies to respond to records requests are set forth as specified numbers of business or working days.

For purposes of calculating the agency response time limits, a furlough day shall not be considered a business or working day, unless the agency or division thereof is open for the transaction of public business.

I’m hoping that a copy of the report will be promptly provided by the city, but maybe I’m just being optimistic. We’ll see.