Conflicting Records and the Right to Access
A public-sector information manager receives a request from a journalist for a 40-page internal audit report. The report exists in two versions: a draft marked 'preliminary' from March and a final version from June that was circulated to a board committee. The requester asks for 'the audit report, including any drafts and working papers.' The organization's records schedule lists the report series as closed after five years, and the final report is three years old. Two sections of the final report name individual employees in the context of disciplinary findings. The manager's supervisor says 'just release the final, redact the names, and don't mention the draft exists.' The manager is unsure whether the draft is a separate record, whether the working papers are covered, and whether the supervisor's instruction is defensible.
1. How should the manager treat the draft and the working papers relative to the request?
Read the worked answer
The manager should first map the request to the records actually held. A 'preliminary' draft that was circulated and used in decision-making is generally a record in its own right, not merely a version of the final; working papers may also be records if they document the audit's conduct. The correct step is to search and identify all responsive records, then assess each against the applicable access and retention rules rather than defaulting to the final only.
The supervisor's instruction to conceal the draft's existence is not defensible: an access regime typically requires a complete search and a response that acknowledges what exists, even if some material is withheld under an exemption. The manager should document the search, list the responsive items, and apply exemptions item by item. Silently omitting the draft creates a compliance risk and undermines the audit trail. If the manager disagrees with the instruction, the appropriate move is to escalate in writing with the legal basis, not to comply quietly.
2. The final report names employees in disciplinary findings. What reasoning should guide the redaction decision?
Read the worked answer
Redaction is an exemption-by-exemption judgment, not a blanket rule. The manager should ask, for each name: what is the sensitivity, is there a legitimate public interest in the identity, and does the applicable regime protect personal information or disciplinary material? Naming employees in disciplinary findings usually engages privacy or personnel exemptions, but the public interest in accountability for an audit finding may weigh toward release of the finding while protecting the individual.
The defensible approach is to release the substance of the findings with names redacted where the exemption applies, and to record the reasoning for each redaction. The manager should not redact entire sections when targeted redaction suffices, and should not accept 'redact the names' as a complete answer without checking whether any name is already public or central to accountability. Each decision should cite the specific exemption and be reviewable.
3. What should the manager do about the supervisor's instruction?
Read the worked answer
The manager should separate the operational task from the ethical conflict. Operationally, the manager completes the search and prepares a response that reflects the records held. Ethically and professionally, the manager should raise the concern in writing, stating that concealing the draft's existence would misrepresent the search and could breach the access regime.
The manager should propose a compliant path: disclose that a draft exists, assess it for release or exemption, and document the decision. If the supervisor insists, the manager should escalate to a compliance or legal function and keep a record of the advice given and received. The key judgment is that professional integrity obligations survive a supervisor's instruction; the manager should not falsify a search or omit records to avoid conflict.