Johns and DFCM agree to redacted in-camera review; DFCM to produce marked/redacted files within one week

At a DGO hearing, Courtney Johns asked the director to order the Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM) to produce nonexempt site-identification and evaluation records relating to a proposed centralized homeless services campus or, alternatively, to conduct and document a supplemental search and provide a record-specific index.

Johns said the agency’s January response was inconsistent (at times relying on a statute to explain site identification and at other times asserting no responsive records exist) and that DFCM had not identified custodians, systems searched, or search terms. She asked for release of reasonably segregable factual and analytical material and suggested redactions or in-camera review for any claimed exemptions.

DFCM counsel Mister Kelly described the transaction as atypical: he said DFCM was told by statute which site to pursue rather than being assigned a competitive site-selection task, and thus DFCM may not have site-selection records. He acknowledged some evaluation materials were withheld as protected because negotiations are ongoing, but said the office had produced sample documents and would provide the withheld records for in-camera review. Kelly agreed to prepare both a ‘‘marked for redaction’’ version for the director and redacted copies to produce to Johns and proposed to deliver those materials within a week.

Director Pearson asked for redacted versions and the marked-for-redaction version to be provided and agreed to continue the matter to a later date so the parties and the office could review the proposed redactions. Counsel and Johns accepted the schedule; Kelly suggested a one-week turnaround and volunteered to work over the weekend to meet it.

The parties left the record with a plan for DFCM to submit redacted and marked-for-redaction files for review by the director and to use in-camera review if necessary.