A couple upset about their daughter being labeled a runaway requested files on the case from the Beaufort Police Department, unexpectedly receiving thousands of unredacted files containing private information.

Beaufort city officials spoke with and said the release was an error that they’re not taking lightly.

According to officials from the City of Beaufort, this request marked the largest open records request the city had ever handled. Initial findings suggested an error within their computer system as the cause.

“This is another blow to the city, and it stings,” said Beaufort City Manager Scott Marshall. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, which worsens the situation. We’re committed to being as transparent as possible. Clearly, in this instance, we may have gone too far. Nonetheless, transparency remains our goal.”

Autumn and William Hollis received 9,000 unredacted files from the City of Beaufort through an open record request.

They told they wanted more information on how the city and police handled their daughter’s case, but they ended up with a load of files unrelated.

This included city budget information, several minor forensic interviews, attorney client privilege between the city and its council and more.

“There’s a heavy atmosphere at city hall. This isn’t something we’re proud of, and it’s something we definitely aim to prevent,” Marshall stated. “We have a duty to protect sensitive information, and clearly, that duty was not fulfilled this time. We are taking full responsibility for this and are taking steps to prevent future occurrences and address the current situation.”

The city’s initial findings showed an error in their computer software.

Officials said record redactions go through a two-step process before it is converted into a zip file and sent over to the requester.

Marshall said in this case, part of that process broke down.

When the city became aware of the files the Hollis’s had received, they could see that the boxes were not filled, revealing the private material.

“We noticed that areas marked for redaction were highlighted in red, indicating they should be redacted,” explained Marshall. “Yet, the contents were still visible. This was not the case when the FOI officer initially performed the redaction.”

Marshall elaborated that the redaction boxes are supposed to black out the content when files are converted and transferred, but this process failed.

In response to being asked if the files should be checked one more time after being converted into a zip file and sent, officials responded that they didn’t want to comment much on that because they aren’t looking to make excuses.

“Anything I say will sound like an excuse and we’re not looking to excuse what happened at all,” said Marshall. “It is a reasonable expectation, I think that when you have something redacted and, in several files, and that you combine those files, the redaction qualities remain.”

Marshall said that “clearly didn’t happen.”

Assistant city manager JJ Suave reached out to the Hollis’s by phone after becoming aware of the unredacted files.

Marshall said Suave explained what happened to the Hollis’s, and what they suggested the couple do going forward.

“We suggested that they destroy the file that they have, and we would provide them with a file that was properly redacted.  That request was refused,” said Marshall.

The city said they also notified the Hollis’s to not share any of the sensitive or private information released with the public.

“We’ve also sent them a letter to that effect,” said Marshall. “Now that they are aware of that, they do have a duty as well to protect that information.”

The city is in the process of notifying people whose information may have been leaked in the file dump.

“We have a process where we’re internally reviewing all the information that was released to identify those whose information was improperly released so we can notify those individuals,” said Marshall.

The city is also conducting an internal investigation into the error, as well as bringing in a third party to assess the matter.

Several citizens have taken to social media after the city sent out a press release addressing the investigation, saying they needed the outside review to prove there was no bias.

When asked if that’s why the city was bringing in a third party to help with the investigation, Marshall responded, “It’s not in response to the outcry. It’s just the right thing to do.”

A part of the release the city sent out was the introduction of a new FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) system.

This is the system that allows the public to request open records from federal agencies.  

The city said the new system was not a result or response to the error in the previous system.

“It is something that we’ve had in the works for months now.  We actually implemented the system on Monday before we released the documents that were responsive to the Hollis’s request on Tuesday,” said Marshall. “So, it’s coincidental that it came out close to the same time because we’ve had three or four or five months where we’ve been in the process of implementing the system.”

The city also said that they were not aware of any previous incidents of faulty FOIA releases.

“To my knowledge, this has not happened on a smaller scale before. So, beyond that, I’m not sure what I can tell you with regard to the history of whether this has been a repetitive issue or not,” said Marshall. “It’s great that we have it now because it’s a much better system.  There is a greatly reduced chance or greatly reduced risk of the same disclosure of protected information happening again.”

Whether someone will be personally held responsible is unclear at this time, but officials said there is a possibility.

“I can be held responsible for it.  I’m the city manager. Anything that we do that comes in and out of the city is my responsibility,” said Marshall. “Beyond that, we are going to need to have this external look. I think that will give us an unbiased look at what happened and then we’ll take it from there and see what the results of that review are.”