City of Beaufort makes huge FOIA gaffe

Beaufort couple gets 9,000 pages of unredacted emails; much of it shouldn’t have been released

By Mike McCombs

The Island News

In the process of fulfilling a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by a citizen on July 29, the City of Beaufort mistakenly released information it was not required to release and that it should not have produced, potentially compromising the personal information and privacy of numerous individuals and causing the City to re-evaluate how it handles requests for information.

When Autumn Hollis submitted a FOIA request to the City of Beaufort in May, she and her husband, Kiel, were hoping to learn more about how the Beaufort Police Department handled the case of their daughter Emily and others like it.

The Hollis family contends their then-12-year-old daughter was a victim of human trafficking in February, while the Beaufort Police maintained initially that she was a runaway and now says any trafficking took place outside its jurisdiction.

When the Hollis family received the documents fulfilling their request from the City, they were stunned. In more than 9,000 pages of emails, not including attachments, of which there are many, almost nothing is redacted.

In addition to hundreds of pages of documents pertaining specifically to the Hollis case – surprisingly including their daughter’s full forensic examination, recorded as part of the sexual assault investigation and usually released only after a court order — there are thousands that are totally unrelated. And it’s what’s in those documents that may be more concerning.

— There are the Social Security numbers and addresses of at least 55 individuals across hundreds of documents.

— There is another minor’s forensic interview, released without the family’s knowledge.

— There are records that include private medical and DSS-protected information.

— There are emails involving the employment/personnel details for members of the Beaufort Police Department.

— There are toxicology reports for numerous individuals.

— There are attachments showing the Beaufort Police Department has hidden or deleted more than 800 comments on a Facebook page.

— There are numerous emails which contain the reset login/password for Spillman for more than one officer with the Beaufort Police Department. Spillman is the computer software system used by the Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office, as well as other local municipalities, to handle things like dispatch, charges, bookings, and the jail log at the Beaufort County Detention Center, among other things.

— There are emails discussing the issues with the structure of the Henry C. Chambers Waterfront Park and funding for repairs.

— And there is an email chain between the City of Beaufort and one of its attorneys pertaining to the lawsuit over the Downtown Marina contract by Protect Beaufort.

“The fact that the city released unredacted forensic interviews, Social Security numbers, juvenile records, and other protected information didn’t just support my claim — it exposed a much larger failure of responsibility,” Emily Hollis said in an email to The Island News. “I set out to find proof of negligence. I didn’t expect the FOIA response to be the proof.”

Autumn and Kiel Hollis allowed The Island News to view the documents they received, to confirm their existence. During roughly two hours at their home, we were not allowed to take photos or print any documents, but we were allowed to take notes. At the time this story was written, The Island News was the only news organization, so far, to view the documents.

“There’s no telling how much information is in there that we don’t know about,” Kiel Hollis said.

How we got here

In early February, Emily Hollis was reported missing from her home in Beaufort.

Last seen in the company of 16-year-old Chase Eskeets, Emily Hollis and Eskeets were reported by the Beaufort Police Department as runaways. After several days, the pair was found in Jacksonville, Fla.

Soon thereafter, the Hollis family was contacted by South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Special Agent Logan Fey, who assisted them by putting them into contact with S.C. Department of Social Services (DSS), a common practice with runaway or missing children’s cases.

In May, it was determined through an investigation by DSS that Emily Hollis was likely the victim of human trafficking, and the case has sparked debate regarding the police’s use of the term “runaway,” their treatment of the family and their general handling of the case.

Complicating matters, in February, shortly after Emily Hollis’ disappearance, all members of Beaufort City Council signed and published an open letter to the community – a rare occurrence — responding to public outcry against the use of the term “runaway.” In the letter, members of Council offered their support to the police department for their handling of the case.

At least a week before the conclusion of the DSS investigation in May, Autumn Hollis had submitted her FOIA to the City of Beaufort. Her request covered several months and was quite broad.

Kiel Hollis said they were looking for anything they could find to justify why the Beaufort Police had come to the conclusions they had or any evidence they had not handled the investigation the way they should, both in his daughter’s case or any similar cases during the same time frame.

On Monday, May 12, Ashley Brandon, the City of Beaufort’s Public Information Officer, suggested in an email that Autumn Hollis should narrow her search terms.

“In the initial run of the public records and communications requested we have returned 17,099 emails/communications from the requested time frame. I am happy to put the full request together, but that many emails/communications will require a time frame much longer than the 30 days as all 17,099 will require sensitive information redacted,” Brandon wrote.

Autumn Hollis agreed to Brandon’s suggestion and the number of emails/communications was cut from 17,099 to just more than 9,000.

Autumn Hollis emailed Brandon on Tuesday, July 22, asking for an update. On Thursday, July 24, Brandon replied, “I estimate to have your emails redacted and to you by the end of next week. Unfortunately changing the keywords now will delay that as we will have to reprocess everything and start the redaction over. I am a team of one so the redaction process is taking quite a while as I specified in prior emails. I look forward to completing these and send the subject matter to you as soon as possible. If it will require more time past the end of next week, I will let you know.”

When Autumn and Kiel Hollis received the email with the results of their request on Tuesday, July 29, the lack of redactions caught them off guard.

“This is not an [IT] issue, it’s an oversight issue,” Kiel Hollis said. “They didn’t check to make sure there wasn’t information that wasn’t redacted.”

The initial response?

Autumn and Kiel Hollis got a lot more information than they expected and a truckload more than the City intended to give them. But until City Councilman Josh Scallate asked for the same information Autumn Hollis had requested, the City had no idea.

“At the time,” City Manager Scott Marshall said, “we did not have the knowledge there were unredacted items in the release.”

According to Scallate, Council isn’t typically notified of a FOIA request. In this case, he said he learned of the request from a Facebook post by one of the Hollis family members about the 9,000-page release – Autumn and Kiel Hollis have made numerous social media posts about the FOIA and the City’s response — and possible evidence the city had created a “false narrative.”

As a result, Scallate contacted Marshall and requested the information himself on Wednesday, July 30, and received the information from Brandon on the morning of Thursday, July 31. No formal FOIA request was necessary. As an elected official, Scallate said he can review, upon request, information for which the City is the custodian.

“That evening I opened [the FOIA response] up and quickly recognized that some information that would usually be redacted was not,” Scallate said. “I immediately notified both Scott [Marshall] and [Assistant City Manager] J.J. [Suave] and showed them that much of what was originally redacted had been reversed once sent out and was actually visible to the recipient.”

Several days later, on Monday, Aug. 4, Suave called Autumn Hollis and told her and Kiel together on the phone that the City had mistakenly included some documents in the FOIA response that should have been redacted.

“I’ll just ask that you don’t release the unredacted version,” Suave can be heard saying in the recorded phone call.

He went on to explain that some of the documents had been redacted while others had not.

“Nothing has a redaction,” Kiel Hollis said, surprising Suave.

“None of the emails has a redaction?” Suave asked.

“No,” Kiel Hollis said.

Later in the conversation, Suave offers to provide a correctly redacted version of the FOIA response.

“I would like to get you a copy that is redacted,” he said.

Autumn Hollis told Suave they didn’t need it.

“No, I think we’re good,” she said.

According to Marshall, when Suave made the phone call to Autumn and Kiel Hollis, he asked them to destroy the unredacted files. But you cannot hear Suave say that in the recording.

“They did ask us not to share any of the information,” Kiel Hollis said, “but they didn’t ask us to destroy it.”

“They just asked us not to release anything, and we’re not,” Autumn Hollis said. “But if a reporter wants to come look at it, they can.”

According to Marshall, the City has sent Autumn and Kiel Hollis a certified letter requesting that they destroy the unredacted file in exchange for a correctly redacted version.

As of Monday, Aug. 11, they have not received that letter.

How did it happen and what’s next?

Marshall said the City had identified what had caused the documents to go out unredacted.

“We have successfully replicated the phenomenon,” Marshall said. “There were five large individual PDF files. They were combined into a single file for ease of access for the recipient. When they were combined into a single file, they lost some of their redactive characteristics.”

When asked if someone checked the documents one last time before they hit send, wouldn’t this mistake have been avoided, Marshall said, “if each individual page of those 9,000 [pages] was looked at, yes. As I understand it, the final [document] was spot checked.”

When asked who was responsible for filling the FOIA request and ultimately providing the recipient with the files, Marshall responded it was the FOIA officer and a second level of supervision, as well.

The FOIA officer would be Brandon.

In her May 12 email to Autumn Hollis, Brandon wrote, “I will be handling the total of the FOIA so as to have everything completed and sent as one from all the departments.”

But Marshall was quick to take the blame.

“Ultimately, the city manager is responsible for all programs, …” he said. “Responsibility stops with me.”

On Tuesday, Aug. 5, after details about the FOIA request began to become public, the City of Beaufort released a public statement addressing the release of information. For those without knowledge of the information dump, the statement likely sounded cryptic.

The statement read, “In responding to a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from an individual, the City of Beaufort inadvertently disclosed information that was exempt from disclosure and should not have been produced. Upon becoming aware of the issue, City staff immediately removed access to the affected files. The City is currently assessing the scope of the disclosure, ensuring that there is no further dissemination of the information, and notifying any impacted individuals.”

It’s unclear what removing “access to the affected files” means. The attachments to the emailed documents can still be accessed by the recipient.

And it will be difficult to ensure that “there is no further dissemination of the information.”

According to Taylor Smith, an attorney for the S.C. Press Association and an expert on the Freedom of Information Act, the City of Beaufort has no control over the information once it has been released.

Smith said someone may be held liable when publishing things like the Social Security numbers, addresses and other specific personal information that was accidentally released, but that the City cannot tell Autumn and Kiel Hollis what they can release.

The City has taken steps to try and ensure something like this doesn’t happen again. In its Aug. 5 statement, Marshall, who said he “is committed to operating with transparency while fully complying with FOIA requirements, including the safeguarding of information that is exempt from public release,” announced the City’s new NextRequest system.

Purportedly in the works since February the new FOIA management platform is supposed to enhance data security, incorporate safeguards, and significantly reduce response times, staff workload, and the likelihood of future disclosure errors, according to the City. FOIA requests should now be submitted online via the NextRequest portal at https://cityofbeaufortsc.nextrequest.com/.

Marshall said the system would likely have prevented a mistake like the response to Autumn Hollis’ FOIA request.

“It would have provided additional accountability measures,” he said.

You likely won’t color Autumn Hollis impressed.

“The trauma of having my child’s confidential interview — one that detailed abuse and exploitation — released like a public document has been devastating. Other families will also be impacted by this breach,” she said. “… My entire goal in requesting these FOIA records was to prove negligence in how my daughter’s case was handled. I never expected the response itself to prove my point so clearly.”

Editor’s note: In the interest of full disclosure, The Island News Assistant Editor Delayna Earley interviewed for the position of Public Information Officer for the City of Beaufort, the position eventually filled by Ashley Brandon.

The Island News Assistant Editor Delayna Earley contributed to this story.

Mike McCombs is the Editor of The Island News and can be reached at TheIslandNews@gmail.com.