Opinion ID: 1186902
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: are employment applications open to inspection?

Text: We turn next to the question whether the appellants were justified in refusing to disclose the employment applications involved in these cases. In general, questions such as these require a balance to be struck between the public interest in disclosure on the one hand and the privacy and reputation interests of the affected individuals and the government's interest in confidentiality, on the other. The process of balancing has been described as follows: In determining whether the records should be made available for inspection in any particular instance, the court must balance the interest of the citizen in knowing what the servants of government are doing and the citizen's proprietary interest in public property, against the interest of the public in having the business of government carried on efficiently and without undue interference. The initial decision as to whether inspection will be permitted must, of course, rest with the custodian of the records. And since the justification for a refusal to permit inspection will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case, we can offer no specific guide for that administrative decision. ... . In balancing the interests referred to above, the scales must reflect the fundamental right of a citizen to have access to the public records as contrasted with the incidental right of the agency to be free from unreasonable interference. The citizen's predominant interest may be expressed in terms of the burden of proof which is applicable in this class of cases; the burden is cast upon the agency to explain why the records sought should not be furnished. Ultimately, of course, it is for the courts to decide whether the explanation is reasonable and to weigh the benefits accruing to the agency from non-disclosure against the harm which may result to the public if such records are not made available for inspection. [Citation omitted]. MacEwan v. Holm, 226 Or. 27, 359 P.2d 413, 421-22 (1961) (In Banc). In striking a proper balance the custodian of the records in the first instance, and the court in the next, should bear in mind that the legislature has expressed a bias in favor of public disclosure. Doubtful cases should be resolved by permitting public inspection. Appellants argue that they have an interest in attracting the largest and most qualified applicant pool ... and that this can best be accomplished by not disclosing the names and resumes of applicants. Further, they argue that applicants have a constitutionally protected privacy interest [23] in keeping confidential the fact that they have applied, and the contents of their applications. They argue that this interest is especially strong under the circumstances of these cases where the applications were made with the expectation that they would remain confidential. There is a strong public interest in disclosure of the affairs of government generally, and in an open selection process for high public officials in particular. AS 44.62.312(a) powerfully expresses the philosophy underlying this: It is the policy of the state that (1) the governmental units mentioned in AS 44.62.310(a) exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business; (2) it is the intent of the law that actions of those units be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly; (3) the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them; (4) the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know; (5) the people's right to remain informed shall be protected so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. In addition, §§ .110 and .120 articulate a broad policy of open records. Public officials such as City Managers, and Chiefs of Police have substantial discretionary authority. The qualifications of the occupants of such offices are of legitimate public concern. Disclosing the names and applications of applicants allows interested members of the public, such as the newspapers here, to verify the accuracy of the representations made by the applicants, and to seek additional information which may be relevant to the selection process. The applicants' claim that revealing the names and applications of office seekers will narrow the field of applicants and ultimately prejudice the interests of good government is not sufficiently compelling to overcome the public's interest in disclosure. In each of these cases a majority of the applicants did not seek to withdraw their applications rather than make them public. It is not intuitively obvious that most well qualified potential applicants for positions of authority in municipal governments will be deterred from applying by a public selection process, and we have been referred to no studies tending to prove that point. The applicants' individual privacy interests in having their names and applications not revealed are also not of an order sufficient to overcome the public's interest. The applicants are seeking high government positions. Public officials must recognize their official capacities often expose their private lives to public scrutiny. [24] Further, the information sought is that which has been voluntarily provided by the applicants to the municipalities. It is unlikely to be particularly embarrassing if publicly revealed. [25] It may be that in some cases an individual will not wish his current employer to know that he has applied for another job. That desire is one which cannot be accommodated where the job sought is a high public office. Even if the law did not compel disclosure of each application, at some point before the final selection, as both appellants acknowledge, prudence would require the municipality to contact the employers of those applicants whose applications are being seriously considered. Nonetheless, in Anchorage, the applicants were promised confidentiality, and in Kenai several applicants at least assumed that their names and applications would not be divulged. Since the law does not permit a confidential application, we believe that both courts acted properly in allowing those applicants who desired confidentiality to withdraw their applications without public disclosure. There is little or no public interest in the names of withdrawn candidates. On the other hand, those candidates obviously believed that public disclosure would prejudice them in their current positions. With respect to the applicants who withdrew their names, the balance was properly struck in favor of non-disclosure.