You are right that over the years the Legislature has fine-tuned within the subsections of Chapter 92F what is a public record and what is confidential and usually that finetuning trimmed back disclosure to the public.

But these changes made within the structure of the statute did not diminish the authority or the role of OIP itself, as does SB2858, and these changes did not create legislative ambiguity because agencies were barred from challenging OIP. In that sense, SB2858 provides an agency an escape hatch to avoid releasing its record that OIP has determined the public is entitled to under the statute or at least delay its release.

Not until Abercrombie refused to release the names of judicial candidates that OIP directed should be released by his office did I see any instance of where an agency refused to comply with an OIP decision for disclosure to the public. If you know of any other cases, please let us know.

About lawsuits over the past 24 years, Chapter 92F barred agencies suing OIP until S.B. 2858 . But on public meetings governed by the Sunshine Law (Chapter 92) not until 2009 did the Intermediate Court of Appeals decide that OIP had erred in relying on Chapter 92F arguments in its mandating disclosure of closed-door minutes of a Kauai County Council meeting ; OIP should have been examining the more specific language of Chapter 92 (Sunshine Law), which governed release of these Council minutes, the ICA ruled.

Moreover, unlike Chapter 92F, Chapter 92 permits “any person” to bring suit in circuit court for an alleged violation of the Sunshine Law–and the ICA indicated that “any person” included a public agency as related to its conduct of an official public meeting.

That ICA decision left untouched the legislative history that under Chapter 92F OIP’s mandate for public disclosure could not be challenged by a public agency dissatisfied with OIP’s decision.

And that legislative history barring agency lawsuits was complied with during 24 years that included the administrations of a Republican governor and two Democratic governors.

In that sense, SB2858 erodes a key provision of Chapter 92F–Hawaii’s Freedom of Information Law–and opens the door for more litigation. Thanks. Bev Keever