Hold on to your seats! Here we go on the latest round in the sunshine saga of how the city handles disclosure of a quarterly report of personal services contracts required since a 1997 city council resolution was adopted..
The latest twist. The personal services contracts listing for the October-December 2009 period was released earlier this month, on schedule. It appears in the Docushare system under Department Communications for 2010. Well, actually, it doesn’t appear. The transmittal letter accompanying the listing is logged into the system as Dept. Com. 30, but the document itself is not included. No public viewing via Docushare, although virtually all other city documents of this kind are readily available. Instead, the transmittal letter bears a new and highly unusual stamp: “Document(s) on file with clerk’s office.”
Meaning: “Yeah, you win. It’s a public record. But we’re not going to roll over and make it easy for the public to actually see it. You’ll have to come and get it.”
And I’m guessing that when I show up at the City Clerk’s office, they’ll make me pay to get a copy.
Now, a review of the background on this issue.
Last summer, during my brief period of employment at City Hall, I noticed a discrepancy between the version of this contracts list that was sent to the city council and distributed to council offices, and the version that was made public via the city’s online Docushare system.
The problem: The original version produced by the city’s Department of Human Resources and circulated within the city council lists out each contract, the name of the person receiving the contract, and information about the position, duration, etc. But the names of those holding contracts were stripped out of the version made available to the public. It was as if they didn’t exist.
There really shouldn’t be any problem. The underlying personal services contracts themselves must be publicly disclosed since state law specifically makes all government contracts a matter of public record.
When I dug into the archive, I found the reports done from 1997 up until Mayor Hannemann’s election in 2004 made public properly, complete with names. But beginning with the first report issued after Hannemann’s election, the names went missing.
There was no response from the city after I first raised the question. When the next report was made public without names, I requested a copy of the original from Human Resources. It was produced, names intact, but, once again, the version of the same document that was made public via Docushare was altered to remove the names.
I noted that the situation raises legal questions:
State law (Section 710-1017 HRS) defines the offense of tampering to include:
(a) The person knowingly and falsely makes, completes, or alters, or knowingly makes a false entry in, a written instrument which is or purports to be a government record or a true copy thereof;
As the legal commentary to the statute notes:
This section is intended to penalize conduct which undermines confidence in the accuracy of public records. The accuracy of public records is essential to efficient public administration and, beyond the immediate context of public administration, the government has an interest in protecting public confidence in its records.
Apparently worried about the “altering a government record” problem, the city–or someone in the city–is now simply holding this document behind the counter, like stores used to do with adult magazines. But unlilke adult magazines, this listing is required to be a public record.
And still unknown: Why is this happening? Is the fact that it started as soon as Mayor Hannemann took office simply a coincidence?
Stay tuned.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m still undecided on my choice Mufi vs. Neil. However, it has been suggested to me that I should expect a Mufi administration filled with illegal activities and corruption. The most we have ever seen in the State of Hawaii.
Perhaps we could all start filing evidence of this with Ian, where Mufi can come and ask him for copies.
This is a nice example of what makes your blog, and your work, valuable. It’s an obscure trail, but the implications of what it reveals (or appears that it might reveal) are certainly large.
Thanks.
The difference between Abercrombie and Hannemann is one of intent. Their administrations will both make mistakes and have incidents of less-than-ethical conduct. But with Hannemann these will be more frequent and much more likely to occur with malice aforethought.
Altering of records, public and not public, is not unusual in my experience. There is, however, apparently no enforcement of the laws, even when the incidents are known to the AG’s office, for example (as when DOE alters student records). I found an instance in 2006 where the legislature’s website does not reflect accurately what happened with a bill, but no correction was made. The public record is simply false.
The problem with this redaction practice is that at best it shows a misunderstanding of the law and a disrespect for the public.
Not sure what you mean when you say “there was no response from the city when” you first raised the question. If by “the city” you mean the Hannemann administration, well that would not be truthful, as I responded at the time and you acknowleged as much the follwing day. That said, this inference that the Hannemann administration is somehow complicit is totally misleading and without merit, as was explained then. What’s posted on DocuShare and what is required to be disclosed pursuant to HRS 92F request are two distinct matters. I understand that the City Clerk maintains the DocuShare website as a convenience to the public.
according to “Bill” above, the website is a convenience for the public
wow!
and the rail information campaigns using taxpayer money in a blatant political campaign were convenience too
sheez, you would hope they would acknowledge that the website and the government belongs to us — you would think it was time for them to cut the crap already and treat our government sites with respect
So, Bill – simple question then to Ian’s story and your response:
Can the mayor’s office follow up and from here on out ensure that these types of documents are attached to the file in DocuShare? That way theres no problemos with perceptions, right?
And please do let Ian and all of us know when this has been handled. Since Im still not sure who I’ll be voting for this November – I’ll be waiting to hear from you.
Thank you.
This strikes me as being a real problem; let me know, and if it persists we can institute a legal proceeding. D.
Why don’t you call up the City Clerk and ask her why the documents are redacted on her site? She does not work for the Mayor (which I am sure you know). You have shown that the Mayor is sending the reports to the council without the information redacted, and that when the Clerk publishes it on her site it is redacated. Why are you inferring that the Mayor is responsible?