Do not miss Ryan Ozawa’s description of his ongoing quest to replicate the Civil Beat request for information about state employees’salaries.
In a long blog entry yesterday, Ozawa describes the state Department of Human Resources Development denial of his request for the same data obtained by Civil Beat.
He was informed of the decision in a phone call from director Marie Laderta.
According to Ozawa, Laderta based her denial on a couple of points. Interestingly, she apparently did not deny that names of public employees and their salaries are legally public information.
However, Laderta asserted:
1) The department did not maintain any copy of the pdf file it provided to Civil Beat. This is extremely difficult to believe, and demands a fuller explanation.
2) Laderta said Ozawa’s request was “denied because of the onerous ‘compilation”’component. Basically, the amount of work it would take to put together all the data was excessive.”
Ozawa does not indicate whether Laderta provided any additional information about what aspects of the Civil Beat request proved most “onerous” to comply with.
State law requires the following information about public employees to be available for inspection [Chapter 92F-12(14)]:
14) The name, compensation (but only the salary range for employees covered by or included in chapter 76, and sections 302A-602 to 302A-640, and 302A-701, or bargaining unit (8)), job title, business address, business telephone number, job description, education and training background, previous work experience, dates of first and last employment, position number, type of appointment, service computation date, occupational group or class code, bargaining unit code, employing agency name and code, department, division, branch, office, section, unit, and island of employment, of present or former officers or employees of the agency; provided that this paragraph shall not require the creation of a roster of employees; and provided further that this paragraph shall not apply to information regarding present or former employees involved in an undercover capacity in a law enforcement agency;
But 92F-11(c) provides:
(c) Unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.
So perhaps the problem is with the structure of the original request, and what’s needed is a more intimate familiarity with the state’s personnel computer system and how files are maintained.
Producing the state’s payroll twice a month requires manipulation of exactly the data that is being sought, along with other more private data not included in the request.
Asking for information that does not require “onerous” compilation in order to extract the relevant data is the key, it seems to me.
Oh, and going back to further interrogate the assertion that the department kept no record of its reply to Civil Beat.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ryan might ask for blank employee record sheets of the various departments. With these examples in hand, he might have a better idea of how to tailor his request. For example, he could ask for all copies of “form 9” from XX department.
Of course! It’s definitely onerous for them to service the public. These bureaucrats are a law unto themselves. Once they are hired, they are not accountable to the public. These bureaucrats 101 operation is stonewall, ignore, act dumb and hope that the public will get irritated and fade away.
Stay on this! We need the city’s too. Furthermore, we need to get a hold of all contracts and expenses; especially those
special operating or discretionary funds.
The pdf file Ryan seeks may itself be a public record (or not, I’m just assuming).
Also, each state agency is supposed to have record retention policies. If not, a DAGS policy applies.
I don’t particularly seek the data that Ryan wants and Civi Beat obtained (if Ryan had been the first requestor, by the way, we’d all have access). But I am concerned about the reply that they don’t have that pdf file handy. It boggles the mind if they are correct.
So I’m thinking of requesting the pdf file and a copy of their record retention policy.
I’ll do that this morning.
Marie’s response seems a little silly to me. Its out there already for the world. Who really cares who else gets it now? Are we missing something otherwise from the departments perspective?
I would think instead you could ask each department for what they provided to DHRD. Copy DHRD on each letter and of course the AG and OIP, too.
Thanks, Ian, for the link and analysis. It’s sparked a great conversation, to be sure. I’m likely way out of my league where the nuances of law and policy are concerned.
Larry, focusing specifically on the records retention question, you might want to file similar requests for the documents Civil Beat received from the Legislature and UH as well. I’m told OHA received one, and I suspect pretty much every large agency did.
Actually, the requests Civil Beat submitted themselves could be interesting reading. Did they say they would make the information widely available? Because I contend they did not.
There is a records retention policy that appears to apply.
Here’s the DAGS schedule of retention which lists different types of records.
http://hawaii.gov/dags/archives/records-management/GRS%202002%20-%20revised%205-06.pdf
“Formal requests for government information” — 2 year retention after action on the request is completed.
General correspondence (Letters of inquiry on routine matters not involving policy decisions or state liability, the answer to which complete the cycle of correspondence (also known as transitory files).–1 year after date.
Policy making correspondence–permanent.
The DAGS list is really quite interesting.
Ryan, I think information requests are themselves public records. In other words, one could request the information request or requests that Civil Beat has filed.
This sounds like a lot of work. In the end, you will probably get your records.
I wonder if Civil Beat would be civil enough to entertain a request to release the original pdf file as a public service. It would be so much easier if they would. No doubt they’d have to refund anything others may have paid to get the data, but surely they could afford to do that. PayPal does handle refunds.
–Larry
Kudos to you and Ryan, Ian!
The pdf file is most likely not expunged from the hard drive as a real computer expert might find, unless it was intentionally nuked away. And I note that it could have been saved for posterity on a flash drive. That would have honored the public’s right to know important info.
This latest story development illustrates well my beliefs that Lingle appointees by and large are dishonorable and incompetent folks who do not give a damn about the public good.
This crowd should not be given another chance to run state government for a long, long time because they cannot be trusted to do right.
Auwe!
I just faxed a request for (1) the CB request, (2) the pdf sent to CB in response, (3) a copy of DHRD’s written record retention policy if different from DAGS. I reminded them that they may not destroy the requested docs while my request is pending, and quoted DAGS 1-yr retention requirment on completed correspondence.
So let’s see what happens.
“I wonder if Civil Beat would be civil enough to entertain a request to release the original pdf file as a public service. It would be so much easier if they would.”
This is pretty much where this entire adventure began. Meanwhile, people who work with Civil Beat are commenting on my post, saying that the restricted, non-downloadable display-only document they posted is equivalent to access to the “raw public data.” I don’t think it is.
So, for now at least, these duplicative requests are consuming the tax dollars that Civil Beat is ostensibly concerned about saving.
I’m very uncomfortable with news groups like CIVIL BEAT who claims to have a corporate conscience but . . .
Come on, withholding public information to those who cannot afford for pay for it sounds a tad too elitist and greedy. It does not rhyme with pure journalism – to educate, inform and empower the public.
As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, I’m not sure where the tipping point is between transparency and being overbearing.
If any state agency were asked by thousands of people for these records, it might be a tad difficult to comply.
I suppose they could post this on-line and update in real time but that is still a chore.
I think there’s need to be a balance but what that balance is, I’m not sure.
Charles –
Good or bad, the can with all its worms has been open. Does anyone really think its just going to shut again? Not likely. Thats why I find Marie’s denial to Ryan curious. Did they really think this was going to be a one-time deal? My bet is it will be yearly, from here on out. Departments may as well figure out a way to incorporate it into their operational requirements.
Interestingly enough this case brings up the question of why the bill to stop the “birthers” died the death it should have last lege session. In this case, having rejected Ryan’s request, Larry could have been declared a vexatious requester if the bill, as I remember it, had passed in it’s original form because Ryan’s request had already been denied.
I tried to post a comment with a link. It probably went into Ian’s SpamFree box. Here’s the link to a civil conversation (free, keep your credit card in your pocket) over on Ryan’s blog:
http://www.hawaiiweblog.com/2010/09/02/public-data/comment-page-1
I didn’t want to duplicate what I posted there, it would be out of context.
Andy: the ‘birther’ bill actually did pass.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Bills/SB2937_CD1_.HTM
I think the “birther” bill was a good idea. And that is my point. Yes, the cat is out of the bag but it doesn’t have to mean then the other extreme must be complied with in the name of “transparency.”