Here are a few recent opinions issued by the Office of Information Practices over the past few months, including just one formal opinion this year.

The formal opinion, Opinion Letter No. 13-01, involved an investigative report concerning a workplace violence complaint by employees of the Department of Transportation. The department had turned down their request for a copy of the report, and they asked OIP to review that decision.

In a somewhat complex opinion, OIP determined that parts of the documents are considered the “personal records” of the four requesters, which included the person involved in the incident that led to the workplace violence complaint, and three witnesses who had testified about what happened. Most of those “personal” sections should be disclosed, OIP ruled. However, sections containing testimony of other witnesses were properly withheld from disclosure as “personal records” of others, according to OIP.

In addition:

OIP concluded that DOT must publicly disclose information in the Report related to the employment misconduct that resulted in the Respondent’s suspension, including her name, the nature of misconduct for which she was suspended, DOT’s summary of the allegations, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the discipline imposed. The privacy exception, in section 92F-13(1), HRS, does not apply to this misconduct information because the UIPA, in section 92F-14(b)(4)(B), HRS, expressly states that the employee has no significant privacy interest in this misconduct information when the employee was suspended, and the public interest in disclosure outweighs a privacy interest that is not significant. Furthermore, as the opinion explains, the listing of DOT employees in the office, including their names, job titles, and start dates, is mandated to be public by the UIPA.

A summary of the opinion can be found here, while the full text of the opinion is also available.

OIP also issued several informal letter opinions. The agency’s website explains:

OIP issues informal opinions generally in instances where the legal questions raised by a dispute have been previously resolved and discussed in a formal opinion, and where the legal opinion is based upon specific facts that limit the opinion’s usefulness for general guidance purposes.

Here are the informal opinions dealing with public record requests over the past few months.

U Memo 13-4
April 3, 2013
Failure to Respond to Request for Records

The County of Kauai Department of Public Works’ (Works-K) failure to respond at all to a record request amounted to an effective denial of access. As such, Works-K failed to comply with the UIPA’s mandate that agencies publicly disclose government records unless an exception applies, and failed to uphold the burden of proof imposed by the UIPA to justify its nondisclosure. OIP advised Works-K to immediately provide Requester with the records, or if it intends to charge fees, Works-K should provide notice within ten business days.

U Memo 13-5
May 1, 2013
List of Nominees

Requester sought a determination as to whether the Office of the Governor (Governor’s Office) and the Department of Land and Natural Resources Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) properly denied, under Part II of the UIPA, Requester’s requests for lists of nominees (Lists) provided to the Governor by the Nominating Committee for the CWRM. Specifically, Requester asked whether the Lists are public after the Governor has made his appointments but prior to confirmation by the Senate.

OIP found that neither the Governor’s Office nor the CWRM is required by the UIPA to publicly disclose the Lists after the Governor makes his CWRM appointments but before confirmation by the Senate, under the UIPA’s “privacy” and “frustration” exceptions.

UIPA Memo 13-6
June 5, 2013
Complainant’s Request for Records of Closed Case File

Requester asked whether the Honolulu Ethics Commission (Commission) properly denied his request for access to a case file.

OIP found that portions of the requested case file are Requester’s personal record. Requester is entitled to those portions under Part III of the UIPA, which governs access of an individual to his personal records maintained by government agencies, subject to any applicable exemptions to disclosure at section 92F 22, HRS. The remainder of the case file is not about Requester and is not his personal record, but is available to him under Part II of the UIPA, which governs public access to government records, except to the extent that the exceptions to disclosure at section 92F-13, HRS, allow the Commission to withhold certain portions from the public.

There have been no informal opinions on sunshine law issues in the past six months.