The University of Hawaii should have made its fact finding report on last year’s Stevie Wonder concert fiasco public in its entirety, with the exemption of two brief items covered by a privacy exemption to the state’s public records law, according to a memorandum opinion issued last week by the Office of Information Practices.

The two specific reductions were the only ones found to be legally justified out of hundreds or perhaps thousands of items that were whited out before the reports were made public.

The opinion was issued in response to a request from Senate President Donna Kim, who led the special committee on accountability that probed the failed concert in a series of high profile public hearings. During the hearings, Kim and other senators were highly critical of the university’s lack of transparency and failure to publicly disclose relevant documents.

OIP’s opinion includes scathing comments obviously directed at the law firm of Torkildson, Katz, Moore, Hetherington & Harris, which was contracted by the university to make any necessary redactions.

During the Senate’s hearings last fall, attorney Jeffrey Harris repeatedly defended the numerous redactions with a stock answer: “Individual names were redacted out of respect for the personal privacy of the individuals involved.”

However, according to OIP:

…for the vast majority of redactions it was clear from the language of the UIPA, from OIP’s published opinions, and from court opinions regarding the UIPA that there was no basis for arguing that the UIPA’s privacy exception might apply.

For instance, UH redacted references to categories of companies and individuals who were not even named; names of units of government and government facilities; names of former UH employees; and names of numerous companies and other entities that are not natural persons. Perhaps due to its decision to outsource its responsibilities under the UIPA, UH’s response to requests for records related to this issue of high public interest appears not to have been supervised by anyone with even a passing familiarity to the actual law governing public record requests, the UIPA. OIP strongly recommends that UH ensure that in the future those responsible for responding to record requests on UH’s behalf, whether UH employees or otherwise, be competent in dealing with the UIPA. [Emphasis added]

According to OIP, only two redactions were justified–the name of a person who made a $50,000 personal loan to the concert promoter, and a brief reference to the promoter’s medical condition.

The OIP opinion addresses at length the university’s claim, based on the advice of the Torkildson firm, that the redactions were justified by two exemptions to the statute’s public disclosure requirements.

OIP also said any redactions should have been made by blacking out the information so that the public is aware deletions were made. The university reports were redacted using white-out, so not all redactions were obvious to readers.

OIP directed the university to remove the unjustified redactions and publicly release new and complete versions of the report and its several appendices.