Hawaii Open Records Law Thrown Overboard

Hawaii Open Records Law Thrown Overboard

Summary: The “vexatious requestor law” is being interpreted to mean that ANY request can be ignored, because ANY request can be called “duplicative” even when it is clearly not. The law gives total discretion to lawless bureaucrats who can ignore the clear wording of the law. Anybody surprised? One more example of lawlessness to cover for Obama. One more reason the Hawaii government comes out of this smelling like a sewer.

 Mark Niesse said in an AP report that anybody can see the public 1960-64 birth index. Sorry, Mark. The HDOH won’t let me see specific pages from it, and the OIP is saying they don’t have to hold the HDOH accountable for showing it to me. I guess some people are more “equal” than others, huh, Mark?

 The OIP and HDOH pulled a “vexatious requestor” determination on me. I sent a snail-mail with self-addressed stamped envelope,  requesting copies of pages from the 1960-64 birth index book where several specific names  are or would be – names I have never asked for before and which SHOULD BE unrelated to Obama  (such as Mae Obado). I have done this before on different names and the HDOH has disclosed the pages as required by law. Every page of those birth index books is a public government record and is required to be disclosed upon request. The only reason for them to refuse this request is if the request is so unclear that they don’t know what page is being requested. And then they have to request clarification.

 The HDOH used my SASE to respond by asking me whether I was talking about where the names would be alphabetically. I replied via a fax to Okubo to say yes, that was what I meant, and that I had asked for the full page specifically because I was unsure of the exact spelling.  I didn’t hear back from them so I contacted the OIP, who said I had to give them 10 business days from the time they got the clarification from me (IOW they can buy another 10 days into infinity just by asking stupid questions claiming that the request wasn’t clear.)

 The HDOH responded on April 8^th :

 Ms. Nellie,

The Department of Health is unable to provide a page of index data where
a name would be.  We cannot provide index data for an individual without
the correct spelling of the name associated with that data. Index data
is stored electronically.

Janice Okubo

I e-mailed Okubo back to say that I didn’t request index DATA but a PAGE from a book, and unless she could give me a citation in UIPA where it says that birth index PAGES are not public government records, she needed to send me the copies of pages, to which I am legally entitled. No response.

 I e-mailed the following to the OIP last night:

 —– Original Message —–

From: Nellie

To: [email protected]

Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:34 PM

Subject: Re: Request for Assistance – Birth Index Pages UIPA

 I have not heard anything from the HDOH on this request. It’s been over 2 months now since my original snail-mail was received by their office and 6 weeks since I clarified that I was asking for PAGES (as I made clear in my original request) and not specifically for NAMES.

 Their claim that they need to have a specific name to search for is certified baloney, as I have gotten from them in the past all the birth and marriage index pages that had entries with the last name of Asing. No problem then. Why is it a problem now?

 Two months is a long time to copy 4 pages from a single book. Will you help me in getting the records to which I am legally entitled? I have jumped through all the hoops I was told to jump through and have waited WELL beyond the required deadlines without hearing anything back from them even though I have given my e-mail contact information.

 Nellie/Freckles

 Today the OIP responded with this:

 —– Original Message —–

From: [email protected]

To: Nellie

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:54 PM

Subject: Re: Request for Assistance – Birth Index Pages UIPA

 Ms. Nellie,

The DOH has responded to your request asking for clarification.  This is OIP’s final response with respect to this matter.  Act 100, SLH 2010.    

 Act 100 of the 2010 State Legislature of Hawaii is the “vexatious requester” bill – which allows them to ignore DUPLICATIVE REQUESTS.

 The OIP is claiming that because I have asked for their help on this (and they told me I had to wait longer) they don’t have to finish out this issue. They can ignore the fact that the HDOH is totally disobeying the law by falsely saying they CANNOT disclose copies of specific birth index pages. They are claiming that as long as the HDOH responded AT ALL, that’s good enough for UIPA. The HDOH could respond to my request for a required disclosure with a big fat raspberry and the “vexatious requestor law” would say that’s all I can get.

 IOW, the “vexatious requestor bill” is being interpreted to mean that state agencies can ignore clear violations of the disclosure law. They have in effect gutted their Open Records Law in Hawaii. Nothing about this request for records OR the request for assistance was “duplicative”. The only words of the “vexatious requester law” that matter are the ones that allow them to ignore requests; doesn’t matter whether the requests are duplicative or not since they can call ANYTHING “duplicate” at their own discretion.

 So I am asking everybody who reads this to send an e-mail to Janice Okubo at [email protected] , to the OIP at [email protected], to Lt Gov Schatz  at [email protected] and to the Ombudsman’s Office at  [email protected]  and  politely tell them that you don’t appreciate Okubo’s clear violation of UIPA, which says that public government records – such as PAGES from the 1960-64 birth index book in their office – must be disclosed upon request. Tell her there is nothing in UIPA that exempts birth index book pages from disclosure.

 BTW, there is a reason why she is so afraid to disclose those records. There is more about those birth index books than Mark Niesse never wanted to know. lol

Read more at Butterdezillion