The DOH Confirms That They Denied Access to Everything Terri Requested
This post tells the wide-angle story of Terri’s dealings with the DOH and OIP. The latest development is in
red.
PART ONE: OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES ATTORNEY, LINDEN JOESTING, TWICE CONFIRMS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SHOULD SAY IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE REQUESTED RECORDS
On 8/18/09 Terri asked Linden Joesting, Staff Attorney at the OIP, if she could request the following from the DoH:
1.) …the blank/voided or ‘unfilled’ forms issued by the Department of Health that Dr. Fukino saw per her public statement below, be disclosed OR a list of those forms & types of records. I would also like included copies of any notations, amendment notes and stamp impressions that are found on these documents. If any of the following records I requested are already available for downloading on the web, please send me direct links to their location(s). Please let me know if this is not clear or if there is a more suitable record(s) to be requesting:
2.) …any record of receipt by the DoH for all proof that was offered and/or used to amend any of the vital records that Dr. Fukino saw per her public statement below, be disclosed:
3.) …per Dr. Fukino’s public statement on 7/27/09, I would like a copy of the record OR portion of the record(s) that has the word ‘Amended’ stamped or written and also initialed by the DoH reviewer. In addition to this I would like a copy of the record or portion of the record that states what type of information was amended, when and why. Please provide me electronic copies.
Joesting responded that same day with (emphasis mine):
“You may certainly send this request for records to the Department Health. Please note however that you do not need to reference that the request is for their policy and procedure. A list simply of the documents would be adequate. If they agency does not have any such documents they should say so. For example, Dr. Fukino does not make any reference to an amended vital record of Barack Obama and therefore there may not be any.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Later that day Terri clarified and further queried with this response:
“Thank you. I understand she didn’t make any reference to an ‘amended’ record, however she did make reference to more than one record “original vital records”(plural). I suppose I understand that to mean there MUST be an amended record and supportive material (vital recordS). Otherwise, why would more than one record need to be seen verifying the President is a natural born citizen and/or born in Hawaii. A simple original long form birth certificate would do it….”
“…Could you also tell me if this is a valid request if you haven’t already answered my earlier email?
- I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records. ”
And Joesting responded the same day (again, emphasis mine):
“You also asked if: Could you also tell me if this is a valid request if you haven’t already answered my earlier email?
-
I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records.
Yes, you may ask for a copy of the invoice and receipt. If the agency has the documents in electronic form, or can easily convert the documents into an electronic form, then they may send it to you electronically. If no amendments were made, there would not be any such documents and the agency should inform you of that fact.
PART TWO: JOESTING WAS MERELY STATING THE RULES THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES HAS IMPOSED ON ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN IMPLEMENTING THE UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT (UIPA). IF THE AGENCY DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE RECORD THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SAY SO.
Part IV of the UIPA Manual describes the process an agency may use to answer a UIPA request. Page 32 includes as part of the FIRST STEP (emphasis mine):
B. Determine if the Agency or a Unit of the Agency Maintains the Record.
The agency must make an initial determination of whether any unit or division of the agency “maintains” the requested record. As explained above, an agency “maintains” a government record if the record is in the physical possession of the agency and/or under its administrative control.
Under OIP’s administrative rules, if one unit or division receives a request for a record that is maintained by another unit or division within the agency, then it must forward the request to the appropriate unit or division. The time for response to the request will then begin to run once the request is received by the unit or division that maintains the record. See Haw. Admin. R. §2-71-13(d).
Pages 38-39 of the same document say (highlighted emphasis mine):
The Notice to Requester must include the following information as applicable: ….
(3) Where agency is unable to disclose the record or part of the record, the notice must
state that:
(a) The agency does not maintain the record;
(b) The agency requires a further description or clarification of the requested record to identify and search for the record; or
(c) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compile information not readily retrievable.
PART THREE: RULINGS BY THE OIP SAY THAT A DENIAL MUST HAVE A GLOMARIZED RESPONSE IN ORDER TO AVOID CONFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF THE RECORD BEING WITHHELD.
OIP Opinion Letter 07-01 says (emphasis mine):
“For those whose identities are not public, a response that neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive records maintains the confidentiality of the individual’s identity required by the registration statute. 13 See Haw. Rev. Stat.§ 92F-13(3). Accordingly, OIP believes that HPD should deny such a request by stating that records that would be responsive to the request, if any, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 92F-13(3) and (4).”
Now-OIP Director, Cathy Takase, explained the use of the “if any” statement I received from the DOH this way:
“I believe the agency response is made in the form it is because what it appears you were trying to do was verify information that would be contained on an individual’s birth certificate. The Department of Health’s position is that it is prohibited by statute from releasing any information that is contained in a birth certificate. Thus, the Department is trying to respond to a request that refers to specific information supposedly on a Department record, without actually verifying whether a record containing such information exists, because doing so would effectively disclose protected information. OIP has generally advised DOH that OIP has recognized that, what is called under federal FOIA law, a “glomar” response, which may be appropriate when merely acknowleding the existence, or nonexistence, of a particular record would reveal information protected by statute.”
Without the Glomarized “if any” statement, a denial of access to a record is an acknowledgment of that record’s existence.
PART FOUR: THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DENIED ACCESS TO RECORDS OF OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE AMENDMENT. THE DOH CLARIFIED ON MARCH 23, 2010 THAT THEY DENIED ACCESS TO ALL THE RECORDS TERRI REQUESTED, WHICH SHE ENUMERATED FOR THEM AGAIN.
On Aug 19 , 2008 Terri K sent this request:
Dear Dr. Fukino,
I have been told that you are the correct person to send this UIPA records request to. PLEASE READ ALL OF IT CAREFULLY.
Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii, “…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies —shall be conducted as openly as possible.”
1.) I request an electronic copy of any and all UIPA requests made by President Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent him for access to his personal vital records so that he could make’corrections’ to his vital record information.
2.) I request an electronic copy of the ruling(s) or opinion(s) of those record requests.
3.) Please provide me electronic copies of all communication concerning formal or informal UIPA request(s) made by President Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent him for access to his personal vital records.
4.) Please send me an electronic copy of any and all invoices and receipts of fees paid on behalf of or by President Obama for access to his vital records, amendments or anything pertaining to his vital records.
I am not waiving any fees. Please disclose the records incrementally if some are not immediately accessible. If portions are confidential–don’t disclose those portions. I only want public records–none of them are vital records.
This request is a Hawaii UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act) request under section 92F-12.
Thx
The next day she sent to add this:
Dear Dr. Fukino-
I would like to add the following argument to my UIPA request sent yesterday (I have copied it below, too):
Since President Obama’s UIPA request(s) is not covered by HRS §338 and OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-37 sets out only a general rule that UIPA requests made under Part II for general records will generally be disclosed subject to redaction under an applicable exception under section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes; and in that letter is a paragraph that references FOIA and states “that the U.S. Department of Justice has GENERALLY concluded that individuals have a protectable privacy interest…” rather than saying “ALWAYS concluded” I ask that you will consider my UIPA request on it’s merits.
In particular, I would like to argue that I am referencing indirectly Dr. Fukino’s public statement (7/27/09) that she saw ‘original vital records’ (plural) by requesting the President Obama’s UIPA request(s). Using deductive reasoning, I see that the only way MORE than one record would verify birthplace and natural-born citizenship is if there were evidence filed in an amendment that would correct factual errors made when his original birth certificate was filed.
I am not having luck with verifying the deductive reasoning I used with the Hawaii DoH because they won’t answer simple procedural/policy questions even when I don’t reference any specific individual. However, the typical person (I use that term loosely) would have only a single long-form birth certificate to verify both birthplace and natural-born citizenship. Let me know if I have not explained that clearly.
Furthermore, I am curious about ‘clerical errors’ and feel the public has a right to know when a clerical error is made by the state. I don’t seek any of the significant privacy information and do not seek the incorrect or correct or corrected information–just a record that the state made an error. Even if it was 48+ years ago.
Please confirm that you received this email and added it to my UIPA request.
Thx
She followed shortly after with this:
Unless, I hear otherwise–my understanding is that my argument was, INDEED, added to my UIPA request.
Thx
And this:
In case it isn’t obvious, this portion of my argument and OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-37 refers to record requests made under PART III of UIPA:
“…and in that letter is a paragraph that references FOIA and states “that the U.S. Department of Justice has GENERALLY concluded that individuals have a protectable privacy interest…” rather than saying “ALWAYS concluded” I ask that you will consider my UIPA request on it’s merits.”
Thx
On Sept 3, Department of Health Communications Director, Janice Okubo, replied with this:
Aloha Terri K,
I am responding to your latest e-mails on behalf of Dr. Fukino and the Department of Health.
Section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, says that disclosure is not required for government records that are protected from disclosure by state law. Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is just such a law. It prohibits disclosure of vital statistics records to anyone who does not have a direct and tangible interest in the record. Those persons with a direct and tangible interest are listed specifically in the statute. Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.
Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.
We now consider this matter closed. We do not plan to respond to further UIPA requests from you for President Obama’s birth certificate or any related information.
Much later, Terri double-checked with the DOH to clarify exactly what records they were denying access to. On March 8, 2010 she wrote:
Dear Ms. Okubo and Ms. Takase:
I received the attached denials from the DOH and on appeal with the OIP to my UIPA request of August 18, 2009. However the particular records to which I was denied access, were not specified per the OIP administrative rules [§2-71-14(b)(1)].
This is the reference I received to the records that I requested, but it is not specific to my actual UIPA request (attached and also below):
“Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.” -Ms. Okubo
I did not request “President Obama’s birth certificate” and that was the only specific record mentioned in the denial.
Please specify exactly which records to which I was denied access per that rule. Below are the records I requested that day:
1.) I request an electronic copy of any and all UIPA requests made by President Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent him for access to his personal vital records so that he could make ‘corrections’ to his vital record information.
2.) I request an electronic copy of the ruling(s) or opinion(s) of those record requests.
3.) Please provide me electronic copies of all communication concerning formal or informal UIPA request(s) made by President Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent him for access to his personal vital records.
4.) Please send me an electronic copy of any and all invoices and receipts of fees paid on behalf of or by President Obama for access to his vital records, amendments or anything pertaining to his vital records.
Thanks for your help!
It should be noted here that the UIPA Booklet (p 38) requires that each part of a request must be handled individually, with the proper request given for each part:
(2) Where agency is denying access to all or part of a record, the notice must identify:
(a) The specific record or part that will not be disclosed; and
(b) The §92F-13 exception that allows withholding (and any other applicable laws) and a brief explanation (a few words) of why the agency cited that exception.
On March 23, Okubo responded (carbon-copied to Cathy Takase): (emphasis mine)
Aloha (redacted),
Your request was denied in its entirety. All the information available to the public regarding the records you are requesting is available at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
The site provides an explanation and links to the law that restrict access to records for vital statistics. “Public health statistics” includes the registration, preparation, transcription, collection, compilation, and preservation of data pertaining to births, adoptions, legitimations, deaths, fetal deaths, morbidity, marital status, and data incidental thereto. [L 1949, c 327, §2; am L 1951, c 92, §1; RL 1955, §57-1; HRS §338-1; am L 1973, c 17, §5; am L 1975, c 66, §2(1); am L 1982, c 112, §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 100, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §1; am L 2009, c 11, §44]
PART FIVE: WHEN TERRI APPEALED THE DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES, LINDEN JOESTING CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS A PROPER DENIAL OF ACCESS.
OIP Opinion Letter 97-08 concludes by saying that (emphasis mine):
The UIPA provides that information contained in government records is open for public inspection and copying unless some exception to disclosure applies. Based on what the OIP believes was a reasonable search by Deputy Wolsztyniak,
the OIP concludes that the Corporation Counsel does not maintain the information
you requested as a government record. The UIPA applies only to existing records.
We’ve already seen that the UIPA Booklet requires an agency to say if the requested records don’t exist. Joesting twice told Terri K that was the proper response if the records did not exist. Joesting’s official response to Terri’s appeal came on Sept 17th and stated that the DOH had denied access based on the idea that “related” documents are considered part of the vital “record” to which access is restricted. She stated that their understanding was correct.
The above-cited OIP Opinion Letter, 97-08, involved an agency which denied access to a document which didn’t actually exist. The first step the OIP attorney made in deciding the case was to request to see the document in question – since a denial of access is an acknowledgment that the record exists. The OIP went through the same steps as the agency is required to go through, in order to determine what the correct response should be. The final opinion letter says that the agency’s response was ambiguous because they denied access to a record which doesn’t exist.
Joesting presumably went through the same process to determine the correct response to Terri’s request. She had already told Terri that the proper response if the requested records didn’t exist would be a statement that they didn’t exist. The OIP Rules say that a notice must be given to the requestor saying that they can’t disclose the records because they don’t have them, if that is the case. If the existence of the records isn’t discloseable a Glomarized denial would be the proper response.
Joesting’s final answer didn’t say that the DOH’s denial was ambiguous because the denied records didn’t actually exist. Nor did she say that the existence of the records was not discloseable. She said that access to the records was denied – a denial that is only proper if the records exist. And she said the DOH interpretation was correct.
Terri K consulted with attorney Leo Donofrio, who confirmed that the denial of access was a statutory confirmation of the record’s existence.
Later, in response to claims that she had misunderstood or read too much into Joesting’s response, Terri contacted Joesting again, asking for clarification of whether the denial of access is confirmation that the requested records exist. The full account of that interaction is posted here , but the summary is that after asking clarifying questions for several days Joesting suddenly responded with this:
Since we have so many requests for assistance on matters pending before agencies, I am reluctant to take the time away from those cases to answer your questions.
Please accept my regrets as I am trying to complete pending requests for assistance.
To summarize, Terri K asked Joesting twice whether she could ask for the records and was twice told that she could and that she should be told if the records don’t exist. The OIP rules require an agency to say if the requested records don’t exist. A Glomarized response is required to avoid a denial actually confirming a record’s existence. The procedure for the OIP to rule on an appeal of a records denial such as Terri’s involves the attorney seeing the actual records being denied. Terri gave the DOH the opportunity to change their answer or to clarify which records were being denied and the DOH confirmed that everything she requested was being denied (and thus exists). Terri gave Linden Joesting an opportunity to say her statements had been misunderstood but she declined to correct Terri’s understanding that a denial of access is statutory confirmation of the requested record’s existence.
Terri has done everything possible to double-check the content posted about her requests and responses on this blog, and nobody will say that there was a misunderstanding. Everyone stands by their original answers – which mean that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended.