Monthly Archives: May 2010

We Will See: Does the Law Exist in Hawaii?

Update: I received this just now

  —– Original Message —– From: Office of the Ombudsman To: Nellie (redacted) Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:40 PM Subject: RE: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages

Dear Ms. (redacted):

 We have received your email below.  

 I have assigned your case to Alfred Itamura, a staff member of my office.  Mr. Itamura will be contacting you to obtain further information, if necessary, or to inform you of the findings of our investigation.

 Thank you for writing to us.

 Sincerely yours,

/s/ ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA

Ombudsman, State of Hawaii

                                   We Will See: Does the Law Exist in Hawaii?
Here is the letter I sent this morning, requesting an investigation into the HDOH’s destruction of permanent records. We will see whether anybody in Hawaii is even PRETENDING to care about the law. The letter contains my e-mail history with the OIP.

 
 

—– Original Message —–

From:
Nellie (redacted)

To:
oip@hawaii.gov

Cc:
complaints@ombudsman.hawaii.gov ; governor.lingle@hawaii.gov ; LtGov@hawaii.gov ; hawaiiag@hawaii.gov

Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:15 AM

Subject: Fw: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages

Dear Ms. Joesting & Ombudsman’s Office,

 
 

The HDOH has now twice said that they cannot disclose the records I requested because the original birth index pages don’t exist. These are documents (separate from the birth certificates themselves) which were submitted to the comptroller in 1980 with instructions to be retained permanently as originals and/or microfilm copies. The comptroller signed the request form. It has now been well over 10 business days since I asked the HDOH to provide the record of their having destroyed these records, since there was no request to dispose of these records as of the beginning of the year, which was when I received the copy of the DOH retention schedule. They have also said there is no index of foreign births – a document submitted to the comptroller and specified for permanent retention in 1982.

 
 

Either the HDOH is lying about these records not existing, or they have illegally destroyed them, or they have legally destroyed them within the past 5 months but refuse to release the documentation for that destruction.

 
 

The complete exchange with the HDOH can be found at my blog at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/hdoh-has-destroyed-original-permanent-records/ . That article also links to the retention schedule and to a post containing my complete exchanges with archivist Susan Shaner, who agrees that the HDOH should have these records.

 
 

The HDOH’s answers strongly suggest that they have illegally destroyed permanent records – a serious offense that should result in disciplinary action including termination of employment for those involved. When will this investigation begin and by whom, and will the people involved be put on administrative leave until the investigation is complete?

 
 

I look forward to your prompt attention to this serious matter.

Nellie

 
 

cc: complaints@ombudsman.hawaii.gov

       governor.lingle@hawaii.gov

       ltgov@hawaii.gov

       hawaiiag@hawaii.gov

 
 

 
 

—– Original Message —–

From:

To:
oip@hawaii.gov

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 5:06 PM

Subject: Re: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages

Ms Joesting,

 
 

The HDOH has not answered this request for over 10 business days. I have no reason to believe they are working on it. This is why I checked the box on the OIP Request Form saying that it has been 10 business days and I have not received an answer. I assumed that the choice to check that box is only there because a lack of a timely response is reason for the OIP to be involved.

 
 

I have requests to the HDOH which they have been stalling on for 4 1/2 months. Is that behavior acceptable to the OIP? What good is a 10-day deadline if it never has to be followed? Must I babysit them to force them to respond to everything I send – waiting 10 days for for them to say they didn’t receive my request, ten days to say they don’t know what I’m talking about,ten days to say the record doesn’t exist, ten days to say the record exists but we don’t have to show it to you, ten days to say they already answered my request, and on and on forever?  That has been my experience with the HDOH on multiple occasions. I realize that I’m venting here, but I am at the point where I’m ready to charge lawyer’s rates for the time I spend babysitting them since they can’t be trusted to answer in timely fashion on their own. lol.

 
 

In what the HDOH treated as a separate request (since they left out the last 3 e-mails I included here, even though the last request had been in their office for over 10 business days) they responded that the records I requested don’t exist. From what I understand, the conversion to electronic records was done around 1977. In 1980 a retention order was submitted for the paper indices which were used before the records became computerized. The order said that the indices were to be retained permanently and could be stored as microfilm security and search copies. Those records existed in 1980 and were specifically required to be kept as paper copies and/or microfilms. Either way, those records are required to still exist. How can the HDOH say they don’t exist? OIP rules require that if they don’t have administrative control over those records they are required to tell me who does – not just say they don’t exist. Does the HDOH have administrative control over those microfilms, or does the archive?

 
 

Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

 
 

Thank you.

Nellie

—– Original Message —–

From:
oip@hawaii.gov

To:
Nellie

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:04 PM

Subject: Re: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages


Ms. (redacted),

 
Because your matter is still being worked on by the Department of Health it is too early to be addressed by our office.

 
Thank you for your inquiry.  

 
Sincerely,
Linden Joesting
Staff Attorney

 
Office of Information Practices
State of Hawaii
No. 1 Capitol District Building
250 S. Hotel St., Suite 107
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel.: 808-586-1400
Fax: 808-586-1412
E-mail: oip@hawaii.gov
Web site: http://www.hawaii.gov/oip
 
 

 

 

“Nellie”(redacted)

04/29/2010 04:37 AM

To

<oip@hawaii.gov>

cc

“Okubo, Janice S.” <janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov>, <chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov>, “hdohinfo” <hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov>

Subject

Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages
 
 

   

 

 
Dear esteemed worker at the OIP: 
 
Enclosed is a request for assistance. In this e-mail I detail the complete history of communications with the HDOH on this matter. Because there have been problems in the past with multiple e-mails not being received by the OIP, I request a “read” receipt or an e-mail acknowledging your receipt of this request. If I don’t hear back by mid-day (Hawaii time) I will re-send the request.

 
 
Feb 3 – almost 3 months ago – I sent this request:

 
 

 

 

 



From: Nellie (redacted)
Sent:
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:31 PM
To:
Okubo, Janice S.
Subject:
UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 
 
2-3-10

 
 
Aloha.

 
 
Pursuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the microfilm for the birth and death indexes (VR-1, VDR-1, & VDR-6, & VDR-10) for 1961. The records retention schedule says that these must retained permanently.

 
 
Thank you.

 
Nellie

 
__________________________________________________________

 
 
Sixteen days later the HDOH sent this:

 
 
—– Original Message —–
From:
hdohinfo

To:
(redacted)

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 6:00 PM

 
Subject: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 
 
Aloha Ms.(redacted):

 
 

 
We are unfamiliar with what you mean by VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6 and VDR-10. Could you please clarify your request?

 
 

 
Thank you.

 
 

 
Hawaii Department of Health

 
Public Information Office staff

 
 
Send mail to:
State Department of Health

 
Office of Health Status Monitoring

 
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request

 
Honolulu, HI 97801

 
hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov

 
 _______________________________________________________________

 
 

 

I responded with this:

 
 
From: Nellie (redacted)
Sent:
Thursday, April 08, 2010 5:08 AM
To:
hdohinfo
Subject:
Re: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 
 
Aloha!

 
 
VR-1 Birth index (p 21 on retention schedule)

 
VDR-1 Delayed BC Index (p. 22 on retention schedule)

 
VDR-6  COHB Index (p 23 on retention schedule)

 
VDR-10 Index to certificates of foreign birth (p 19 on retention schedule)

 
 
I’ve enclosed the retention schedules so you can see what I’m talking about. There should be either original copies or microfilms. Since these are from 1961 they would not be computerized. I’m asking for electronic copies of the original or microfilmed records, including everything that was authorized for public release before UIPA was passed in 1988 (name, birth date, and certificate number – which were public since at least 1977; see p. 11 of OIP Opinion Letter 90-23 ) since UIPA was not intended to close any previously-authorized disclosures (see  Opinion Letter 90-04 (page 6 ) .  Any other information may be redacted if its disclosure was not authorized before 1988 and an exemption to disclosure applies)

 
 
I just noticed that VDR-10 begins in 1981 so there would not be any records for 1961. My apologies for that mistake.

 
 
Thanks!

 
Nellie

 
 
___________________________________________________________________________

 

Having received no response I reminded the HDOH that I was waiting and narrowed down my request:

 
 
—– Original Message —–
From:
Nellie (redacted)

To:
hdohinfo

Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:58 PM

 
Subject: Fw: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 

 
Aloha! 
 

 
I haven’t heard back from you on this and realize that these would be very large records. I’ll narrow this down, for now, to copies of the original VR-1 pages from 1961 containing birth index data for Michael T Asing, Nathan C Asing, Rocky W Asing, Norman Asing, Barack H Obama II, and Tomiyo Sunahara, as well as the 3 pages before and 3 pages after each of those pages.

 
 

 
As I mentioned earlier, the name, birth date and certificate number were actually required for public disclosure before UIPA was passed in 1988 and so they were grandfathered in as discloseable. Any other information may be redacted if necessary to protect confidential information.

 
 

 
I prefer to receive these as electronic scans via e-mail.

 
 

 
Thank you.

 
Nellie

 
 
______________________________________________________________________________

 
 
The HDOH response was totally unrelated to my request and neither fulfilled nor denied my request:

 

 
Aloha Ms. (redacted): 

 
—– Original Message —–
From:
hdohinfo

To:
Nellie (redacted)
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 

 
Please visit our site http://hawaii.gov.health/vital-records/obama.html to review conditions under which vital records may be requested.

 
 

 
 

 
Hawaii Department of Health

 
Public Information Office staff

 
 
Send mail to:
State Department of Health

 
Office of Health Status Monitoring

 
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request

 
Honolulu, HI 97801

 
hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov

 
 

 
___________________________________________________________________

 
I responded:

 
 

 

 

—– Original Message —–
From:
Nellie (redacted)

To:
hdohinfo

Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:13 PM

 
Subject: Re: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 

 
I have not requested vital records. I have requested to see a government record of index data. In an e-mail yesterday I further clarified the particular records I am asking to see. I said: 
>>>>>

 
Aloha!

 
 

 
I haven’t heard back from you on this and realize that these would be very large records. I’ll narrow this down, for now, to copies of the original VR-1 pages from 1961 containing birth index data for Michael T Asing, Nathan C Asing, Rocky W Asing, Norman Asing, Barack H Obama II, and Tomiyo Sunahara, as well as the 3 pages before and 3 pages after each of those pages.

 
 

 
As I mentioned earlier, the name, birth date and certificate number were actually required for public disclosure before UIPA was passed in 1988 and so they were grandfathered in as discloseable. Any other information may be redacted if necessary to protect confidential information.

 
 

 
I prefer to receive these as electronic scans via e-mail.

 
 

 
Thank you.

 
Nellie

 
 

 
______________________________________________________________________________

 
 

 
After a week of waiting and receiving no response at all I sent this:

 

 
It is past the time for you to have sent the requested records I asked for. When will you be sending these public records to me? 

 
—– Original Message —–
From:
Nellie (redacted)
To:
hdohinfo

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:36 PM
Subject: Fw: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 
Thanks.

 
Nellie

 
__________________________________________________________________________

 
 
Having received no response, I am appealing to the OIP to uphold UIPA, which requires the disclosure of these government records. The retention schedule requires these records to be kept in original form and/or as microfilm copies. These names are from a page of the computerized birth index list for 1960-64 and/or birth announcements from the 2 Hawaii newspapers. The records exist. They are required to be disclosed, with non-discloseable information redacted. To this date, the only index pages released are computerized pages, which are not on the retention schedule at all. Index data is required to be released so the information on this record is not only discloseable but REQUIRED to be available to the public.

 
 
The official OIP request for assistance is attached.

 
 
Thank you.

 
Nellie

 
 
 

 

 

Advertisements

HDOH Has Destroyed Original, Permanent Records

The HDOH Has Destroyed Original Records Required to be Kept Permanently

 Update: My letter requesting an investigation into the potential illegal destruction of permanent government records is here.

A while back CNN made a splash by claiming that the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) had disposed of Obama’s original birth certificate. Janice Okubo responded by saying they have multiple security copies and they don’t destroy records since their job is to maintain records. Unfortunately, if the HDOH isn’t outright lying about what records they have, they have illegally destroyed original index records which were required to be kept permanently.

When a department wants to dispose of records it is required to present them to the comptroller who decides whether the records may be destroyed or how long they must be stored and in what form. The comptroller keeps a records retention list which notes when a particular type of record was first submitted for analysis and/or disposal and what was decided about how those records should be handled. The retention list is required to be kept permanently, with new pages added as they come in, and the lists accessible to the public.

Judging by the revisions to statutes and HDOH responses to requests for training manuals for data entry clerks, the information from birth certificates was entered into an electronic database around 1977. That database would provide an easy index for workers to locate records, allowing sorting to be done by alphabet , date, and other parameters. So in 1980 the HDOH submitted their old paper indices (VR-1), actual vital records (VR-2), index to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth ( VR-6), index to delayed birth certificates (VDR-1), and other documents to the comptroller to decide what should happen with them. Both the indices (VR-1) and vital records (VR-2) were required to be kept permanently, with the instructions that microfilm copies could be made for security back-up and search purposes. Later, the index of foreign births (VR-12) was also required to be stored permanently, with microfilm back-ups authorized.

When I requested to see index data from the current, computerized delayed BC index, COHB index, pending index, etc, the HDOH responded that index data doesn’t include the status of the BC and HRS 338-18a forbids them from revealing ANYTHING that is on a birth certificate. But indices are public records and the index data itself is required to be public, so several people asked to see those public records. John Charlton requested to see the COHB index and after much run-around was finally allowed to see a CURRENT, computerized COHB index.

I asked to see the original indices that were made before the records were computerized. First the HDOH said they didn’t know what records I meant (I had given the code names for the records: VR-1, etc). I showed them the retention schedule pages showing what I meant and that the records submitted in 1980 were required to be kept permanently either as originals or as microfilms.

When they didn’t respond I reminded them that I had not heard from them and also narrowed down my request to a dozen or so pages containing particular names. They told me to look on their webpage to see how to request vital records. I reminded them I wasn’t asking for vital records but for the original records containing index data, which is required to be made public. I was told the only original index they have is the vital records themselves. I pointed out to them that the retention schedule had 2 separate entries regarding documents submitted in 1980 – index records and vital records. Index records existed separately in 1980, they were required to be kept permanently, and that was what I was requesting to see. I noted that there was no revision of the permanent retention for those records as of early 2010 when I received a copy of the retention schedules so I asked to see the documentation if they had disposed of these records since then.

The HDOH sent me a response saying they have no original indices but if I paid $100 I could get a computer printout of births in 1961 (though the birth index BOOK is for 1960-64 and the HDOH has said they can’t reveal anything about the date of their records). I noted that their response had ignored my latest 3 communications and asked if they ever received those communications. They sent back an e-mail saying they had already responded to my request, totally ignoring everything I had said and asked.

In the meantime I had requested assistance from the OIP because the HDOH was acting as if it hadn’t received any of my e-mails from April 20th on (the day the Conference Committee recommended passage of the “Vexatious Requestor Bill” , which was passed on April 27th). The OIP told me they could not act on my case even though it was way past time for me to receive what was due me, because the HDOH was still dealing with me on it.

I consulted with Dept of Accounting and General Services (DAGS), asking where I could find these records that are required to be kept permanently. They referred me to the archivist. E-mail exchanges with her revealed that though the Archive was doing the microfilming for the HDOH during those years, they had never been asked to make microfilms of any indices and don’t have possession or administrative control over either microfilmed or original indices. The archivist said the retention schedule indicates the HDOH is required to have those originals and I should contact them.

Six office days ago I contacted the HDOH to let them know that the Archivist had agreed that the records say the HDOH has to have those originals. I asked point-blank where they are. I haven’t heard back. In the meantime, I was also informed that they have no index to foreign births (which I had asked for in a separate request), even though that was included in the retention schedule as well.

So we have records showing that the HDOH MUST HAVE these documents and the HDOH is claiming they don’t exist. This is the 11th office day since I asked to see any documentation regarding the destruction of these records. Departments are required to document that all records they have destroyed were approved for disposal according to the retention schedule. (See p 2 at http://hawaii.gov/dags/archives/records-management/DISPOSAL%20OF%20GOVERNMENT%20RECORDS%208-23-06%20revision.pdf )

Summary: If the HDOH was not blatantly lying when they said they have no original indices, then these records were illegally destroyed. Okubo’s own words about the HDOH not destroying records may come back to bite her in the rear.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The complete exchange with the HDOH is here:

Feb 3, 2010, I sent this request:

 

From: Nellie
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:31 PM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Subject: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 
2-3-10

 
Aloha.

 
Pursuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the microfilm for the birth and death indexes (VR-1, VDR-1, & VDR-6, & VDR-10) for 1961. The records retention schedule says that these must retained permanently.

 
Thank you.

Nellie

__________________________________________________________

 
Sixteen days later the HDOH sent this:

 
—– Original Message —–
From: hdohinfo

To:
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 6:00 PM

Subject: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 
Aloha Ms. (redacted):

 

We are unfamiliar with what you mean by VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6 and VDR-10. Could you please clarify your request?

 

Thank you.

 

Hawaii Department of Health

Public Information Office staff

 
Send mail to:
State Department of Health

Office of Health Status Monitoring

Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request

Honolulu, HI 97801

hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov

 _______________________________________________________________

 

I responded with this:

 
From: Nellie
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 5:08 AM
To: hdohinfo
Subject: Re: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

 
Aloha!

 
VR-1 Birth index (p 21 on retention schedule)

VDR-1 Delayed BC Index (p. 22 on retention schedule)

VDR-6  COHB Index (p 23 on retention schedule)

VDR-10 Index to certificates of foreign birth (p 19 on retention schedule)

 
I’ve enclosed the retention schedules so you can see what I’m talking about. There should be either original copies or microfilms. Since these are from 1961 they would not be computerized. I’m asking for electronic copies of the original or microfilmed records, including everything that was authorized for public release before UIPA was passed in 1988 (name, birth date, and certificate number – which were public since at least 1977; see p. 11 of OIP Opinion Letter 90-23 ) since UIPA was not intended to close any previously-authorized disclosures (see  Opinion Letter 90-04 (page 6 ) .  Any other information may be redacted if its disclosure was not authorized before 1988 and an exemption to disclosure applies)

 
I just noticed that VDR-10 begins in 1981 so there would not be any records for 1961. My apologies for that mistake.

 
Thanks!

Nellie

 
___________________________________________________________________________

Having received no response I reminded the HDOH that I was waiting and narrowed down my request:

 
—– Original Message —–
From: Nellie
To: hdohinfo

Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:58 PM

Subject: Fw: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

Aloha!

 

I haven’t heard back from you on this and realize that these would be very large records. I’ll narrow this down, for now, to copies of the original VR-1 pages from 1961 containing birth index data for Michael T Asing, Nathan C Asing, Rocky W Asing, Norman Asing, Barack H Obama II, and Tomiyo Sunahara, as well as the 3 pages before and 3 pages after each of those pages.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the name, birth date and certificate number were actually required for public disclosure before UIPA was passed in 1988 and so they were grandfathered in as discloseable. Any other information may be redacted if necessary to protect confidential information.

 

I prefer to receive these as electronic scans via e-mail.

 

Thank you.

Nellie

 
______________________________________________________________________________

 
The HDOH response was totally unrelated to my request and neither fulfilled nor denied my request:

 
—– Original Message —–
From: hdohinfo

To: Nellie
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

Aloha Ms. (redacted):

 

Please visit our site http://hawaii.gov.health/vital-records/obama.html to review conditions under which vital records may be requested.

 

 

Hawaii Department of Health

Public Information Office staff

 
Send mail to:
State Department of Health

Office of Health Status Monitoring

Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request

Honolulu, HI 97801

hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov

 

___________________________________________________________________

I responded:

 

—– Original Message —–
From: Nellie

To: hdohinfo

Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:13 PM

Subject: Re: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

I have not requested vital records. I have requested to see a government record of index data. In an e-mail yesterday I further clarified the particular records I am asking to see. I said:

>>>>>

Aloha!

 

I haven’t heard back from you on this and realize that these would be very large records. I’ll narrow this down, for now, to copies of the original VR-1 pages from 1961 containing birth index data for Michael T Asing, Nathan C Asing, Rocky W Asing, Norman Asing, Barack H Obama II, and Tomiyo Sunahara, as well as the 3 pages before and 3 pages after each of those pages.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the name, birth date and certificate number were actually required for public disclosure before UIPA was passed in 1988 and so they were grandfathered in as discloseable. Any other information may be redacted if necessary to protect confidential information.

 

I prefer to receive these as electronic scans via e-mail.

 

Thank you.

Nellie

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

After a week of waiting and receiving no response at all I sent this:

 
—– Original Message —–
From: Nellie
To: hdohinfo

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:36 PM
Subject: Fw: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

It is past the time for you to have sent the requested records I asked for. When will you be sending these public records to me?

 
Thanks.

Nellie

__________________________________________________________________________

They responded:

—– Original Message —–

From: hdohinfo

To: Nellie

Cc: Linden.H.Joesting@hawaii.gov

Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:25 PM

Subject: RE: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

Aloha Ms. (redacted),

This is in response to your request sent April 8, 2010.  The department has no records responsive to your request as there are no “original copies or microfilms” of birth index data from 1961.  The “original copies or microfilms” from which birth index data is compiled consist of vital statistics records that are restricted from disclosure under Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18.  All birth index data is stored electronically, therefore, birth index data is available to the public in the form of pages generated by a computer. 

 
 

The department can mail you all birth index data from 1961.  We require a prepayment of $98.75 to cover our costs in order to send you the records.  Please see the attached Notice to Requestor form OIP 4 (rev. 8/29/08) for a breakdown of the costs to provide you with the records.

 
 

If you would like to receive the computer printed pages of birth index data, please send your cashiers check, certified check or money order to:

State Department of Health

Office of Health Status Monitoring

Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request

P.O. Box 3378

Honolulu, HI 96801

Hawaii Department of Health

Public Information Office staff

 
 

Send mail to:

State Department of Health

Office of Health Status Monitoring

Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request

Honolulu, HI 96801

hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov

________________________________________________________________________

My response:

—– Original Message —–

From: Nellie

To:
hdohinfo

Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:20 PM

Subject: Re: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

Your response ignores the e-mail I sent on April 20th. –  11 office days ago – and the reminder I sent on April 21st saying that a response was overdue and specifically stating that I had sent an e-mail narrowing down my request and including an actual copy of that e-mail I had sent. I also reminded you again on April 26th. Those e-mails are printed below.

 
 

Your e-mail doesn’t have those communications included. Did you receive the e-mails I sent on April 20, 21, and 26th? If not, do you have my e-mail address blocked or have you in any other way kept my e-mail from reaching your office or destroyed my e-mails? I have contacted my ISP and they assured me that if a message is not delivered I would get a message saying so. They said the only reason for my e-mails to not be received would be if the recipient of the e-mails blocked them or routed them to a spam folder. Are my e-mails being sent to a spam folder? According to my ISP provider none of my e-mails should have been “lost” but 2 of the e-mails I sent which are older than the 10-business-day limit you have to respond to requests have gone totally unanswered. What is going on in your office?

 
 

Please note that I did not ask for VR-2, which is the certificates. VR-1 is listed as something different than the certificates and it is required to be permanent – with microfilm copies possible – which indicates that it was a physical document (not a digital record) required to be kept permanently and thus still in existence today. I sent the DOH retention schedule with one of my e-mails and listed the page numbers for the items I requested. On the same page as VR-1 (indexes) is VR-2 (the certificates) so if you looked at the information I gave you at all you would have seen that these are different records, with different reference codes. I could not have made my request any clearer, nor could I have documented any more clearly that I was requesting the index, which is distinct from the certificates and is required to be kept permanently – possibly on microfilm. Whatever paper documents were in use when the records were computerized was not authorized to be destroyed by any revision in the retention schedule as of the beginning of this year when I received my copy of the DOH retention schedule.

 
 

 If this document was destroyed I request to see the disposal request and the revised retention schedule, as well as any communications involving the request for the destruction of this record, which had to have happened sometime since the beginning of this year.

 
 

Index data is not only discloseable; it is REQUIRED to be disclosed. HRS 338 specifically authorizes the disclosure of index data. HRS 338-18A – the only part which forbids the disclosure of information from vital records – only forbids disclosures NOT ALREADY AUTHORIZED BY RULES OR LAW. Because index data is REQUIRED to be disclosed, the provisions of 338-18a never apply to that information. UIPA says that disclosures specifically authorized by law MUST be made upon request.There is therefore nothing which protects this record from disclosure, although information which was not authorized for disclosure before UIPA was passed should be redacted – as I said before. Before UIPA was passed the law required that the name, date, and certificate number be disclosed. Those are the parts which are required by UIPA to be disclosed, and there is no reason it can’t be disclosed from the original index document – which is a public record and therefore must be disclosed.

 
 

I will respond further when I receive a response that incorporates what I said in my last 3 e-mails regarding this request:

Their response totally ignored what I said in my e-mail:

—– Original Message —–

From:
hdohinfo

To: Nellie

Cc:
oip@hawaii.gov

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:17 PM

Subject: RE: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

Aloha Ms. (redacted):

We believe we have already responded to your request. Copied below is our response again.

Aloha Ms. (redacted),

This is in response to your request sent April 8, 2010.  The department has no records responsive to your request as there are no “original copies or microfilms” of birth index data from 1961.  The “original copies or microfilms” from which birth index data is compiled consist of vital statistics records that are restricted from disclosure under Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18.  All birth index data is stored electronically, therefore, birth index data is available to the public in the form of pages generated by a computer. 

 
 

The department can mail you all birth index data from 1961.  We require a prepayment of $98.75 to cover our costs in order to send you the records.  Please see the attached Notice to Requestor form OIP 4 (rev. 8/29/08) for a breakdown of the costs to provide you with the records.

 
 

If you would like to receive the computer printed pages of birth index data, please send your cashiers check, certified check or money order to:

State Department of Health

Office of Health Status Monitoring

Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request

P.O. Box 3378

Honolulu, HI 96801

Hawaii Department of Health

Public Information Office staff

 
 

Send mail to:

State Department of Health

Office of Health Status Monitoring

Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request

Honolulu, HI 96801

hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov

_________________________________________________________________________________________

In response, I put the question to them point-blank:

—– Original Message —–

From: Nellie

To:
hdohinfo

Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:48 PM

Subject: Re: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10

I contacted Susan Shaner, the Archivist, who said that they were not asked to microfilm the indices in 1980 so they do not have microfilms and they also don’t have the original paper records. Upon seeing the retention schedule she suggested that I contact you because you should have them. Where are they?

Hawaii Archivist Says HDOH Should Have Indices

Hawaii Archivist Says HDOH Should Have Indices

 

Below is the final e-mail I received from Hawaii State Archivist, Susan Shaner, saying that the HDOH should have the original birth index that I requested and which the HDOH says does not exist. It includes all the history of communications, beginning with my e-mail to DAGS (Dept of Accounting and General Services), which was then forwarded to the Archives. To read from beginning to end, start at the bottom. I left it in this form so people could see the forwarding and to whom cc’s were made.

 

Below the e-mail are the pages of the Retention Schedule which show the document is to be retained permanently.

 

Summary: The HDOH did not ask the State Archive to microfilm the document in question so the only form that still exists is the paper record, which is required in the Retention Schedule to be permanent. The Vital Statistics Office is required by law to have that document in their office.

 

—– Original Message —–

From:
susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov

To:
(redacted).net

Cc:
luella.h.kurkjian@hawaii.gov ; carol.l.silva@hawaii.gov

Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:17 PM

Subject: Re: Microfilm copies?

 


No.  We do not hold the original vital statistics indices in paper form or any other form, nor do we have administrative control over them.  I suggest you contact the DOH, Office of Health Status Monitoring for information on the paper copies of these records.

 

“Nellie (redacted)

05/10/2010 03:46 PM

To

<susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov>

cc

 

Subject

Re: Microfilm copies?

   

Thanks. We’re almost there. =)

 
Do you hold the original indices in paper form? If so, do you have administrative control over them, or does the HDOH or other entity?

 
Thanks!

Nellie

—– Original Message —–
From:
susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov

To:
(redacted).net

Cc:
carol.l.silva@hawaii.gov ; luella.h.kurkjian@hawaii.gov

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Microfilm copies?


Hi Nellie,


Thank you for forwarding a copy of the schedule you were citing.  Schedules set out blueprints for agencies to allow them to manage their records and to ensure that records identified as permanent are either cared for by the agency that created them or by another entity such as the Hawaii State Archives.  Although a schedule states that microfilm copies may be made, agencies do not automatically make these copies.  As far as our records show, we received no request to film vital statistics indices from the DOH.  Therefore, the DOH, Office of Health Status Monitoring, should still be holding these records.



We store many of the master microfilms of state agency records in our storage vault.  Given that vital statistics indexes are scheduled as permanent, master microfilm copies of these records, if they existed, are eligible for storage in our vaults along with the vital records themselves.    We hold no master microforms of DOH vital statistics indices in our vault.



Hope this answers your questions.


Susan



Susan Shaner                                  
Administrator, Hawaii State Archives
voice: (808)586-0310
fax: (808)586-0330
susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov

“Nellie (redacted)>

05/10/2010 11:35 AM

 

To

<susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov>

cc

 

Subject

Re: Microfilm copies?

   


Hi, Susan.

 

The Retention Schedule is attached. VR-1 (vital records index) is on page 21. The schedule calls for both the indices and the vital records themselves to be saved permanently, with security and searchable microfilms being authorized. I’m only asking about the indices. The retention schedule is from 1980, which is within the time period that you said the Archives were doing microfilming. Was this request submitted to the Archives for microfilming? If so, do you have those?


 

If those microfilms were not made, could you tell me who holds the original indices?

 

This records retention schedule was sent to me early this year. I searched for any revision requesting disposal of either the microfilms or originals and there were no requests made within what was sent me so I understand that these have been stored permanently as required in the retention schedule. Can you please help me locate where those are stored and what department has administrative control over them?


 

Thank you.


Nellie

 

—– Original Message —–

From:
susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov

To:
(redacted).net

Cc:
carol.l.silva@hawaii.gov ; luella.h.kurkjian@hawaii.gov

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:54 PM

Subject: Re: Microfilm copies?

 


Hi Nellie,

The Archives has not microfilmed any of the vital statistics indices.  What is the records retention request from 1980 that you mentioned?

The DOH vital records indices for births, deaths and marriages were filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, between 1978 and 1978  and again between 1990-1991 as follows:

Birth index, 1896-1909 (filmed 1978)

Birth index, 1909-1949 (filmed 1990-1991)

Death index, 1896-1909 (filmed 1978)

Death index, 1909-1949 (filmed 1991)

Delayed birth registration index , ca. 1859-ca. 1938 (filmed 1978-1979)

Marriage index, grooms & brides, 1884-1896 (filmed 1978)

Marriage index 1909-1949 (filmed 1991)

This is the only filming of indices that I could find.  Not sure if this helps you.

Susan

Susan Shaner                                  
Administrator, Hawaii State Archives
voice: (808)586-0310
fax: (808)586-0330
susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov

“Nellie (redacted)

05/06/2010 03:52 PM

To

<susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov>

cc

 

Subject

Re: Microfilm copies?

   

Hi, Susan.

 
Thank you for your prompt response. I greatly appreciate it.

 
You microfilmed the vital records and sent the originals back to the DOH until 1996. Did you microfilm the indices in 1980? There is a records retention request from 1980 which said that the indices were to be retained permanently and authorized microfilm copies to be made for security and search purposes. A similar request existed for the vital records themselves, so the vital records and indices were two different things. Were microfilms made of the indices from years 1956-1980? Are either the microfilms or the original handwritten indices stored at the archives now, or are they stored somewhere else?
 
Thank you!

Nellie

 
—– Original Message —–
From:
susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov

To: (redacted).net

Cc:
carol.l.silva@hawaii.gov ; luella.h.kurkjian@hawaii.gov

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:07 PM
Subject: Fw: Microfilm copies?


Hi Nellie:
Your email was forwarded to me by the Comptroller’s office.



In 1961 and in 1964, the Department of Health (DOH), Research, Planning and Statistics Office transferred IBM Birth Cards (1941-1955) and IBM Marriage Cards (1941-1948) to the Archives Division, State Records Center.


In 1976, all of the IBM Marriage cards (1941-1948) were withdrawn permanently from the Records Center, at the direction of George Tokuyama, Asst. Chief, Research & Statistics Office, and returned to the DOH, Research, Planning and Statistics Office.



In 1977, George H. Tokuyama, Asst. Chief, Research & Statistics Office, DOH, authorized the Archives to release the IBM Birth Cards (1941-1955) to Dr. Newton Morton, Population Genetics Department, University of Hawaii.  They were never returned to the Archives.



The Archives for decades, filmed vital records for the DOH and returned all hard copies after filming to the DOH.  In 1996, we stopped filming for the DOH after our microfilm unit was closed due to reduction-in-force.



If you have further questions, please contact me.



Susan



Susan Shaner                                  
Administrator, Hawaii State Archives
voice: (808)586-0310
fax: (808)586-0330
susan.e.shaner@hawaii.gov


—– Forwarded by Susan E Shaner/dags on 05/06/2010 02:21 PM —–

DAGS/dags@STATEHIUS

Sent by: Geraldine Green/DAGS/StateHiUS@STATEHIUS

05/05/2010 04:02 PM

 

To

Susan E Shaner/dags@dags

cc

Harriet N Miura/dags@dags

Subject

Fw: Microfilm copies?

   


Please respond direct. Tx.



GG



—– Forwarded by Geraldine Green/DAGS/StateHiUS on 05/05/2010 04:01 PM —–

“Nellie (redacted)>

05/05/2010 09:46 AM

 

To

<dags@hawaii.gov>

cc

 

Subject

Microfilm copies?

   


Aloha!


 

I’ve looked at the retention schedules and it seems that after the vital records department converted its records to digital format around 1977 they submitted the original paper indices used up to that time to the comptroller in 1980, noting that those records were to be retained permanently and authorizing microfilm copies to be made for search and security purposes. Does the archive have those paper copies and/or microfilms, ranging between 1959 to about 1977, or do you know who would have those? I didn’t see any requests for disposal of those records in the DOH retention schedule when I checked it earlier this year.


 

Any help or direction you could give would be greatly appreciated.


 

Thanks!


Nellie

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Below is the cover sheet and one of the pages that went with it, requiring the indices to be retained permanently:

 


 



 

Index of Foreign Births Destroyed

Index of Foreign Births Destroyed

Here is the response I received for my request to see the Index of Foreign Births. Below the e-mail is the page of the DOH Retention Schedule which shows when the record was submitted for analysis and it was decided the record was to be retained permanently.

 
 

—– Original Message —–

From:
hdohinfo

To: Nellie 

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 5:56 PM

Subject: RE: UIPA Request -Foreign Birth Index 1982 until now

 

Aloha Ms. (redacted):

 

There are no records responsive to your request.

 

Hawaii Department of Health

Public Information Office staff

 
 

Send mail to:

State Department of Health

Office of Health Status Monitoring

Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request

Honolulu, HI 97801

hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov

 

 


From: Nellie 
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:11 AM
To: hdohinfo
Subject: Fw: UIPA Request -Foreign Birth Index 1982 until now

 

 
 

4-22-10

Aloha!

 
 

Pursuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the index for certificates of foreign birth (VDR-10, which is to be retained permanently) from the year 1982 until now, with all non-discloseable parts redacted.

 
 

Thank you!

Nellie

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Below is the DOH Retention Schedule showing this document to be retained permanently. Please also note that Dr. Alvin Onaka did not designate the index as being restricted because of HRS 338-18, as he notes for the certificates themselves. This clearly shows that the indices are NOT called “vital records” by Dr. Onaka and are NOT considered restricted information by him.

 


OIP Non-Answers Re: Glomar Responses

OIP Non-Answers Regarding Glomar Responses

 

Reviewing some of the requests & responses, I came across Leo Donofrio’s request for records which had caused the HDOH to say (on the FTS and/or Factcheck COLB’s) that Obama’s birth certificate was filed on Aug 8, 1961 – specifically the records which were in existence before Aug 10, 1961. Leo believed that the HDOH response had confirmed that those records exist. Looking at their responses I wasn’t so sure. Knowing now that the newspaper birth announcements were faked, I know of nothing that shows there was any HDOH birth record for Obama back in 1961 so the question of what the HDOH actually told Donofrio on this question became more important.

 

I remembered a LOT of responses received by me and others that were so unclear that we had no idea what the HDOH was even saying. When I had asked the OIP about the use of the words “if any” in HDOH responses to me Takase had explained that this was a Glomar response. Once I understood what a Glomar response is and why it is used, I stopped pursuing any of my requests where a Glomar response is appropriate.

 

Once I understood what requests require a Glomar response, the response to Leo’s request became suspect, because according to the standards they used with my requests, they should have given a Glomar response to Leo’s request – should have refused to reveal any information which is on the actual birth certificate, including the date. So in response to requests for records before Aug 9, 1961 they should have said that the requested records, if any, are protected from disclosure because of HRS 338-18a, unless they accepted the premise that the Factcheck and FTS COLB’s were disclosures by the HDOH and they were thus required to disclose the records maintained by them for the purpose of making that disclosure – in which case HRS 338-18a would be moot.. From their response it seems the HDOH is refusing to accept the premise that the online COLB’s are disclosures by them. Either the HDOH and OIP are misunderstanding or disobeying the rules that disclosures, once made, must be substantiated upon request, or else they are denying that the online COLB’s are from their office.

 

Anyway, I decided to ask the OIP a general question about what kinds of responses qualify as Glomar responses, giving 3 examples of the kinds of confusing answers I’ve seen from the HDOH and asking whether each one is a Glomar response. Summarizing the exchange, the attorney said that “if any” doesn’t have to be used in a Glomar response but refused to say which of the 3 examples I gave, if any, would be considered Glomar responses. Finally she said she wasn’t going to respond any more and if I wanted help I would need to submit a request for help showing the entire exchange with the HDOH. The conversation I had with the OIP attorney is posted below.

 

Because the words “if any” don’t have to be used for a Glomar response, that brought up the question of whether the original response to Terri K was really a standard denial as I’ve claimed, or whether it was a Glomar response. OIP Attorney Linden Joesting had said twice that if the records didn’t exist the HDOH should say so and concluded in her final communication that it was a proper denial of access, without saying anything about it being a Glomarized denial. But maybe the HDOH thought they were giving a Glomarized response because even the existence of those records is supposed to be confidential.

 

But that is shown not to be the case by the HDOH response to a DUPLICATE REQUEST I’ve made. When I had submitted the same request as Terri K had submitted the HDOH gave me a straight-out answer that the records don’t exist – which would be unlawful for them to give me if they thought they could neither confirm nor deny the very existence of those records. That tells me that the HDOH knows a Glomar response is not proper for those records. Their response to Terri K was not a Glomarized response but a denial of access to the records which existed at that time but no longer existed by the time I submitted the same request to the HDOH.

 

Regarding Leo’s request, I’ve since concluded that Okubo originally gave a Glomar response, then said the records don’t exist, and then Cathy Takase swooped in to say that the HDOH intended to deny access to the responsive records they maintain, which are birth records. So in response to that single request of Donofrio’s there were all 3 possible answers: a Glomar response, a claim that the records don’t exist, and then a claim by Takase that the records do exist. So what can we conclude about the records OR about the HDOH when they answer a single request with “maybe” first, then “no”, and then the OIP interprets the HDOH answers as being “yes”? And then the OIP refuses to clarify whether any of those responses are actually Glomar responses?

 

I conclude that both the HDOH and OIP are being VEXATIOUS.

 

And I conclude that the OIP wants to decide what words mean based on something besides just the words. They don’t want to say what the words mean unless they know what record the words apply to. Looking at Takase’s calculation that “maybe + no = yes”, it suggests that maybe the OIP is in charge of damage control.

 

 

 

Here is the entire exchange I had with the OIP Attorney

 

On 05/10/2010 07:24 PM I sent the following request for help from the OIP Attorney of the Day:

 

Dear Attorney,


1. Does a Glomar response have to contain the words “if any”? What would be some other ways of denying access to a record without confirming that a record exists?



2. Please indicate whether this is a Glomarized response to a request for a specific record:



“Your response appears to be for a vital record or information related to vital records which is governed by HRS 338-18. Therefore I am unable to provide records responsive to your request.”


3. Please indicate whether this is a Glomarized response to a request for a specific record:

“It is clear that DOH believes that the only responsive records it maintains are birth records and related information, which section 338-18, HRS, protects from disclosure except to the extent an individual has a tangible interest as outlined in that same section… DOH’s responses clearly indicate that you are being denied access to birth records and related information because of the statutory protection afforded under section 338-18, HRS.”


4. Please indicate whether this is a Glomarized response to a request for a specific record:


A note saying that the records are denied, together with a Notice to Requestor noting, as justification for denial, that a verification can not be made.


Thank you.

Nellie

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I received this response:

—– Original Message —–
From:

oip@hawaii.gov

To:
Nellie
Sent:
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:31 PM
Subject:
Re: Question for Attorney of the Day

A Glomar response is not required to include specific magic words.  Rather, the term refers to the general concept of responding in a way that does not definitively state whether an agency does, in fact, maintain any responsive records.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response and http://www.doi.gov/foia/glomar.htm .  

Please be advised that OIP will not make a determination about whether an agency’s response to a UIPA request is proper without reviewing the full request and response and giving the agency an opportunity to present its position.   If you believe an agency response to your UIPA request was incomplete or improper, you can ask that a file be opened on that issue.

Jennifer Z. Brooks
Staff Attorney

Office of Information Practices
State of Hawaii
No. 1 Capitol District Building
250 S. Hotel St., Suite 107
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel.: 808-586-1400
Fax: 808-586-1412
E-mail: oip@hawaii.gov
Web site: http://www.hawaii.gov/oip


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 05/11/2010 04:48 PM I responded with this:

Thank you for your response.

 

I’m not asking if a response was proper. I’m asking you to translate the governmentese in these types of responses. Are these examples of Glomarized responses? Please bear in mind that communication which nobody understands clearly is the same as no communication at all. The standard denial does not specifically state whether an agency maintains any responsive records either. It is presumed that if the response doesn’t make it clear that it is NOT confirming the existence of records, the records exist. It is up to the responding agency to make clear that they are neither confirming nor denying the existence of the record being denied. There is no need to be secretive about whether a Glomar response is being given or not. If the existence of a record is not discloseable why not just say so plainly? If it is discloseable and the records are being denied, why not say so? Muddling the words is a waste of everybody’s time. It is “vexatious”.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

I received this response:

—– Original Message —–
From:
oip@hawaii.gov

To:
Nellie

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Question for Attorney of the Day


I have already directed you to general information about what a Glomar response is.  I cannot determine whether an agency’s response to a request was proper, or what the agency may have meant by a phrase, without seeing the phrase in the context of the full request and response.  If you believe the responses you quoted or paraphrased from are not proper, you may provide OIP with the original request and the full response you received and seek assistance with the matter.



Jennifer Z. Brooks
Staff Attorney

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I responded on 05/12/2010 06:57 PM with:

 

I am not asking if they are proper. I am asking for a translation of what they mean. Are these examples of a Glomar response, or not? If you asked for a specific document and received these responses, would you conclude that they were denying access to records they have, or would you conclude that they are refusing to say whether they have the document you requested?

 
Context would make this easier for you because you know what records requests should get a Glomar response. We laypeople who have been making requests don’t know that. We have nothing but the words to go by. So if you were in our shoes and had only the words to go by, what would you conclude as a result of each of these communications? I don’t want to know what the responses should have been. I want to know what these responses ARE. Are these saying “I deny you access to the specific record you requested” or are they saying “I couldn’t give you the record you asked for even if I have it”?

 
Thank you for clarifying that the “if any” statement isn’t necessary for a response to be Glomarized. I think you’ll agree that using those words would make it a heck of a lot easier for normal people to understand exactly what is being said, which makes me wonder why any department would give a Glomarized response without using those clear words. But since the determination of whether it is a Glomarized response depends on whether the denial is for the exact record requested, I need to know if these types of answers are denials of hypothetical records or of the specific records requested.
 
If I understand the language I don’t have to bother your office asking about the many responses I’ve received that are similar to these. Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t want to be vexatious. I just want to understand, and the words that have been communicated to me don’t allow me to understand until somebody translates them for me. One of the statutes actually requires departments to explain unfamiliar terminology used on forms so the words can be understood by the person who requested the documents. If the language used in these responses can’t even be understood by an attorney it’s unreasonable to expect a layperson to understand it.

 
Thank you for any help you can give me.

Nellie

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The final response from the OIP was this:

 

—– Original Message —–

From:
oip@hawaii.gov

To:
Nellie

Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:25 PM

Subject: Re: Question for Attorney of the Day

 


Again, if you wish to question an agency’s response to a request, you may provide OIP with the original request and the full response you received and seek assistance with the matter.
 In light of our other duties, this must and will be OIP’s final response with respect to this inquiry.

Jennifer Z. Brooks
Staff Attorney