The Office of Information Practices has released six informal opinions that delve into alleged violations and reinterpretations of Hawaii’s open government laws. These opinions, anchored by the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) and Sunshine Law, provide insight into a range of governance and privacy incidents and queries that have arisen within the Aloha State's public institutions, according to the Office of Information Practices.
In a recently issued memo, labeled as S MEMO 25-03, the Office of Information Practices took the Honolulu Neighborhood Commission Office to task for not notifying interested parties about the availability of a board packet in due time. The Commission distributed the packet to its members on July 22, 2022, but failed to make it publicly accessible before or even after the meeting held on July 25, 2022. This action, or rather inaction, was found to violate the Sunshine Law’s board packet provision—meant to ensure that the public remains in the loop about the matters at hand, as reported by the Office of Information Practices.
An email misstep landed the Downtown-Chinatown Neighborhood Board No. 13 (NB 13) in the hot water as well. Detailed in S MEMO 25-04, a member of NB 13 sent out an email regarding board business, resulting in an unpermitted discussion amongst board members. The Office of Information Practices concluded that this digital back-and-forth skirted the permitted interactions allowed under section 92-2.5, HRS, thereby stepping outside the bounds of the Sunshine Law.
Opacity rather than transparency was the concern outlined in S MEMO 25-05. The State Public Charter School Commission’s meeting agenda on June 20, 2022, was vague to the point of leaving the public in the dark about the nature of “Parent Complaints” the State Public Charter School Commission’s staff had investigated. The Office of Information Practices found that such lack of detail led to a Sunshine Law violation. However, the State Public Charter School Commission avoided further reproach as they did to not discuss undisclosed topics during the actual meeting.
Body-worn camera footage was the central issue in U MEMO 25-17, where the Maui Police Department was asked to release recordings tied to a death investigation. The Office of Information Practices once again stepped in, justifying Maui Police Department's decision to redact footage that could compromise the privacy of the deceased and their family, along with protecting eyewitnesses. Ensuring that the individuals' identities remain shielded from public exposure.
Meanwhile, the caring of confidential data provided by community groups was under scrutiny. In U MEMO 25-18, the Department of Land and Natural Resources questioned whether to withhold "sensitive location data" related to fisheries and marine resources. The Office of Information Practices agreed that the Department of Land and Natural Resources may withhold such data to prevent future hindrances in acquiring similar information, honoring the implied confidentiality agreed upon with the community groups.
Finally, a missing recording led to the conclusion reached in U MEMO 25-19. The Aloha Stadium Authority Board faced a request for a recording of an executive session presentation no longer in its possession. Therein, the Office of Information Practices clarified that one cannot be compelled under UIPA to produce records that no longer exist. The written minutes of the session in question had already been made public, circumventing the need for further disclosure.
