Office of Information Practices

The Office of Information Practices recently issued six informal opinions under the Uniform Information Practices Act, chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (UIPA), and Sunshine Law, part I of chapter 92, HRS.  The summaries of the opinions can be found on the Opinions page at oip.hawaii.gov and by clicking the links below. 

 S MEMO 25-03  the Honolulu Neighborhood Commission Office distributed a board packet to the Neighborhood Commission members on July 22, 2022, but did not notify persons on the Neighborhood Commission’s meeting notice mailing list that board packet was available at any time before or even after its meeting of July 25, 2022.  OIP concluded that Neighborhood Commission’s failure to notify its mailing list of the board packet’s availability violated the Sunshine Law’s board packet provision. 

 S MEMO 25-04  one member of the Downtown-Chinatown Neighborhood Board No. 13 (NB 13) emailed the remaining NB 13 members about an agenda item for NB 13’s meeting to be held the next day, and OIP found the email was a discussion between NB 13 members about NB 13’s board business.  Because no permitted interaction in section 92-2.5, HRS, authorized the discussion, OIP concluded that NB 13 violated the Sunshine Law.  

 S MEMO 25-05  OIP found that the agenda for the State Public Charter School Commission’s (PCSC) meeting on June 20, 2022, did not sufficiently inform the public of what “Parent Complaints” PCSC’s staff had investigated and would be reporting on, and concluded that PCSC’s discussion on these topics violated the Sunshine Law.  OIP also found that while PCSC’s staff’s report made a reference to Kamalani Academy’s governance agendas and board minutes, PCSC did not discuss this topic during the meeting.  OIP concluded that PCSC did not violate the Sunshine Law by discussing this topic. 

 U MEMO 25-17  Requester sought body worn camera (BWC) recordings from the Maui Police Department (MPD) taken during an investigation of a death.  OIP found that MPD properly redacted footage showing the interior of decedent’s home to protect privacy interests of the decedent and his family.  OIP also found that MPD properly redacted identifying information about a witness and the bystanders near the home to protect their privacy interests.   

 U MEMO 25-18  The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) sought an opinion on whether DLNR may withhold “sensitive location data” related to fisheries and marine resources voluntarily provided by community groups.  OIP concluded that DLNR may redact sensitive location data under section 92F-13(3), HRS, when community groups voluntarily provided DLNR that location data based on an understanding that the information would not be made public, and disclosure of that information would impair DLNR’s ability to receive similar information in the future.  

 U MEMO 25-19  Requester asked whether the Aloha Stadium Authority Board (Authority) properly denied his request for recordings of a presentation made in executive session.  The Authority no longer maintained a recording of the executive session that included the presentation Requester was seeking access to, and OIP concluded that the Authority could not be required under the UIPA to produce records it no longer maintained.  Since the Authority had previously made public the written minutes of the executive session that included the presentation Requester was seeking a recording of, OIP did not need to reach the question of whether the Authority was required to disclose them in the absence of any recordings of the Presentation.