Office of Information Practices

The State Office of Information Practices (OIP) issued eight informal opinions since the start of fiscal year 2025. The summaries of all these opinions can be accessed through the Opinions Page at oip.hawaii.gov and by clicking the links below.

S Memo 25-01: The Board of Education (BOE) did not violate the Sunshine Law when it edited a copy of the notice for a meeting posted on BOE’s website less than six days before the meeting to note that additional meeting materials had been posted on BOE’s website.  OIP cautioned BOE to avoid editing copies of notices for meetings posted on its website in this way in the future, because doing so may confuse members of the public.

U Memo 25-01: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) conducted a reasonable search for inmate property records in locations where responsive records would likely have been found but no responsive records were located; and DCR had actual knowledge that the Hawaii Community Correctional Center did not maintain the requested video surveillance footage because it had been destroyed before the record request was made.  OIP concluded that DCR established that it did not maintain the video and property records and met its obligations under the UIPA.

U Memo 25-02: The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Regulated Industries Complaints Office (RICO), properly denied access to a copy of a complaint filed against Requester’s client (Client) because the requested records were part of an ongoing administrative proceeding against the Client at the time the request was made.

U Memo 25-03: The Department of the Attorney General (AG) properly denied access to records of its legal review of proposed ghost gun legislation because the requested records are protected by the attorney-client privilege as set forth in Rule 503, Hawaii Rules of Evidence, chapter 626, HRS.  However, the attorney work product doctrine is applicable in this case.

U Memo 25-04: Requester sought records related to his employment application from the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).  OIP found that DLNR conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the request in locations such records were likely to be found and provided Requester with all records DLNR could locate that were responsive to the record request.  OIP therefore concluded that DLNR properly responded to the record request and satisfied its obligations under the UIPA.

U Memo 25-05: The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Regulated Industries Complaints Office (RICO) properly denied a copy of a painting company’s answer to a complaint and an Advisory Committee Member (ACM) report pursuant to sections 92F-13(3), 92F-22(4), and 92F-22(2), HRS, because (1) the responsive records related to an active RICO enforcement action involving the Requester-complainant, (2) premature disclosure would frustrate RICO’s law enforcement function in prosecuting alleged licensing law violations, and (3) the ACM received an express promise of confidentiality as a condition of assisting RICO.

U Memo 25-06: Requester sought records related to his employment application from the Department of Education (DOE) and appealed DOE’s response to his request.  OIP found that DOE conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the request in locations such records were likely to be found, that DOE properly identified records responsive to the record request, that DOE may withhold prospective employee interview questions under section 92F-22(3), HRS, and that, given that DOE had already provided the names of the interview panel members separately, DOE may redact the names of interview panel members from the scoring sheets under section 92F-22(2), HRS.  OIP concluded that DOE properly responded to the record request and satisfied its obligations under the UIPA to search for such records.

U Memo 25-07: OIP consolidated four appeals from the same Requester regarding the same agency.  OIP found that for each appeal, the Department of Health (DOH) provided Requester with copies of all responsive records it maintains.  OIP further found that for each appeal DOH conducted reasonable searches for responsive records in the places where the requested records were most likely to be maintained.  OIP concluded that, for all four appeals, DOH met its burden under the UIPA and no further action is required.