U Memo 17-7Posted on Jun 23, 2017 in Informal Opinions - UIPA Opinions
U Memo 17-7
June 23, 2017
Personal and Government Records Relating to
Commuter Services and Campus Security Offices
Requester made a long and complex record request to UH, comprising 14 categories of information for which she was seeking records. For many of those categories, her description of the records she was seeking included subclauses and were phrased in the alternative, with a description of the records she believed would have the information she was seeking but also an alternate description of other records that could be provided instead. After UH responded, Requester engaged in correspondence with UH over the next several months over various areas in which she felt that UH’s response was not adequate, in the course of which she also stated that she wanted UH to send her various records that had not been included in the original response.
OIP found that in its responses to Requester’s record requests for various personal and government records and follow-up questions, UH made a reasonable effort to understand what Requester was asking for and to provide all responsive records within the timeframe provided in the UIPA and OIP’s administrative rules. After reviewing correspondence and records comprising several inches of paper, OIP found no evidence that UH deliberately delayed its response, ignored portions of a request, lied to Requester, or otherwise followed a pattern of bad faith denial of access that constructively denied Requester’s access rights under the UIPA.
UH did redact limited information from the records it provided to Requester. UH was justified in withholding contact and insurance information of the owner of a parked vehicle under the UIPA’s privacy exception, section 92F-13(1), HRS. However, UH should have disclosed photos of the vehicle, the vehicle’s license plate number and registration and safety check expiration dates, and the name of the vehicle owner, as that information was either part of Requester’s joint personal record or was not protected by the UIPA’s privacy exception. See HRS § 92F-13(1); OIP Op. Ltr. No. 05‑10.