Office of Information Practices

The Office of Information Practices (OIP) resolves open meetings and open records disputes, advises government agencies and boards, and assists the public in understanding their rights under these laws.  OIP has a vacant Staff Attorney position that is “at will” and exempt from civil service.   Must have a J.D. from an accredited law school and be licensed and in good standing to practice in the State of Hawaii.

Requirements: strong legal writing, analytical, and research skills; excellent communication and interpersonal skills; ability to work collaboratively in a team environment; ability to track multiple ongoing projects and meet deadlines.  Ideal candidates are strong legal writers who can also interface with the public and government employees.  Benefits include work/life balance; and State benefits including pension, medical, vision & dental insurance.  Salary starting at $100,000 per year, or higher based on skill and experience.  Email [email protected] with resume, 3 references & writing sample.  OIP is an equal opportunity employer.  The State of Hawaii requires that all persons seeking employment with state government be citizens, nationals, or permanent resident aliens of the United States, or eligible under federal law for unrestricted employment in the United States.

OIP also issued one formal opinion and three informal opinions. The summaries of these opinions can be found on the Opinions Page at oip.hawaii.gov and by clicking the links below.

OIP Op. Ltr. No. F25-01 The Public First Law Center questioned whether the Honolulu Police Commission (Commission) was violating the Sunshine Law in its meetings, by failing to include sufficiently detailed purposes on its meeting notices for executive meetings anticipated in advance; failing generally to include sufficiently detailed agenda items on meeting notices and to list topics actually discussed at meetings; and engaging in executive session discussions not allowed under the Sunshine Law.  OIP concluded that the Commission was indeed violating the Sunshine Law through its routine use of catch-all agenda items and failure to specify which topics it would actually discuss at a meeting and which executive session purpose it believed authorized each item listed for executive session discussion.  OIP further concluded that the Commission’s executive session discussions in many instances did not fall under one of the Sunshine Law’s authorized purposes for discussing an issue in executive session.

U MEMO 25-13 The Hawaii County Department of Information Technology properly denied access to emails under section 92F-13(4), HRS, because the communications were protected by attorney-client privilege as set forth in Rule 503, Hawaii Rules of Evidence, chapter 626, HRS.

U MEMO 25-14 The Department of Education (DOE) did not have to conduct a reasonable search for a school-specific rule restricting school football players from practicing with players from other teams because the Mililani High School athletic director, an employee with actual knowledge, sufficiently explained that such a rule did not exist, and DOE schools follow the Oahu Interscholastic Association rules related to practices and eligibility.  OIP concluded that DOE met its obligations under the UIPA.

S MEMO 25-02 A member of the public asked whether the State Council on Mental Health (SCMH) had violated the Sunshine Law by failing to send persons on its notification list timely notice of the availability of board packets for its meetings.  OIP concluded that none of the time standards set out in section 92-7.5, HRS, could be read to apply to the board packet notification requirement, but for the requirement to be effective it must at least be done in time for those receiving a board packet notification to obtain and review the board packet itself prior to the meeting.  OIP found that SCMH had sent its board packet notifications, each with a link to the board packet itself, in time for those receiving it to obtain and review each board packet prior to the relevant meeting, and concluded that SCMH had not violated the Sunshine Law by failing to send timely board packet notifications.