We have started an FOI Alert Line on pending issues involving open records and meetings. If you would like to be included in the list, just click below and send a message:
Re: Office of Information Practices proposed rules for appeals
After reviewing and re-reviewing the proposed rules, I have
come to the conclusion that they should be dramatically revised.
The proposal sets up a far more bureaucratic and complex
structure than is needed.
Basically, the draft rules create a court appellate system. They
do so while avoiding calling for a contested case hearing.
A person might as well hire an attorney to go to Circuit Court
because these proposed rules would make the person do
almost the same things.
Why can't it be a simple system: person files an appeal
with reasons why it should be open, agency files its response,
the OIP sits down and goes over the document and arguments
and decides what should be public or not?
The proposed system is cumbersome, time-consuming
and not worth pursuing.
It will further backlog the OIP.
It will force people to continue to bypass the OIP.
Stirling Morita
Freedom of Information Committee Chairman
Hawaii chapter, Society of Professional Journalists
The Office of Information Practices has prepared a draft set of rules to handle appeals of agency decisions on release of information. The office is seeking comment on them from June 30 to July 30. A copy of the draft and an impact statement are at the OIP Web page: http://www.state.hi.us/oip If you would like a copy of the draft rules, contact me at smorita@aloha.com and I will mail or fax the rules to you.
I'm sure many of you are aware of the problems resulting from the lack of identities of those injured in the Sacred Falls rockslide. Differing totals at hospitals in competing media, calls from friends looking for injured and trying to find out how they are. The Oahu Civil Defense Agency withheld the information because of privacy. I finally found out what the agency was talking about. Toby Clairmont of Civil Defense says the names of the injured came from the hospitals, not the police or firefighters. The agency has an agreement with the Healthcare Association of Hawaii that it can receive the identities of the injured but cannot disclose them to third parties. He says hospitals are not allowed to identify their patients under the federal Health Care Financing Act. So what the agency did was set up an arrangement with the Red Cross, which people would contact. The hospital then would deal directly with the family members who called in. Clairmont says that if the names had come from police, fire or other government agencies, Civil Defense would have released the information. The bottom line is the information came from private agencies, not public ones. This same thing could happen in the next nonairline disaster. We'll get copies of the agreement and the federal legislation.
FOI Alert #2 was a correction to start date of the medial privacy bill in FOI Alert #1. That date is July 1, 2000.
Greetings: This is the first of reports on Freedom of Information issues in Hawaii from the Hawaii Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists. If you do not wish to receive this report, please let me know at smorita@aloha.com If you know of anyone who should or would like to receive it, also please let me know. MEDICAL PRIVACY BILL We have a major problem facing us after June 30, 2000. That's when a bill recently passed by the Legislature goes into effect. In essence, the bill bars hospitals and other health-care agencies from releasing the medical conditions of patients. It does so by requiring the facilities to get the approval of patients or their representatives before releasing the information. As you well know, this in almost all cases will not be given. This would result in the news media being unable to determine or report the seriousness of accidents or crimes. The public would be unaware of how serious crime is in their neighborhoods or how bad the roads or speeding conditions are. The chapter testified about this during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Senate bill and written testimony in the Judiciary/Health and Human Services hearing on the House counterpart measure. Judiciary Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley said the committee would take care of the problem. The committee never did. When the matter went to conference committee, I faxed each conferee our objections. Rep. Nestor Garcia, a former television newsman, called back and said he would try to buy time for the chapter to come up with language for an exemption. Peggy Jenkins Leong, the Star-Bulletin's attorney, drafted an exemption, and we faxed it to Garcia. Leong, as requested by Garcia, contacted Moya Gray, Office of Information Practices director, who headed a task force on medical privacy. Leong told me that Gray said she was just codifying existing practice, and Leong replied that it is not the current practice. Gray did not raise any objections after that, according to Leong. We found out later from Garcia that the Senate would not accept the amendment. He was upset with Gray's insistence that the bill does not change current practices. The chapter will be asking Gov. Cayetano to veto the bill. You may want to do the same. We face a great uphill battle if we wait until next year - given the resistance by the Office of Information Practices. OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES RULES The chapter predicted that the newly enacted rules for the release of public records could hamstring news operations. The way the rules are written an agency could withhold regularly releasable records for up to 10 days, the SPJ chapter has told OIP. Well, it has happened twice at the Star-Bulletin. If it has happened to your outlet, I would urge you to report it to Moya Gray. She has said she didn't think it would be a problem, but would monitor it. If you want to let me know, that would be great too. I'll keep tabs on this end. That's about it for now, Cheers, Stirling Morita FOI Committee Chairman Hawaii chapter, SPJ