Replies

Great. Too bad what she wrote is shown to be wrong just by looking at the actual documents. But I'll tell you. When you want to learn how to snake a drain, you ask a plumber, not the PR Person for an architect.

Prove that.

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/confirmation-that-certificate-number-given-by-state-registrar%E2%80%99s-office/

RE: UIPA Request – DoH Administrave Rules, Regulations, or Procedures‏
From: Okubo, Janice S. (janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov)
Sent: Wed 2/03/10 11:12 AM
To:

Aloha,
In going back through my e-mails, I found this one and was unsure if a response had been provided. The public health regulations (or administrative rules) regarding vital records are posted at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html There has been no repeal of these rules.

In regards to the terms “date accepted” and “date filed” on a Hawaii birth certificate, the department has no records that define these terms. Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of O’ahu or on the neighbor islands of Kaua’i, Hawai’i, Maui, Moloka’i, or Lana’i), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of O’ahu) respectively.

Historically, most often the “date accepted” and the “date filed” is the same date as the majority of births occur on O’ahu (the island with the largest population in our state). In the past, when births were recorded on paper they may have been accepted at a health office on an island other than O’ahu, such as Kaua’i. The paper record would then need to be sent to O’ahu to have a file number placed on it, and the filed date would then be sometime later (as you know, the state of Hawai’i is comprised of multiple islands with miles of water in between). The electronic age has changed this process significantly, and it was determined some time ago that one date would suffice.

Janice Okubo
Hawaii State Department of Health

Eggie, your analogy is not only false, your friend doesn't even KNOW that the person he talked to was at all knowledgeable about anything. He admitted he wasn't in the department in 1961, and I can tell you this, in the 1970's things WERE done differently in Hawaii. In 1961 Hawaii had been a state for what 3 years....? and you think that their processes would not have evolved over a period of a decade? Decade and a half(?), when this "person" gained his first hand information?

This person doesn't know any more about how things were done in Hawaii in 1961 than you do.

Because Okubo IS responsible for the information AND getting that information right, she has about a thousand percent more credibility than either you or your friend. She is HELD ACCOUNTABLE for what she says.

So, Unless you are willing to identify yourself publicly in order to establish your credibility. Otherwise you don't really have any.

This is too good not to be repeated and contrasted in the same post with Okubo's statements.

EnderWiggins alleged email from some buddy written in Commie Red:

"I know you are... but my source is not Okubo. As we have seen here, Okubo's detailed expertise is rather lacking, since her explanation here actually reflects nothing that is found on Hawaiian birth certificates, either long or short form. She is a public relations person, and while doing her level headed best, she just doesn't have the hands on experience to get it quite right. Remember he saying months ago that they went "paperless" when she actually meant they went "computerized?"

The "explanation" you have posted here is at such variance with the actual documents that we know it is useless. That's why my source is an actual clerk at the DOH, a guy who (though not present in 1961) has a pretty good handle on the process in the 80s and late 70s.

I had a West Point classmate who retired to Hawaii personally go down to the DOH and speak to the clerks. This is what he wrote me back: -----------------------

"I spent about two and a half hour this afternoon at the Department of Health on Punchbowl Street. They passed me around to a couple of different clerical folks until they found someone in the health status monitoring office who handled birth certificates back in the early 80. His name was XXXXXXX.

He said that there were no copies of old procedures that he knew of, so he could not show me anything from the 60s. He said that nobody there had been around long enough to remember for sure what they did in the 60s. He did say that until the registration system went on-line (first at the Department of Health and then connected to hospital “ADT” systems a few years later) there were actually different procedures used to get the records from different outer islands at the same time, and they were not finally standard until some time after he arrived.

I asked him where the numbers were assigned, and he said it depended. For a number of years, hospitals with busy oby/gn practices got preassigned blocks of numbers from the state so that they wouldn’t duplicate each other. For a while before he got there the state actually issued hospitals the stamps that had those blocks of numbers in them, but that became too expensive, so they went back to just assigning the blocks.

Once the paperwork got to Honolulu, the numbers were entered into the state ledgers and the certificates filed. When I asked him if there was a local number too, he said no. The state number was the local number, so you could right to the hospital and find the same record under the same number.

When I asked him your question about how the hospital assigned the numbers he said he had no idea, he had never worked in one. He did figure that different hospitals would use different systems.

Let me know if you need me to go back. I don’t get to the city much since XXXXXXXX retired.

You say Ciao, we say Aloha,"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And the correspondence from the Hawaiian Department of Health:

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/confirmation-that-certificate-number-given-by-state-registrar%E2%80%99s-office/

RE: UIPA Request – DoH Administrave Rules, Regulations, or Procedures‏
From: Okubo, Janice S. (janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov)
Sent: Wed 2/03/10 11:12 AM
To:

Aloha,
In going back through my e-mails, I found this one and was unsure if a response had been provided. The public health regulations (or administrative rules) regarding vital records are posted at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html There has been no repeal of these rules.

In regards to the terms “date accepted” and “date filed” on a Hawaii birth certificate, the department has no records that define these terms. Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of O’ahu or on the neighbor islands of Kaua’i, Hawai’i, Maui, Moloka’i, or Lana’i),and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of O’ahu) respectively.

Historically, most often the “date accepted” and the “date filed” is the same date as the majority of births occur on O’ahu (the island with the largest population in our state). In the past, when births were recorded on paper they may have been accepted at a health office on an island other than O’ahu, such as Kaua’i. The paper record would then need to be sent to O’ahu to have a file number placed on it, and the filed date would then be sometime later (as you know, the state of Hawai’i is comprised of multiple islands with miles of water in between). The electronic age has changed this process significantly, and it was determined some time ago that one date would suffice.

Janice Okubo
Hawaii State Department of Health

"Eggie, your analogy is not only false, your friend doesn't even KNOW that the person he talked to was at all knowledgeable about anything. He admitted he wasn't in the department in 1961, and I can tell you this, in the 1970's things WERE done differently in Hawaii. In 1961 Hawaii had been a state for what 3 years....? and you think that their processes would not have evolved over a period of a decade? Decade and a half(?), when this "person" gained his first hand information?"

I am struggling to understand your point here Danae. It seems to me you are arguing in my favor here. It is blindingly clear that there's nobody around today who was processing birth certificates in Hawaii in 1961... to include Janet Okubo. And it is butterdezillion, not me, who seems to be arguing that the process never changed over the last 50 years... my own position has always been that it most certainly has.

The guy was the best we could find, definitely closer both to the process and the time period than Ms. Okubo. If you don't think he's likely to have a better institutional memory than the Public Relations person, well that is more a reflection on your inexperience with bureaucracies than an argument in favor of butterdezillion's wild speculation.

Texas Buckeye has repeatedly made the point, and I have merely verified it, that butterdezillion can have no actual idea what the process was for processing Hawaiian BCs in 1961, and therefore her assertion that the numbering proves a forgery is well... goofy. You seem to admit that yourself in this post. So... what are we arguing about exactly?

"Because Okubo IS responsible for the information AND getting that information right, she has about a thousand percent more credibility than either you or your friend. She is HELD ACCOUNTABLE for what she says."

How droll... you guys have repeatedly insisted that Okubo is part of the conspiracy, that she has squirmeed and lied and done everything possible to keep the truth from you... and now suddenly you treat her as the paragon of accuracy and accountability?

Exactly how does that work in your world? I for one can make neither heads nor tales of the way you guys think.