I have a new found respect for your statements & replies.
However, I do not believe that 92F12 (15) is superseded by a privacy statement.
92F-12 (15) dogmatically states that “records...must always” be disclosed, and further, in the title statement for 92F-12, it specfically states:
“An exception only applies where it is referred to in that list.”
There is NO mention of a ANY (privacy) exemption in the list on item #15.
So, it seems to me, if what you stated was true, there wouldn’t even be a 92F-12, because the privacy statute would supersede ANY and EVERY point in the manual.
Respectfuly submitted.
I appreciate the complement.
92F-12 (15) dogmatically states that “records...must always” be disclosed, and further, in the title statement for 92F-12, it specfically states:“An exception only applies where it is referred to in that list.”
There is NO mention of a ANY (privacy) exemption in the list on item #15.
Yes, but you need to keep reading. The requirements of 92F-12 are qualified under 92F-22, which specifically limits the ability to disclose any information. Here is what it says:
§92F-22 Exemptions and limitations on individual access. An agency is not required by this part to grant an individual access to personal records, or information in such records:
...
(5) Required to be withheld from the individual to whom it pertains by statute or judicial decision or authorized to be so withheld by constitutional or statutory privilege. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §3]
You can read the whole thing here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol02_Ch0046-0115/HRS0092F/HRS_0092F-0022.htm
Since another statute prohibits disclosure of birth records to unrelated third parties, 92F-22 clearly overrides the requirement for their disclosure under 92F-12.