Records of processing (such as requests to see or amend documents) would be included in HRS 338-01 under the definition of “public health statistics” records. Those are different from “vital records”. (See at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0001.htm )
Look at the difference between HRS 338-18a and HRS 338-18b; the former applies to “vital statistics records”, the second to “public health statistics records”. They are two different things. (See at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm ).
Multiple OIP Opinion Letters say that records of a legal name change must be public, although the applications for them are considered to have a personal privacy interest and are thus not discloseable. But that is specifically one type of an amendment to a vital record which is required to be public. If records of amendments were considered, themselves, to be a “vital record” then HRS 338-18a would forbid it and the OIP Opinion Letters would have been totally different.
The fact that the OIP has confirmed that legal name changes to a birth certificate must be disclosed to the public blows apart the argument that amendments to BC’s have to be confidential because they are “vital records”.
The ruling that MissTickly received indicated that those records were part of Obama’s vital records, which is what prompted my questions.