Alfred Itamura of the Ombudsman’s Office had no problem figuring it out, and he said the reason the HDOH wouldn’t be disciplined for their refusal to disclose the non-certified abbreviated BC is because it was “reasonable” for them to refuse it since the Administrative Rules use the word “may” rather than “shall”. But then the word used is “may” for BC’s for the registrant him/herself also and state statute requires that be disclosed to the registrant. So even though the rules say “may”, the law says “shall”.
And Itamura also implied what he and I both already know - that under UIPA what is authorized to be disclosed MUST be disclosed.
So the HDOH’s claims that they CAN’T disclose the non-certified COLB is flat-out false, as acknowledged by Itamura. IOW, Itamura admitted that HRS 338-18(a) doesn’t contradict the Administrative Rules. HRS 338-18(a) gives lawful authority to the rules’ disclosure allowances.
And UIPA goes one step farther, to say that what state law allows to be disclosed MUST be disclosed upon request.
Please link to Alfred Itamura’s letter or email so we can see what he says. You say he “implies” rather than states that the noncertified COLB must be sent. This sounds open to interpretation, and not a clear “HDOH is illegally hiding ...” type conclusion.