The two people from the Ombudsman’s Office that signed off on the e-mail response to me don’t really understand state law?
You could ask the OIP; they are supposed to interpret the disclosure laws. But I already did that and they said the HDOH gets to interpret the law. So I don’t know who you’re going to find that “really understands state law”. The Ombudsman and the HDOH disagree, and the OIP refuses to weigh in. The AG’s office has never even responded to any of my e-mails.
That by itself should tell you something.
The two people from the Ombudsman’s Office that signed off on the e-mail response to me don’t really understand state law?Strawman, since I never said that. I am not up on Hawaii (or any) state law to judge what would be used when a statute seems to forbid something and an older department rules document allows it. If you are not a legal expert on this either, I suspect we both could learn from someone who is.
But the HDOH is who the OIP is allowing to decide what can and can’t be disclosed according to UIPA.
UIPA, as I posted earlier, has an exclusion for private information, so this makes sense.
Bottom line here is that with the information currently available, you are not convincing me that there is a grand conspiracy in the HDOH. You have certainly convinced me that they are chaotic, contradictory and incompetent at setting consistent rules and following them. Accusing them of extraordinary crimes means you have to have good evidence of those crimes, not just of incompetence. When you find that they have issued a noncertified COLB to a nonqualified applicant, that's definitive evidence.
Merry Christmas.