The public interest to be considered is the public’s interest in the disclosure of official information that sheds light on an agency’s performance of its statutory purpose and the conduct of government officials, or which otherwise promotes governmental accountability.Your theory that they are obligated to release Obama's certificate doesn't show how it "shed's light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties" for the state of Hawaii. And that's what you'd have to show. "Constitutional eligibilty" is a federal issue. Hawaii DOH is not involved. If you think they are obligated under their "public interest" definition, take it to court and see how far you get.
Next, you originally said in #790 "you're misstating 338-18, as it doesn't prohibit any specific information from disclosure." Let's look at the word you conveniently left off, shall we?
it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose informationSo yes, it does prohibit disclosure, except for very narrow circumstances, which legislators took the trouble to spell out in 338-18 (b). They have made it clear that very limited data is excepted, the rest is protected unless you are a qualifying applicant. This is where I and Butter disagree. She feels, as you obviously do, that the 1955 rules should be followed. I think that the 1977 statute made it clear that Hawaii is protecting this data. If the statute forbids even inspection of the data, why would you think their intent was to allow uncertified copies of the data? As LL said, statutes trump department rules.
The law says the director can release MORE than just the default data. An opinion letter from the OIP in 1990 said "Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public."
I hate to break this to you, but the letter from 1990 is quoting the then existing section 338-18(d). If you look at the current 338-18 (d) [amended in 1991, 1997, and 2001] it does not say that anymore. The statute now only specifies name, and sex of the registrant and type of vital event. The data you are arguing for was amended out of 338-18 at the latest in 2001. Further, the letter supports what I've been saying - the intent of the statute was to protect data except when the applicant has met the qualifications laid out in 338-18.
It wouldn't be illegal at all. They're not being asked to do it for 'some certificates.' This is another strawman. You're making excuses, not stating law. Learn the difference.
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. You'd have a case for illegal behavior at the DOH if you could prove that some certificates were treated differently. Without that, you have no case for illegal behavior. You seem to think the DOH director is illegally withholding data. Since the law says "may"release additional data, the director has some latitude, but to show she's breaking the law, you'd have to show she disclosed specific data about some people but not about others. There's no illegality if she has discretion to disclose additional data, but decides not to for everyone. You haven't shown anything illegal, and the ombudsman does not agree with you.
You claimed these laws would make the disclosure of Obama's records illegal and I've shown specically why that's wrong. Second, you made a comment about the DOH doing this for 'some certificates and not others.' We're not talking about 'some certicates,' just one, so that was part of an excuse, not a citation of law.
You could rebut, but you don't.
I've responded point by point and rebutted everything of substance you've posted.
I think that's because you aren't thinking of the legal issues, only emotional ones.
Right, I've only posted relevant statutes, adminstrative rules and an opinion letter for 'emotional reasons.' Sorry, this is a nonsense strawman. You have nothing so you're trying to make the argument personal.
The part of UIPA I cited on page 18 clearly lays out Hawaii's definition of the Public Interest.
I addressed this: The public interest in this case is about 'governmental accountability,' which is in the the part you cited. Reread my previous post. It's there.
Your theory that they are obligated to release Obama's certificate doesn't show how it "shed's light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties" for the state of Hawaii.
I didn't make this argument that said anyone was 'obligated' to release Obama's certificate, only that the law doesn't prevent anyone from releasing the certificate and/or confirming its authenticity and accuracy. I posted supporting reasons why.
Let's look at the word you conveniently left off, shall we?
I didn't leave off any words. You're also apparently not understanding what I wrote or ignoring it.
This is where I and Butter disagree. She feels, as you obviously do, that the 1955 rules should be followed. I think that the 1977 statute made it clear that Hawaii is protecting this data.
The rules butter pointed to are current rules. It doesn't matter when they were implemented. These rules are still posted and active on the DOH website.
As LL said, statutes trump department rules.
The statute doesn't trump department rules because it DEFERS to department rules in 338-18(a). Read it again. "as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health"
The data you are arguing for was amended out of 338-18 at the latest in 2001.
The default data was amended out, but was not PROHIBITED from release. The director of the DOH still has statutory authority to release ANY data she feels is appropriate and NONE of the data is specified by law as inappropriate. Remember in the UIPA, you quoted a part that said date of birth was considered part of a significant privacy interest. There's nothing in 388-18(d) that makes a comparable limitation on types of data. The director can choose what to release and she can cite public interest as the basis for her decision to release such information.
You'd have a case for illegal behavior at the DOH if you could prove that some certificates were treated differently.
From who?? We're talking about ONE certificate. Who is going to challenge the DOH over the disclosure of this one certificate or the information from it?? Be specific. Support your belief on this.