The key phrase is “readily retrievable.” Would you say having to assemble information from multiple pieces of paper in multiple file folders in multiple drawers in multiple filecabinets is “readily retrievable” to you as opposed to grabbing one sheet of paper or one file folder? The answer is no.
It’s easy for a DBA to run queries but was the law written with that in mind? I doubt it. To administer vital statistics records, a lowly clerk has access to a software application that allows them to access data in the database in a specific manner. They can use that software to do only those functions programmed into the software. It’s likely that in considering the difference between what is “readily available” and what isn’t, the HDoH considers what their software is programmed to do and what it isn’t. If a DBA has to run a specialized query to retrieve data rather than a clerk pressing buttons in pre-programmed software to retrieve records, then the information isn’t “readily available.”
So with that in mind, you asked if the 1961 - 1964 index was readily retrievable? There are two answers. For a DBA? Yes. For a clerk using special software? No.
Regarding the date of birth verses the date accepted, the index data contains only the date of birth. They’re not required to provide the date accepted.
Can you tell what field was queried? Yes, if you’re a DBA.
Are clerks in charge of printing out the index books?
Why is there a marriage index for 1960-65 (6 years), if the clerks are only able to do 5-year increments at a time? As far as I know from the index book pages I’ve seen, that is the only index book that has 6 years rather than 5. Whoever printed that index was able to do a different parameter than the standard one so I would think they could just as easily make the parameter narrower as to make it wider.
Keep in mind that the HDOH told the whole world in an AP interview that they could print the 1961 birth index for anybody who asked as long as they paid $98.75.
Also keep in mind that Janice Okubo told Mark Niesse that all index data requests are about Obama. A clerk I spoke to said that all requests about Obama have to go to Janice Okubo, whereas other requests were supposed to go to the fulfillment department so the request could be processed. I had called in to check on the status of my request and the Vital Records Office clerk couldn’t find any record of my request. We were both baffled and then all of a sudden she asked if my request was about Obama. I asked if it would make a difference and she said that requests related to Obama are treated differently; they have to go through the communications dept rather than to the clerks at the fulfillment dept.
Did you catch that? They are treating requests perceived to be about Obama differently. Okubo is the watchful eye, the keeper of what goes out regarding Obama. And all index data requests are considered a threat to Obama, to be handled by Okubo.
So index data requests are filled by Janice Okubo and the communications department - not by the clerks in the fulfillment department of the Vital Records Office. And I can tell you that she doesn’t necessarily get her records fresh from the printer or from the index books themselves. Two documents that she sent me were retrieved from a 3-ring binder, because they still had the punch holes showing on the copies she sent me. They showed no signs of ever having been in a 2-prong printout binder like the index books.
I also know that Janice Okubo has met with the IT department at least once just to figure out how to get out of giving me information that is supposed to be discloseable. They accidentally left the e-mail attached which mentioned the meeting they were going to have where my request would be brought up. So there’s apparently not a problem with using the IT Dept’s time on my requests - only with using the IT Dept’s time to FULFILL my requests.