[sometime lurker]

Thanks for the info. I don't draw the same implication you spoke about: So the HDOH’s claims that they CAN’T disclose the non-certified COLB is flat-out false, as acknowledged by Itamura. I find the operative sentences:

We find that the above-cited rules do not require the DOH to provide you with a noncertified abbreviated copy of President Obama’s birth certificate.

and

We reviewed Chapter 338, HRS, titled “Vital Statistics.” Section 338-18(d), HRS, states, “Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.” The DOH Director has not authorized any other data not listed in Section 338-18(d), HRS, to be made public

This looks fairly straightforward - the ombudsman's office concludes that HDOH is not legally required to provide a noncertified copy, and that they are legally required to release index data. HDOH is following 338-18, a statute enacted in 1977 as far as I can tell, much later than the 1955 rules document. Where the statute conflicts with the rules document, they follow the statute.

[butterdezillion]

They’re not legally REQUIRED to disclose it under the Administrative Rules, but they ARE required to disclose it under UIPA. Itamura is only processing this according to the Administrative Rules and HRS 338. And his conclusion is that the HDOH can disclose the record but doesn’t have to. If you look only at the Administrative Rules, the word used in almost all cases is “may”. So if it was just Administrative Rules involved, the HDOH wouldn’t have to issue copies of anything.

But I just noticed HRS 338-13. That REQUIRES the HDOH to issue certified copies, the contents of a certificate, or any part thereof to any applicant in accordance with HRS 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18. So that means that what is authorized for release to an applicant by 16, 17, and 18 are REQUIRED to be released. That takes it out of the “may” realm and into the “shall” realm.

AND under UIPA, any records whose disclosure is not FORBIDDEN by law are considered discloseable public records. A non-certified abbreviated birth, death, or marriage certificate is a PUBLIC RECORD, because HRS 338-18(a)defers to the Administrative Rules, which authorize the public disclosure of those records.

What Itamura is saying in this response is that the combination of HRS 338-18a and the Administrative Rules mean that Fukino CAN disclose the record. And UIPA says that if the record CAN be disclosed it MUST be disclosed.

There are 2 legs in this relay. Itamura took the first leg, acknowledging that the records CAN be disclosed - which totally contradicts what the HDOH has been claiming all along. Then OIP was supposed to take the other leg and apply UIPA to the situation, which says that if it CAN be disclosed, it MUST.

Not surprisingly to me, the OIP balked. If what Joesting gave me for an answer was accurate, then the OIP should be disbanded because they don’t have any job to do; the agencies themselves get to decide what they will or won’t disclose, and UIPA doesn’t mean anything. That’s pretty much what the “Vexatious Requestor Bill” was trying to accomplish anyway - to neuter UIPA. If that’s the case, I say Hawaii could solve a lot of their fiscal problems by just getting rid of the OIP altogether, since they don’t do anything.