Commenters call for legal action (and cleaner copy)

Some said, “Be careful what you wish for.”

I thought of that cautionary quote when so many readers answered my call for comments. There sure were a lot of them.

I wish I knew who the person coined that phrase. It couldn’t have been an English teacher. She would have said it in a more grammatically correct form.

“Be careful for what you wish!” or maybe, “Use caution with regard to the things about which you desire.”

Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.

Something up with which I will put is the flood of suggestions that people are so kindly sending my way. The first one that I’ve promised to heed came from Kate, a journalist friend of mine, who reminded me that I should take more care in copy editing my own posts.

She was a bit blunter.

“. . . you have to be tired of me always zapping you on this one thing, but your copy is a smidge dirty. Mainly missing words or words that are spelled correctly, but aren’t the word you meant.”

The president of the organization that pays me to poke and probe at the government was more polite. She kindly offered to proofread my stuff before it’s been up on my blog for too long. She’s not a journalist, but she knows about doing stuff right.

Other readers’ comments addressed the issue of transparency and openness in government. One law enforcement investigator shared details of his own frustration with people within his own department.

“I have worked in government for 36 years now and it makes me want to scream at times! Even though I am part of the ’system’, there are times when I get that same ‘we need a request in writing from you.’ It makes me want bash my head against the wall.”

A retired judge saw the barriers to transparency – and a possible remedy – in more legal terms.

“I agree that the state agencies are not acting within the spirit and the stated purpose of Hawaii’s Freedom of Information statute. I think a class action on behalf of all Hawaii residents might be in order. The FWR is nothing more than a bureaucratic hurdle set up to discourage the public from gaining ready access to records they are entitled to under the statute.”

The judge continues.

“At the very least, the class action should insist that the state provide a written instruction sheet with a reference to the RRS web site. The instruction sheet should list every custodian of every class of records that the state keeps. The requesting party could then go direct to the responsible custodian and make the request. The custodian should be required to respond within 24 hours if not immediately.”

Several other people invited me to meet with them this week so they can provide me with details and examples of situations of which they believe I should be aware (note the proper grammar). They are offering everything short of color-coded road maps that will lead me to a cornucopia of transparency issues.

Gill Rapoza posted his comment in the form of a challenge. It may not be an issue that affects every Hawaiian, but I have to confess that I’m intrigued by it. And, of course, I always enjoy a challenge.

“I have read a lot of blogs, emails, news articles, and commentaries on the authenticity of the president’s birth certificate, both pro and con, which is said to be in Hawaii. And from what I have read, some Hawaiian officials said they have seen it. The part I don’t understand is why that particular document is a secret. The president says he runs a transparent office, and from what I learned of Hawaiian state government, a “Formal Written Request” might go a long way. Am I on the right track? Does the Office of Information Practices have a copy of it? How about the Honolulu City Clerk’s office? Is Don Ray up to getting a good copy we could see?”

In truth, I have been following this issue since before I knew I’d be working in Hawaii. I first discovered the controversy in documents filed in a civil action in a United States District Court far from Hawaii. The plaintiff’s goal was to prove that the then senator was not a legal citizen and cited the secrecy of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate as the smoking gun.

Since I’m a so-called “public records expert,” I was interested in the argument about whether the original birth certificate should be a matter of public record. I revisited the Hawaii statutes and wondered if the “public interest” exception to the rules would apply.

Here’s the way it reads in the “Hawaii’s Open Records Law” handbook.

“If the public interest is found to outweigh the individual privacy interest, the agency must disclose the information. Where an agency cannot identify a significant privacy interest, the slightest public interest in the disclosure will require the agency to disclose the record.”

Prior to the election, was this a case of “slightest public interest”? Hawaii state officials released a certified verification of Mr. Obama’s birth and then closed the argument. The certification declared that, indeed, he was born in Hawaii. That would be enough to put the question of citizenship to rest. Case closed?

However, now that he is president, he could not be a more public official. Who could deny that the details recorded on his original birth certificate are not a matter of public interest? That, alone, should be enough of an argument to enable state officials in Hawaii to release the birth certificate under the privacy exemption.

Need more justification? President Obama, himself, declared his desire for openness in government by ordering the employees in the Executive Branch, whenever possible, to release information when it’s of public interest.

I don’t believe that officials in Hawaii need to wait for President Obama to waive his right to privacy. I believe that neither the president nor anyone else in government anywhere would take action against a Hawaii official who releases the original birth certificate of Barack H. Obama.

That person could use the “just following orders” doctrine.

While I’m off meeting with my new sources, whistle blowers and Deputy Transparency Correspondents this week, are there any attorneys or activists out there who would be interested in volunteering to work on one of two projects?

You could take on the entire state of Hawaii in an effort to pry open the barriers to information that should already be transparent.

Or, you could take a stand on making available one particular document – a document folks around the world would love to inspect.

Should I be careful about what I wish for?

“. . . what I wish for?”

Drat! I did it again!