Heck, they were never meant to be secrets – it just happened.

It happened, I’m guessing, because folks didn’t take the time or make the time to knock on government’s door and ask for stuff.

It’s possible, of course, that nobody took the citizens by the hand and escorted them inside.

Now’s a good time to start. Roll up your sleeves, bookmark Hawaii Sunshine Chronicles and check back each day for tools, tips, techniques and strategies.

You can begin this journey by using government records to investigate someone you know very well – investigate yourself. Here’s how to do it:

First, educate yourself about how much information is available that relates to everyday people. Ask yourself, “In what ways to I interact with local, state and federal government? What information might they have on me?” Start by looking look in your purse or wallet for some reminders.

Your drivers license should remind you that information about you is on file with the state government. If you’ve had interactions with traffic police, there’s more information about you – even if you simply parked illegally and got nabbed for it. How about that DUI? Yep, more records on file.

If you’re driving, you probably own a car, motorcycle or scooter. More records on file about you. Were you involved in an accident while operating that vehicle? Another file with your name on it.

The address on your license is, most likely, your home. If you own it, you’ll find information in various places: recorded deeds, deeds of trusts, etc.; property tax information; building permits; mechanics liens.

If you didn’t make the house payments on time, there could be more information in public records files, such as notices of default, tax liens, notices of intended public sales.

Maybe you share that house with a spouse. There are marriage licenses and marriage certificates on file. Divorced? Juicy court files have stuff in them that will surprise you. Of course, you, your spouse, your kids, siblings and parents generated birth certificates. Hawaii protects birth, marriage and death certificates, but in other states, such as California, anybody can view most of these vital records documents.

If you vote, run for public office or contribute to political candidates’ campaigns, there’s information about you on file. If you or your company does business with any government entity, a record exists.

Anything involving the courts is likely to be a matter of public record and your name could be on the index. Even if you’ve never been involved in a divorce case, you might have gone to civil court – from small claims court to bankruptcy court to tax court. Information about your deceased parents and grandparents may show up in probate files. Did you have a dispute with a landlord or tenant? The details of that battle are in a court case file. Then there’s the information about that unfortunate arrest. If it’s recent and they found you guilty, people can access parts of the file.

If you have any other kind of license or permit, there’s a certain amount of information that people can access about you. That includes real estate agents, hairdressers, private investigators, lawyers, dentists, psychologists, locksmiths, automobile repair people, plumbers and accountants.

Even your pets generate public records that may have your name on them – that is, if you followed the licensing and vaccination laws. If you violated those laws, there may be enforcement information on file.

Not everything about you is public record, but you probably have the right to access and review the information that’s on file. In fact, it’s not a bad idea to make certain that the information about you is accurate.

In most cases, you have the right to demand that government officials get it right. After all, it’s your information.

Once you have investigated yourself, you’ll have a better idea of how much information the government maintains – information about people, businesses and organizations. Even if the information doesn’t name you, it still belongs to you and you have a right to inspect most of the records.

Not enough people are demanding that government officials make those records available. It’s time to remind the bureaucrats that they work for the people and that they’re responsible to the people.

Check back for specific details about the public records and open resources that belong to you – belong to the people.

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!

Congratulations on your new job.

I just have a few questions for you. First, what’s the deal with all of the parties on Tuesday? I have no way of measuring it, but they probably reduced the turnout for my 60th birthday party that evening.

For the record, I planned my party years before you planned yours. You can check the records at the bowling alley my friends rented for the private bowling “ball”. Also, I should make it very clear that you don’t own January 20th. I’ve been celebrating it since before you were born. Harry S. Truman was the first fellow to throw parties on my birthday. You weren’t even born yet, so you have no claim to it.

I was thinking that it was just a coincidence that you’d want to celebrate on my birthday — that is until I saw what you did yesterday. Now I believe that you’re trying to steal my thunder. What nerve.

I have a record of how many people visit the Hawaii Sunshine Chronicles blog, but I don’t know who,  specifically, is visiting the site. I suspect, however, that you’ve been here and you’ve been taking notes.

How else do you explain the presidential orders you announced yesterday? Is it just coincidence that you’re calling for openness and sunshine with regard to the executive branch of United States government? Just days after I suggest that officials in your birthplace adjust their attitudes and opt for openness,  you try to eclipse my rantings by demanding the very same thing on a national level?

The next thing you know, our Governor will be scrambling to keep her campaign promises by enforcing both the spirit and the letter of Hawaii’s open records laws and policies. And then, Mr. President, she’ll tell everyone that it was you who inspired her.

Just remember that I’m on the record. I called for these actions before you officially took your new job. You may be able to fool some people, but the readers of Hawaii Sunshine Chronicles already know who’s been carrying the torch for transparency, sunshine and openness.

I’m going to be watching you, Mr. President. I have no problem with you looking to Hawaii Sunshine Chronicles for innovative ideas, but you could give me credit at least.

I wish you the best of luck in your new job.

Most respectfully,

Don Ray

By Don Ray

What are they afraid of?

Here’s my standard disclaimer: I’m a new guy in Hawaii and I have a lot to learn. What may be “a given” to lifelong and longtime residents of Hawaii is, all too often, a complete mystery to me.

That said, would someone please give me the back story on the seemingly high level of security that’s evident in some agencies and organizations but not in others? For example, the winds howl through the open hallways and landings at the Capitol Building. I was even able to waltz right in after 6 p.m. one day and I quickly found a men’s room that was open. No questions asked.

I recall making my first visit there last year and wondering if the camera I carry in my pocket would prevent me from getting through the metal detectors. Should I spend all of my coins before I approach the entrance so that I’ll have less metal stuff to empty from my pockets?

When I arrived there, however, there were no metal detectors, no glass barriers through which I would have to be “buzzed” – if I were to pass muster – and nobody questioning me about the contents of my backpack. Sure, I had a difficult time finding the office of Georgette Deemer, the communications person for the House of Representatives. I tried and failed three times to find her office, which a couple of people said was “just beyond” the women’s restroom on the fourth floor. Eventually, someone from a representative’s office walked me there. Yep, Georgette’s office was “just beyond” the women’s restroom. The problem was that the door’s label identified it as a conference room. Should I have interpreted that as a failure to “communicate” with whoever orders or puts up the signs on the doors?

Or was this a vast conspiracy to keep the new guy from getting to the person who wants answers? It couldn’t be that, it turns out.

Georgette Deemer seemed to be delighted to answer my questions.

Maybe it’s a budgetary problem. Signs cost money.

There were signs, however in the glassed-in lobby at the King Street entrance to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. One sign directs visitors to pick up the phone that sits there and dial the number of the person upon whom you’re calling. The problem was that there was no listing of people’s names and their extensions.

I was lucky that I already had the name of the person with whom I wished to speak. However, I was unable to figure out the configuration of the dialing protocol. I tried the full seven digits, the last four, the last five and then started over and dialed a “9″ before each of the same sequences. I ended up using my cell phone.

If it weren’t for that annoying glass barricade, I’d have strolled past the unoccupied desks in search of an assistant. Yoohoo! Anybody home?

The glass barrier, however, made that impossible. And as it turns out, it didn’t matter. Nobody really wanted to talk with us anyway. I wondered if the glass was there keep probing (albeit friendly) people like me from getting too close to the answers. Or was it a way to keep the homeless people who camp at the adjoining park from wandering in. I don’t know much about agriculture, so it could be that there are some mighty important seeds or some highly toxic insecticides in the desk drawers or something.

But what about Hawaii’s Office of Information Practices? There’s a more-than-attentive security professional on duty who can monitor the people who approach the OIP entrance. Inside that agency’s office, however, is a glass barrier with an opening just big enough to slide some files to someone on the protected side.

To be fair, the first time we visited the office, it was a piece of cake getting an invitation to the inside office of the attorney of the day. The second time, however – and a different lawyer – I could only score a chat through the opening in the glass.

There shouldn’t be any rare seeds or dangerous insecticides inside an office that exists to ensure openness and transparency. In fairness, the glass partition was quite transparent — nary a streak of leftover Windex residue.

The Honolulu City Clerk’s office is behind glass — no doubt to protect the sanctity of the voter registration rolls. The folks inside were happy to open the door to hand over documents we asked to see.

I visited many other state agencies that had no glass barriers, and I found the folks working there to be friendly, helpful and in good spirits.

Maybe caging people changes them. I’d hate to be behind glass all day long.

Then again, is it possible that the glass is there to protect the public?

I wish someone would tell me whose idea it was to spend all that money on all of that protective glass. I’d ask someone in government, but I know the response I’d likely receive.

“You’ll have to provide us with a formal written request. Just slip it under the glass.”

It stands for “Formal Written Request”, as in “For you to get a copy of that completely public record document that’s in that file cabinet over there, you must submit a formal written request under the provisions of the Hawaii Open Records Act.”

Or, “You just want to inspect the document that our agency has already determined to be one that we must allow you to inspect? No problem, just give us a formal written request.”

I’m not exaggerating here.

“You’re asking me to tell you which person here in the Governor’s office processes and approves every request for out-of-state travel by every state employee? You say it may save us countless hours if I just answer one easy question? OK, we’ll research that only after you’ve submitted a formal written request.”

It happened. I’m not lying. It’s true. On my mother’s grave!

But it gets worse.

This is the beginning of an astounding journey. As absurd as this seem to me, at least, the attorney for the agency that’s supposed to assist members of the public in streamlining their requests for public records said she’d help, but ended up telling me that I would have to  —  I’m not kidding — submit a formal written request. Not to the Office of Information Practices where I brought my concerns — she wrote to me 24 hours later that I would have to submit a formal written request to the Governor’s office that explains whether I was asking as a private person or as a representative of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

Does it matter for whom I’m asking the question? Is it a matter of national security that Bill or Betty or Jack is the clerk to whom every state agency in Hawaii must send their requests for out-of-state travel requests for the Governor’s approval? Do the taxpayers of Hawaii need to employ full-time attorneys in a so-called consumer-assisting agency to tell a requester that he must submit a formal written request to get an answer to a question as simple as “To which desk should the state agencies send a particular form?

Can you imagine how long an airline or a bank would remain in business if a customer had to complete a formal, written request to ask a question as simple as, “Who handles new accounts?” Or, “Where do I go to find my lost luggage?”

Private businesses and corporations can’t afford this kind of bureaucratic nonsense. Why should Hawaii taxpayers have to pay for the salaries of employees who can rebuff simple questions from the taxpayers themselves? And even worse, when someone refuses to accept this ludicrous treatment and reports it to the watchdog agency that exists for the sole purpose of ensuring that information is available to anyone who asks, what else can an individual do? Take them to court, maybe? Is that possible? Would that work?

No, it wouldn’t work.

It wouldn’t work because the lawmakers left a gaping hole in their attempt to ensure accountability on the part of government at all levels.  Whether they knew its ramifications or not, the lawmakers handed the bureaucrats their golden “FWR Catch” on a platinum platter.

Here’s how it reads in “The Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), Hawaii’s Open Records Law” brochure — a brochure, I discovered, is written for the government bureaucrats and not for the people of Hawaii:

“Page 30:

Informal Request

When an agency receives an oral request for a record, OIP’s administrative rules provide that the agency can:

(4) Ask the requester submit (sic) a formal request. “

The bold is not my bolding — it’s in the book that way!

Attention bureaucrats! Don’t let the word “formal” slip past you! It’s your all-purpose ace in the hole!

There’s a back story to his incident that might add some context to all of this. The point that I hope it will make is this:

If a veteran journalist who wrote a book on public records — and who has decades of experience making public requests for records at all levels of government — can’t successfully get anyone from three state agencies to even answer simple “where do you keep the files” questions, then how can anyone expect anyone in Hawaii to be able to demand accountability of the people they pay dearly to employ?

Here’s a timeline of this whole debacle, so far:

Grassroot Institute of Hawaii  policy analyst Pearl Hahn, a recent graduate of a prestigious east-coast university, read the state’s open record statutes and submitted a request to the major state agencies.  She asked for documents that would would assist Grassroot Institute in creating a searchable, web-based database that would allow anyone to monitor the out-of-state travel of state employees. That was in early November.

By mid-December, I was on board here (from the Mainland) and getting up to speed. I was quite surprised that some of the agencies were estimating that it could take a half-month of a staff member’s time just to locate, isolate, edit, copy and mail the documents that Pearl had asked for. The price tag was going to be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

I did what any experienced public records requester would do, I tried to set up a meeting with one of the administrators who had responded with what seemed like a high estimate of preparation time. I decided that we should pay a visit to the Department of Agriculture. Why the Department of Agriculture? Because their estimates were among the highest of the agencies that had responded and, even more importantly, they’re right down the street from the Grassroot Institute’s office. Why waste a lot of time traveling?

That’s where things started going south. Pearl had paid a visit earlier to Keith Aragaki, the person who had responded to her request on behalf of the department. She had told me about his response, but I still had more questions. Hence the second visit.

He was in his office, but he was busy — too busy to see us without an appointment. That made sense. I asked the employee who had relayed his message to ask him if he could spare just three or four minutes in which I could ask a quick question or arrange a time for a meeting when it was more convenient.

She said that I’d have to submit a formal request to speak with him. I told her I’d write one up right then, right now. She said it would be better to send an e-mail request. I’m here now, I told her. I could easily write something now and she can hand it to him. I did, and apparently, she did hand it to him. She returned to tell us that he couldn’t talk to us now. I asked her to treat what I had written as a formal written request. At the same time, I asked her if she could provide me with a copy of the agency’s telephone directory listing. She said she didn’t have the authority to give that to me without a formal written request.

I wrote out a formal written request for her, handed it to her and asked if she could get that for me now. She said that she didn’t have the authority, but I believe she said, they would respond to my formal written request.

They never did, by the way.

We returned to the Grassroot Institute office where Pearl called Mr. Aragaki on the phone and politely apologized for any slight distraction we might have caused him. At the same time, I sent an e-mail to him that, among other things (I was polite, but direct in expressing my frustration), asked that he take 20 seconds simply to respond to my e-mail with a time and date that we could meet — again, for the purpose of discussing how we might find a way to get the information we were seeking without necessitating two weeks of employee time.

I never received a response from him by mail, by phone or by e-mail.

Next, I asked the people at the Office of Information Practices if they had the name and e-mail address of the public information officer at the Department of Agriculture. The person who answered didn’t know. I believe she directed me to the state’s website where I still didn’t find it easily. I got it from somewhere else.

I sent an e-mail asking for a telephone listing directory for the agency. The public information officer, Janelle Saneishi responded and told me that they didn’t have one, but there’s a phone directory on their website that doesn’t have the names of the people — just the phone numbers. She offered to print it out and then hand-write the names and fax it to me.

That seemed like much too much trouble. Besides, I wrote to her, I couldn’t imagine that every staff member at every desk wouldn’t have access to either a printed sheet or a computer listing of the other people in the agency. I also explained that I would like her help in getting Keith Aragaki to respond to my requests.

She somehow found the kind of phone listing I had asked for and e-mailed it to me.

In the meantime, I had called the Office of Information Practices to ask for advice on how to nudge the agency in the direction of cooperating with us. The attorney on duty said she’d call them and maybe straighten things out. I don’t know if Ms. Saneishi had heard from the attorney before she found the phone listing.

During the time we were awaiting a response from the agency, we paid a personal visit to the duty attorney at the Hawaii Office of Information Practices. She told us that we could, indeed, appeal to either OIP or go directly to court for an appeal — this based on our belief that the officials at the Department of Agriculture were in violation of the statutes because they had failed to respond to our formal written requests.

A week or so later, we had still not received a response to what was now several formal written requests. We paid another visit to the agency and were able to meet with Ms. Saneishi face-to-face. Her initial comments were that the agency had responded to Pearl’s original request for information and that, in essence, they weren’t going to “give us a discount.” Again, we explained that we weren’t looking for a discount — we were hoping to learn why the time estimates seemingly were so high and how we might be able to accomplish our goal in a more efficient manner. Eventually, she agreed to look into it on our behalf and give us a status report the following Monday. That was Monday, January 12.

I went alone in the late afternoon and chatted with Ms. Saneishi about the status of her promise to get information for us. She said she was very busy but would get to it soon. Later that afternoon, she sent detailed explanations of what went into the time estimates. She had also agreed to look into any records that her agency had that would indicate that Mr. Aragaki had responded to our subsequent formal written requests. She didn’t provide that information in her e-mails this week.

This week, I revisited the statutes as well as the website for the Office of Information Practices — I was determined to understand everything that the website provided. To my amazement and delight, I discovered an area of the website that they refer to as RRS. It stands for “Record Report System”.

I kicked myself for not knowing about this jewel of a tool sooner. I can’t tell you how impressed I was to discover that the state maintains this website search tool that allows the public to search for every type of form and file that every government office in Hawaii maintains. You can search by agency, by form number, by the name of the form — everything. I played with it for hours. It’s marvelous.

I called the public information officer from one of the other agencies to ask some questions about how effective this tool had been when other people had requested documents from his agency.

“I’ve never heard of it,” he said. He went to it for the first time based on my call. “Nobody has ever made reference to this,” he told me.

When I searched for documents using the term “travel” I found several common forms that every state agency uses in the process of approving out-of-state travel. The best part is that, in every case, the records were designated at completely open for inspection without the need for any clerical time removing personal information.

This is the way someone should approach the kind of search that we were attempting. You see, when you know the exact form, by name and by number, it’s much easier to make very specific requests for these documents. Indeed, if we had asked for these specific documents in the first place, the time estimate would surely have been reduced to maybe ten or twenty percent of the estimates we were receiving.

When I was able to see one of the blank forms on the Hawaii.gov website, I noticed that the form was the product of the State Procurement Office. That department’s web page provided detailed instructions on how each agency should have their people prepare the forms.

Finally, I had discovered what should be the goldmine of goldmines with regard to this already too-time-consuming request for information. I tried calling the Procurement office, but I got a recording. I didn’t want to wait for a return call, so I went directly to their office in the Kalanimoku Building across Punchbowl Street from the Capitol Building.

My strategy was simple and brilliant, I thought. Since the procurement people made the form and wrote the instructions, they might have the answer to the most important question:

Is there one clearinghouse where all of these particular travel approval forms either end up or pass through?

The person who was there for me was to become my heroine of the week — no, I’ll call her the heroine of the month.

Her name is Bonnie Kahakui. She’s a purchasing specialist there and she knows her stuff. What’s even better, she was willing to answer my questions without requiring me to submit a formal written request — at least not for questions about how the system works. She was willing to explain to me her agency’s role with regard to the form and she gave me permission to actually inspect the original forms that relate to the staff members of her department.

Since she would have to take some time to remove other sheets of papers in the files — documents that contained personal information about government employees, I’d need to write down some minimal information that didn’t even need to include my name. I could tell she was busy, so I asked if it would be better for me to come back another day when she could plan to pull the files and prepare them for me. She was happy to get back to her work. I’m looking forward to seeing what the completed forms look like.

You see, this is how one does the groundwork for a large-scale open records request. It’s important to know exactly what it is you’re looking for and where you might find copies of all of them in one place — or at least, a place where someone compiles a list of the documents when they pass through or eventually land.

To make a painfully long story a little less long, Ms. Kahakui, my heroine, surmised that the one place that every request for out-of-state travel either visits or lands is the Governor’s office. Recently, at least, every single request for out-of-state travel by any state employee must go to the Governor’s office for approval.

Ms. Kahakui didn’t know which desk processes the requests, but she agreed with me that someone in the Governor’s office must know. Then, as she and I discussed, I could ask that person if he or she keeps copies, logs the requests or knows who might have such a collection or listing.

After more than two months of frustration, I was so close to being able to find a solution to the problem. I was so very close to being able to tell all of the other agency officials that they wouldn’t have to process the requests they had already received, perhaps.

Not to be dramatic here, but I was thinking as I walked across the street to the Capitol, how much time and effort I might be able to save on behalf of the employees of the State of Hawaii and how much more efficiently they could do the jobs that they were there to do.

I entered the Office of the Governor with a big smile on my face.  The receptionist there greeted me with the same warmth that I imagine she greets heads of state. Her name is Kaui Alapa. When I asked her what Kaui means, she explained that her full first name is Kauiopuna and it means “beautiful spring.”

Alas, I’ve reached paradise, I thought. Here’s where I’ll find my information pot of gold.

She made a call on my behalf and soon Rachel Zane, executive secretary came out.

I didn’t ask her to show me a document. I didn’t ask her pull a file. I didn’t ask her to copy anything.

I asked her if she could check with someone and find out which desk in her office handles the travel worksheets that come there for approval by the Governor. Which person handles the SPO Form 30s in her office.

She said she was sorry, but that I would have to submit a formal written request.

I tried to explain to her that the answer to that simple question would certainly not take more than 30 seconds or a minute to determine, but a formal written request would involve a staff member having to write a letter and could take a week.

It doesn’t matter, she said. “You have to submit a formal written request.”

Oh, I tried to make my case, but I was destined to lose. Why? because Rachel Zane, executive secretary knows the loophole. Rachel Zane can play the card known as the “FWR Catch.”

Surely, I thought to myself as I walked dejectedly away, this is not what the law intended. This is not the spirit of the law. This is not public service.

I walked immediately to the Office of Information Practices and asked to speak to the attorney of the day. I had never before spoken to this particular attorney, but she was very polite. We both had to lean down so that we could talk under the protective glass that separates the public from the staff of the Office of Information Practices — Transparency Central, you might say.

She said that she would call the Governor’s office and see if she could clear things up. I offered my business card, but she declined. She only wanted my phone number. I coaxed her into writing down my e-mail address also. You see, donray@donray.com is pretty easy for folks to remember.

I asked her for the correct spelling of her name. She spelled it for me but immediately said, “Please don’t use my name.” I smiled.

“But you’re the duty attorney for the Office of Information Practices,” I said in a joking manner. If anyone should go on the record, it should be the staff attorney for the Office of Information Practices.”

I walked back to my office with mixed feelings. I was so happy that I had discovered that the State of Hawaii had put up one of the most impressive information-finding tools for its citizens — The Records Report System. And I had so enjoyed receiving assistance from a model public servant, my heroine of the month, Bonnie Kahakui.

Sure, I was disappointed that Executive Secretary Rachel Zine seemed more interested in serving people within her office than she was in serving the public. But heck, even executive secretaries in the Governor’s office sometimes forget who really butters their bread. Sometimes they forget who’s footing the bill for their jobs, their benefits, their holidays and for the prestige of working for the Governor of the State of Hawaii, the torchbearer of transparency and accountability.

A lot of state employees seem to have forgotten these details. They’ve forgotten about how lucky they are in such difficult times to have a secure job. They’ve forgotten that there are a lot of people out there who are struggling each day to survive, but they still pay their taxes. They still reach in their pockets to pay the people who are charged with the difficult task of keeping this great state running.

However, if they dare to ask a simple question of one of these public servants, they are likely to hear these words:

“You’ll have to submit a formal written request.”

As a postscript to this wordy odyssey, I submit to you the ultimate insult. It came as an e-mail this afternoon after I had almost completed an completely different blog entry — a more light-hearted and charitable version of my ordeal. Here’s the e-mail:

Dear Mr. Ray:
I  was unable to speak with Ms. Zane because she was out of the office today. The person I spoke with also could not readily identify the person who could respond to your questions, but believed that Ms. Zane was attempting to respond to your inquiry.  You may wish to call her and give her the opportunity to do so.
However, I was also informed by the office that there are already existing requests made for records by the organization you are working for and that the office has and is responding to those requests.  If you are making a request independent of that organization or if you are attempting to make a separate request of different records from those being produced by the Governor’s office, it would be less confusing and more expedient for all parties involved if you would explain this clearly in writing to the agency.

Very truly yours,
Cathy L. Takase
Staff Attorney

Office of Information Practices
State of Hawaii
No. 1 Capitol District Building
250 S. Hotel St., Suite 107
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel.: 808-586-1400
Fax: 808-586-1412
E-mail: oip@hawaii.gov
Web site: www.hawaii.gov/oip

Well folks, here we go again!

First the state’s published answer to the first question you might have about the open records law, the Uniform Information Practices Law:

“How should the UIPA be interpreted?”

This comes directly from the handbook that the Hawaii Office of Information Practices proudly distributes.

“The Legislature pronounced that it is the policy of this State to conduct government business as openly as possible while protecting the right of privacy embodied in our State Constitution.

Thus, part I of the UIPA requires that the UIPA be applied and construed to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are:

(1) To promote the public interest in disclosure;
(2) To provide for accurate, relevant, timely and complete records;
(3) To enhance government accountability;
(4) To make government accountable to individuals in the collection, use, and dissemination of information relating to them; and
(5) To balance the individual privacy interests and the public interest, allowing access unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Given this direction that the UIPA be interpreted to promote open government, any doubt regarding disclosure of a record should likely be resolved in favor of access.

All agencies of the state and county governments must comply with the UIAP.”

That’s what’s printed in the government’s little booklet. Sounds really encouraging.

Not so fast, Pal. There’s a catch. There’s a loophole — a supersized, all-purpose, ready-to-use trump card that any bureaucrat can play at will.

In my upcoming chapter of this saga, I’m going to introduce you to one public servant who lives up to the title. Then, I’ll share my encounter with a government employee who seems to wear the loophole in a quick-draw holster.

I’ll let you be the judge however.  Stay tuned.

There are some better ways that the public servants at the Hawaii Department of Agriculture could have responded. The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii wasn’t out for blood – just information about out-of-state travel. There were no smoking guns and no secret memos from an inside whistle blower or from some disgruntled “Deep Throat”. The people at the non-profit think tank simply want to create a statewide database that anyone can search with ease.

However, after weeks of waiting, at least four visits to the office and a flurry of e-mails and phone calls, there’s still no apparent movement within the agency to answer questions – questions that don’t seem to that difficult.

• Why would it require more than 50 hours of labor for the staff at the Department of Agriculture just to pull the documents in question?
• What are some alternative suggestions for helping us get the information we’re seeking without requiring so much time?
• May we please have copies of any responses your staff members may have sent but that somehow didn’t arrive?

There are a number of responses that would have prevented, aborted or contained this seemingly unnecessary information tug-of-war. The public servants at the Hawaii Department of Agriculture did not provide these responses, but they would have been helpful:

• We’ve received your request for travel-related documents, but you’re asking for some things that will require us to spend a lot of time removing personal information such as Social Security numbers, home addresses and personal credit card numbers. Would you like us to make an estimate for the time it would take if we only shared documents that wouldn’t require so much work?
• Your request for information suggests that you would like us to compile the information into a spreadsheet. We can do that, however it might add to the time or the cost of fulfilling your request.
• We have some reports that we’ve already compiled that would give you a listing of the out-of-state trips our staff members took. If we send this to you first, it may provide the information you’re seeking. If not, we’ll be happy to work with you on information that is more detailed. It may cost you more, however.
• We have conducted a preliminary search on your behalf of Hawaii’s Office of Information Practices interactive Records Report System (RRS) and we were able to identify 11 files or document types that seem to relate to out-of-state travel. The RRS indicates that at least six of these files or document types are completely open for immediate public inspection. We invite you to make arrangements to visit the offices in which we keep these files so that you can view them at no charge.
• We are extremely busy, so we recommend that you first do a simple search on Hawaii’s easy-to-use Records Report System on the website of the Office of Information Practices. There are thorough and easy-to-understand instructions on how you can search for specific types of files and documents for specific state, county or local government agencies. The detailed search results will let you know which documents are open for public inspection, the exact location of the files, the title and phone number of the person responsible for the files and much, much more. When you’ve identified the files you wish to view, we welcome you to visit the appropriate offices where we will be happy to assist you in viewing them. If you prefer, we can give you a time and cost estimate for retrieving, copying and sending you the copies.
• We’re always pleased to allow any person access to records that are open for public inspection. However, your request includes information that we might have to redact or edit out of the copies you desire. That could take some time and cost you some money. You have no obligation to inform us of how you plan to use the information you’re requesting, however, if you give us as much information as you’re comfortable providing, it might help us fulfill your information request quicker and at a much lower cost.
• We received your request to discuss the time and cost estimates we recently sent you in response to your request for information. Let’s set up a time when we can meet in person and we can suggest ways that you can get the information you want, but in a more efficient manner.
• We’re terribly sorry that nobody was available when you visited our office with concerns over our time and cost estimates. We receive your follow-up e-mails and phone calls and we immediately responded. Maybe there’s a problem with your phones or your e-mail, or perhaps there’s a problem at our end. Please call us again so that we can set up an in-person meeting so that we can help you get the information that the law allows you to have.
• We are in receipt of the two hand-written memos that your provided to our personnel when you visited the office. We will treat them as official requests for information and we’ll respond to them as the law requires.
• We’ve heard from the state attorney on duty at the Hawaii Office of Information Practices. She told us that you may be frustrated over not being able to get an audience with someone here. We don’t know what went wrong, but let’s solve the problem right away. Please call us again at . . .
• We’re so sorry that you had to come here in person for the third time just to get someone to speak with you about your request for records. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work here and we’re going to find out why you didn’t get better treatment.

Any of these suggested responses would have saved all of the parties involved a lot to time, frustration and maybe gray hair. Perhaps the people reading this will share it with other public servants in other government offices.

The contents of the e-mail made Hawaii Sunshine Chronicles reporters believe that there was a possibility that the entire saga may have been the result of miscommunication.

Hawaii Sunshine Chronicles correspondent Don Ray and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii policy analyst Pearl Hahn paid an unannounced visit to Agency X on Tuesday and were able to talk for about 20 minutes with the agency’s public information officer.

“Our mission was to eliminate any possibility that the agency was either inflating time estimates or intentionally dodging repeated requests to discuss ways of either lowering the cost,” Ray said, “or of finding alternative ways obtaining the records.

“There were enough unanswered questions and possibly extenuating circumstances,” he said, “that the only fair thing for us to do was to allow agency officials to better understand our position, to allow them to make their position clearer and to clear up any obvious communication problems.”

The agency’s PIO agreed, without the need of another written request, to re-calculate the time estimates based on criteria that the original request may may have implied or that agency personnel may have inferred. The PIO also offered to provide details about the way the agency files and stores the information Grassroot Institute desires as well as details about the steps agency personnel would have to take to retrieve, edit and copy the documents.

Finally, the Public Information Officer agreed to make an informal inquiry to ensure that someone actually responded to all of the requests made by Don Ray or Pearl Hahn.

The PIO could not estimate how much time it might take to fulfill the offers of help, Ray and Hahn agreed to make contact with the PIO on Monday, January 12, for an informal update.

In the meantime, Ray and Hahn met with Linden H. Joesting, staff attorney with the Hawaii Office of Information Practices to get a first-hand briefing relating to Hawaii open records laws as well as ideas about the options a citizen or journalist have if they feel that a government agency is not responding to requests for information.

At issue was the question of why the still undisclosed agency apparently did not respond to several requests to discuss the agency’s response to an earlier request that Grassroot Institute of Hawaii made for copies of travel-related documents.

The still unnamed “Agency X” is still the focus as the new year begins. Neither its Administrative Services Officer nor its Public Information Officer has responded to repeated requests to meet and discuss the agency’s silence. What began as a “softball” request for information about out-of-state travel has now morphed into a news story about one agency’s unexplained silence.

What follows is the text (without identifying information) of the e-mail message that Don Ray sent to the parties involved:

For several weeks, I have attempted to arrange a meeting with you do discuss what I believe to be an overly exaggerated estimate of time for your agency to respond our request for documents as required by the Uniform Information Practices Act.

You have chosen to ignore my repeated attempts to set up a short meeting to discuss your response. I have spoken with your Public Information Officer has failed to respond to my request for assistance in this matter. I have spoken with the duty attorney for the Office of Information Practices and she has failed to nudge you in the direction of responding to my request for a meeting with you.

Now that the holidays are past us and everyone involved should be back at work, refreshed and eager to start 2009 off in a productive manner, there should be no reason for not responding to us as is required by state statute.

To make this perfectly clear again, I am a journalist and my assignment is to write stories about transparency in government. Please consider this an official news media request for your comments and responses to these questions:

1. How is possible that your staff would require more than 100 hours to locate and prepare simple travel documents for copying?
2. Why have you ignored my requests in person, in writing and by e-mail to meet with you to discuss our questions about your response to our request for information?

Every person, citizen or not, has the right to know how your agency and its staff are using their tax dollars.

Most sincerely,

Don Ray, Journalist

Transparency Correspondent

On contract with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

(818) 237-3728

This is the last time that Hawaii Sunshine Chronicles will withhold the agency name and the identities of the government officials involved. Indeed, the people of Hawaii deserve to know who it is that may be dragging their feet or intentionally dodging requests for contact, but this situation needn’t be a news story in itself.

It’s the holiday season and I don’t believe that anybody expects much government activity, except maybe for emergency services and utilities. So the folks at Agency X (see the prior post), are receiving a courtesy reprieve. We’ve heard nothing from any of the officials we’ve contacted regarding our request to talk about the exaggerated estimates of time it would take the staff to provide Grassroot Institute of Hawaii with a handful of travel documents.

To recap the situation, Grassroot Institute staff sent out a “trial balloon” request for copies of expense accounts relating to any travel to the Mainland or to foreign countries. They sent them to all of the major state agencies. The goal was twofold: first, to have the travel information to post in database form on the Grassroot Institute websites, and second, to see how responsive these state agencies really are.

It was a softball request. Kids stuff. Not too much chance of there being anything too terribly controversial. I’m an outsider, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. I never, however, anticipated government officials having the audacity to suggest that it could take 50 hours or more to simply go to their file cabinets and pull the documents. And once they would have the documents in hand, how could it be possible to need 50 or 60 more staff hours to remove the minimal personal information from the documents they needed 50 hours to retrieve.

Outrageous, but a number of state agencies responded with what’s clearly inflated estimates. What we don’t know is whether these are typical responses. Does every citizen encounter this kind of resistance? We’ll find out and report the findings.

For now, we’re giving every possible benefit of any imaginable doubt to Agency X to do something that requires no legal advice whatsoever: we simply want someone to respond to our requests to talk about the situation.

We’d like to hear from readers about the way we’re handling this stalemate. I admit that I’m a new guy to the islands and I have practically no experience dealing with officials with the Hawaii state government. However, I’m not new to making requests for records and documents that are supposed to be open for inspection. I’ve had to roll up my sleeves on many occasions and, once in a great while, turn to attorneys to press the case in court.

I’ve never, however, had officials at an agency avoid me over something as innocent as a travel document or, even worse, a simple request for an agency’s internal telephone directory.

Think of 2009 as the “Year of Transparency in Government.”

Comment transferred from the old page: