News from OIP: EIGHT OPINIONS ISSUED

News Release from OIP, June 9, 2026

The Office of Information Practices recently issued one formal opinion and seven informal opinions under the Sunshine Law, part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), and the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F, HRS (UIPA).   The summaries of the opinions can be found on the  Opinions page at ags.hawaii.gov/oip and by clicking the links below.

In OIP Op. Ltr. No. 26-02, OIP found that the Chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission (Commission) and two Commission members discussed board business outside of a meeting during the recess of the Commission’s January 16, 2024, meeting, and concluded that this discussion violated the Sunshine Law.  OIP also found that the Chair’s text message to another member discussed board business and sought a commitment to vote, and concluded that the text message violated the Sunshine Law.  OIP found that the Chair’s voicemail to another member did not seek a commitment to vote and did not involve any other members, and concluded that the voicemail did not violate the Sunshine Law because it fell under the two-person permitted interaction found in section 92-2.5(a), HRS.

S MEMO 26-03 Requester asked for an investigation into whether the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) violated the Sunshine Law by failing to provide proper notice of how to attend a meeting remotely; failing to provide a sufficiently detailed agenda item; holding “break out” sessions and taking a lunch break; failing to give members of the public the opportunity to present oral testimony remotely; and making a decision to back date a revocable permit.  OIP found that BLNR’s agenda provided the public with sufficient detail and specificity to allow a member of the public to understand what the board intended to consider at the meeting for the agenda item at issue, and thus complied with the notice requirement in section 92-7, HRS.  OIP also found that BLNR complied with section 92-3.7, HRS, by providing the public with sufficient notice of how to contemporaneously remotely view and testify at its remote meeting, and listing a meeting location that was open to the public and had an audiovisual connection to the meeting.  OIP concluded that BLNR did not violate the Sunshine Law by conducting breakout sessions.  The Sunshine Law does not address whether a board can properly back date documents, so although BLNR’s decision to back date a revocable permit is not a Sunshine Law violation, it is beyond OIP’s authority to determine whether the decision was proper with respect to other laws that may apply.

U MEMO 26-08 Requester asked whether the Hawai‘i Department of Taxation (TAX) properly denied her request for policies and procedures relating to executing a bank levy under Part II of the UIPA.  The sole TAX record including responsive information was TAX’s Collections Manual (Manual).  OIP concluded that the Manual was not required to be disclosed in full without application of the UIPA’s exceptions as a set of rules of general applicability, but that the majority of the Manual must be disclosed, with limited exceptions.  Portions of the Manual that provided a specific timeline between one stage of TAX’s collection effort until TAX takes adverse action against a taxpayer could be redacted based on the UIPA’s exception for records whose disclosure would frustrate a legitimate government function, while portions identifying individual taxpayers in screenshots of software applications and examples of documents could be redacted under the UIPA’s privacy exception.

U MEMO 26-09  Requester appealed the Department of Education’s (DOE) denial of her request for a copy of her completed driving instructor exam, copies of other course participants’ exams, and the names of the two other participants who were enrolled in the course.  DOE planned to reuse its exam questions in the future, and OIP found it was proper for copies of the exam to be withheld in order to preserve its validity, fairness and objectivity.  OIP also found that while the names of certified driving instructors are public, the two other course participants did not become certified instructors and disclosing their identities would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

U MEMO 26-10  OIP found that disclosure of a manual used to conduct assessment tests for adult intellectual and developmental disabilities would likely substantially harm the competitive position of the manual’s copyright holder and would impair DOH’s ability to conduct objective assessments.  OIP therefore concluded that DOH may withhold the manual under the UIPA’s frustration exception.  OIP also concluded that because DOH did not provide any evidence as to what it did to search for records stating the employer of the staff who administered the test and communicated with the clients, DOH did not meet its burden to establish that it performed a reasonable search for records, or that it had actual knowledge that no such records existed.  However, OIP noted that although DOH did not perform a reasonable search for records, DOH stated that the State of Hawaii is the employer of the staff who administered the test and communicated to clients, effectively providing the information that was requested.  OIP instructed the requester to inform DOH if she still sought such records in light of DOH providing the information, and, if so, instructed DOH to conduct a reasonable search for such records.

U MEMO 26-11 Requester made a record request for a copy of a legal opinion from his employer, the Honolulu Liquor Commission (Commission).  OIP found that section 92F-12(b)(2), HRS, which requires disclosure of records authorized to be disclosed to the requester, was inapplicable because there was no statute that specifically authorized disclosure of the requested record to Requester.  The parties did not dispute that the legal opinion was a confidential communication between the Commission and its attorney and therefore was subject to attorney-client privilege.  OIP found that the Commission did not waive attorney-client privilege and that the Commission, not Requester, was the client with the power to claim attorney-client privilege and determine who could access the requested record.  OIP therefore concluded that the Commission was authorized to withhold the requested record under the UIPA.  OIP also found that a record request from a government employee under the UIPA is treated in the same way as a request from the general public.  OIP therefore concluded that the UIPA does not require the Commission to disclose a record that could be withheld under a UIPA exception to Requester in his capacity as an employee of the Commission.

U MEMO 26-12 OIP found and concluded that a government employee (Employee) had a significant privacy interest in an internal investigation report under section 92F-14(b)(4), HRS.  After weighing the five non-exclusive balancing factors, OIP concluded that the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the Employee’s significant privacy interest in the information in the report and that the County of Hawai‘i Mayor’s Office properly withheld the report under the UIPA’s privacy exception, section 92F-13(1), HRS.

U MEMO 26-13 Based on the submittals and lack of any substantive response, OIP found that the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority (HTA) provided no evidence that it searched for records in response to record requests, and that HTA therefore failed to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.  OIP concluded that HTA did not satisfy its burden of proof to justify its nondisclosure of the remaining requests as required by section 92F-15(c), HRS, and therefore concluded that HTA did not properly respond to Requester’s requests for records under the UIPA.