Opinion ID: 1367800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged Violation of HRS Chapter 92F (UIPA)

Text: Inasmuch as the underlying purposes and policies of the UIPA, HRS chapter 92F, include the promotion of the public interest in disclosure of and access to government records, HRS § 92F-2(1) and (3) (Supp.1992), [15] we must address the allegation raised in Kaapu's second amended complaint that the ATDC violated the mandate of the UIPA when it relied on the confidentiality provisions of ATDC Rule 15-26-44(6) and (7) in declining to release the development proposals at the public meeting. [16] As we have noted, the OIP advised the ATDC board prior to the public meeting that the development proposals could lawfully remain confidential under the frustration exemption set forth in HRS § 92F-13(3) until the ATDC completed its selection procedure and made a final choice of a developer for the complex. HRS § 92F-11 (Supp.1992) provides in relevant part: (a) All government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law. (b) Except as provided in section 92F-13, each agency upon request by any person shall make government records available for inspection and copying during regular business hours. . . . . HRS § 92F-13 provides in relevant part: Government records; exceptions to general rule. This chapter shall not require disclosure of: . . . . (3) Government records that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function [.] (Emphasis added.) The question therefore arises whether the development proposals are government records generally open to public inspection, pursuant to HRS § 92F-11(a), on the one hand, or government records that, by their nature, must be kept confidential in order to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function, pursuant to HRS § 92F-13(3) and ATDC Rule 15-26-44(6) and (7), on the other. To resolve this question, we turn to fundamental principles of statutory construction. This court has recently reiterated that: The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de novo. When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature which is to be obtained primarily from language contained in the statute itself. In re Hawaiian Telephone Co., 61 Haw. 572, 577, 608 P.2d 383, 387 (1980); accord Gorospe v. Matsui, 72 Haw. 377, 379, 819 P.2d 80, 81 (1991). We must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. In re Doe Children, 73 Haw. 15, 20, 827 P.2d 1144, 1146 (1992). When there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute an ambiguity exists. State v. Sylva, 61 Haw. 385, 388, 605 P.2d 496, 498 (1980). If the statutory language is ambiguous or doubt exists as to its meaning, [c]ourts may take legislative history into consideration in construing a statute. Life of the Land v. City and County of Honolulu, 61 Haw. 390, 447, 606 P.2d 866, 899 (1980). Franks v. City and County of Honolulu, 843 P.2d 668, 671-72 (Haw.1993). Because there is inherent uncertainty or doubt regarding whether HRS § 92F-11(a) or HRS § 92F-13(3) governs the public's access to the development proposals, it is necessary to take into consideration the legislative history underlying the UIPA. The Senate Government Operations Committee of the 1988 Hawaii legislature declared the following pertinent legislative intent regarding the bill that was to become the UIPA: The purpose of this bill is to repeal both the current law on public access to government records (Part V of Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)) and the current chapter limiting access in the interest of privacy, limiting inter-agency record sharing and providing for the correction of inaccurate entries (Chapter 92E, HRS). In their place, the bill proposes a detailed and comprehensive chapter, based on the Uniform Information Practices Code of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. . . . . 4. A new [s]ection ... is added to create four categorical exceptions to the general rule [of public access]. Rather than list specific records in the statute, at the risk of being over- or under-inclusive, your Committee prefers to categorize and rely on the developing common law. The common law is ideally suited to the task of balancing competing interest[s] in the grey areas and unanticipated cases, under the guidance of the legislative policy. To assist the Judiciary in understanding the legislative intent, the following examples are provided. [Emphasis added.] . . . . (b) Frustration of legitimate government function. The following are examples of records which need not be disclosed, if disclosure would frustrate a legitimate government function. [Emphasis added.] . . . . (3) Information which, if disclosed, would raise the cost of government procurements or give a manifestly unfair advantage to any person proposing to enter into a contract or agreement with an agency ...; . . . . (6) Proprietary information, such as research methods, records and data, computer programs and software and other types of information owned by an agency or entrusted to it; (7) Trade secrets or confidential commercial and financial information.... Sen.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 2580, in 1988 Senate Journal, at 1093-95. The submissions required of a proposed developer by an RFP, pursuant to ATDC Rule 15-26-44(5), clearly fall within one or more of the classes of information described in the legislative history set forth above. Public disclosure of development proposals  involving proprietary and other confidential information, such as trade secrets and confidential commercial and financial data  prior to final negotiation of a long-term lease could foreseeably give an unfair competitive advantage to other developers in the event negotiations were to break down. Concern over this risk could cause developers to offer up deliberately vague plans or decline to submit development proposals altogether. The likely result would be fewer submissions and an increase in the cost of government procurements. In light of the above, we believe that the only reasonable construction of development proposals submitted pursuant to ATDC Rule 15-26-44 that is consistent with the relevant legislative history of the UIPA is that they are government records that, by their nature, must be kept confidential in order to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function within the meaning of HRS § 92F-13(3). We therefore hold that the UIPA, HRS chapter 92F, did not require the ATDC to disclose the development proposals.