Opinion ID: 1122988
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified)

Text: By enacting Hawai`i's Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (UIPA), codified at HRS Chapter 92F, the legislature sought to provide[] a new framework for the resolution of the often competing public and privacy interests involved in terms of access to government records[,] starting from the shared view [of both the House and the Senate] that an open government is the cornerstone of our democracy. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 112-88, in 1988 House Journal, at 817. The purpose of the UIPA is to provide clear recognition of both its primary goal of ensuring access to government records and the constitutional right of privacy which must clearly be considered in every appropriate case. Id. HRS § 92F-2 (Supp.1992) describes these purposes and policies: Purposes; rules of construction. In a democracy, the people are vested with the ultimate decision making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policythe discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agenciesshall be conducted as openly as possible. The policy of conducting government business as openly as possible must be tempered by a recognition of the right of the people to privacy, as embodied in section 6 and section 7 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii. This chapter shall be applied and construed to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are to: (1) Promote the public interest in disclosure; (2) Provide for accurate, relevant, timely, and complete government records; (3) Enhance governmental accountability through a general policy of access to government records; (4) Make government accountable to individuals in the collection, use, and dissemination of information relating to them; and (5) Balance the individual privacy interest and the public access interest, allowing access unless it would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The UIPA imposes [a]ffirmative agency disclosure responsibilities and establishes the general rule that [a]ll government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law. HRS § 92F-11 (Supp.1992). There are five exceptions to this general rule enumerated in HRS § 92F-13. The instant case requires application of HRS § 92F-13(1), excepting from the general disclosure requirement [g]overnment records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.] The conference committee's explanation of this provision, which it intended to serve as a clear legislative expression of intent should any dispute arise as to the meaning of these provisions[,] is that, [o]nce a significant privacy interest is found, the privacy interest will be balanced against the public interest in disclosure. If the privacy interest is not `significant,' a scintilla of public interest in disclosure will preclude a finding of a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 112-88, in 1988 House Journal, at 817-18. Examples of information in which an individual has a significant privacy interest are enumerated in HRS § 92F-14(b). The crux of the instant appeals is HRS § 92F-14(b)(4) (Supp.1992) and its subsequent amendments. On July 1, 1989, the effective date of the UIPA, HRS § 92F-14(b)(4) provided in relevant part that an individual has a significant privacy interest in [i]nformation in an agency's personnel file, ... except information relating to the status of any formal charges against the employee and disciplinary action taken [.] Id. (emphasis added). In order to clarify what individually identifying information about employees may be disclosed upon request, and at what stage of the disciplinary process such disclosure may occur, Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 273, in 1993 Senate Journal, at 916, the legislature adopted Act 191, which amended HRS § 92F-14(b)(4) to specify that an individual does not have a significant privacy interest in: The following information related to employment misconduct that results in an employee's suspension or discharge: (i) The name of the employee; (ii) The nature of the employment related misconduct; (iii) The agency's summary of the allegations of misconduct; (iv) Findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (v) The disciplinary action taken by the agency[] when the following has occurred: the highest non-judicial grievance adjustment procedure timely invoked by the employee or the employee's representative has concluded; a written decision sustaining the suspension or discharge has been issued after this procedure; and thirty calendar days have elapsed following the issuance of the decision; provided that this subparagraph shall not apply to a county police department officer with respect to misconduct that occurs while the officer is not acting in the capacity of a police officer[.] 1993 Haw. Sess. L. Act 191, § 1 at 290, codified at HRS § 92F-14(b)(4)(B) (1993). In 1995, the legislature amended HRS § 92F-14(b)(4) yet again, by deleting the phrase with respect to misconduct that occurs while the officer is not acting in the capacity of a police officer and adding the phrase except in a case which results in the discharge of the officer. 1995 Haw. Sess. L. Act 242, § 1 at 641-42. Act 242 became law on July 6, 1995, without the Governor's signature. Id. at 643.