• Follow on Facebook

  • what-to-do-media
  • RSS W2DM

  • puako-general-store
  • air-tour-kauai
  • Cheneviere Couture
  • PKF Document Shredding
  • Arnotts Mauna Kea Tours
  • World Botanical Garden
  • Hilton Waikoloa Village
  • Hilton Luau
  • Dolphin Quest Waikoloa
  • Discount Hawaii Car Rental
  • 10% Off WikiFresh

  • Say When

    June 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « May    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • When

  • RSS Pulpconnection

  • Recent Comments

Commentary – Good Citizen or “Vexatious Requester”?

Dear Damon,

When it comes to transparency in government, both the requesters and requestees would do well to remember Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to (what we’ll diplomatically call) misunderstanding, negligence, or incompetence. To do otherwise risks the kind of policy that threatens the foundations of transparent government … as the debate over HB1518 demonstrates.

When first introduced, HB1518 put forth a very worrisome proposal: state agencies could petition the Office of Information Practices to declare someone a “vexatious requester” based on the subjective determination that the requester was a nuisance who made excessive, repetitive records requests. Having been deemed an official irritant by the state, the vexatious person would have their rights to make records requests severely limited.

The problem, of course, is that what a state employee finds annoying, an ordinary citizen can view as “just doing their job.”

And the testimony on the bill made it clear that this ambiguity about what it means to be vexing was at the heart of the controversy over the bill.

While various state agencies attested that they had been subject to serious annoyance by repetitive and “harassing” requesters, defenders of transparency attempted to put the complaints in perspective.

Brian Black of the Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest showed that despite claims by UH and the Department of Agriculture that they had been “inundated” with requests that made it impossible for them to keep up with their workload (prompting the need for this law), both agencies were anything but overwhelmed. Black pointed out that of the approximately 18,000 requests fielded by all state agencies over the last three fiscal years, UH only had to deal with 42 non-routine (i.e. other than a transcript) requests and the Department of Agriculture had only 220 non-routine requests.

In other words, certain agencies seem to be vexed by any request at all.

Both Civil Beat and the Grassroot Institute pointed out that the law could be used to target the most common requesters–reporters, think tanks, researchers, and others working in the public interest. Not coincidentally, these are the people most likely to be critical of government. They’re also the ones most familiar with the ways in which agencies–whether through bureaucracy or inefficiency–can stall or obstruct a response, leading to the need for multiple requests. What an agency might call “vexatious,” an experienced researcher could simply call “trying to get the government to release the right information.”

There is good news, however, and a victory to announce. Many watchdog organizations urged the legislature to amend the bill to include due process for anyone in danger of losing their rights under the “vexatious requester” label. The committee listened, and the most current version of the bill requires the agency to plead its case for vexation to a circuit court. The burden is then on the agency to establish that the requester has abused the process established by the Uniform Information Practices Act before the court can limit the requester’s rights.

All of which means that government watchdogs can safely conduct their research of waste and corruption without worrying about being labeled “vexatious.” Though it’s no guarantee that the agencies involved won’t have plenty of other names for us.

E hana kakou (Let’s work together!),

Keli’i Akina, Ph.D.
President/CEO
Grassroot Institute

Grassroot Institute Announces Big Island Tour in October

Today, Grasssroot Institute of Hawaii announced two exciting new events on the island of Hawaii. The events will feature Grassroot President Keli’i Akina, former Representative Charles Djou, and Hawaii Shippers Council President Michael Hansen and will honor the legacy of Freddy Rice as well as discuss the local damage caused by the Jones Act.

Grassroot President Keli'i Akina

Grassroot President Keli’i Akina

On Friday, October 4th, Grassroot Institute will present a Jones Act Reform Night at Hilo’s Naniloa Volcanoes Resort. There, Dr. Akina and Michael Hansen will explain what the Jones Act is and why it is harmful to Hawaii’s future.  The event is part of Grassroot’s mission to educate the public as well as political leaders and to lead the charge in bringing about a much-needed reform of the Jones Act. This event is sponsored by the Conservative Forum of Hilo. For more details, please go to https://grassroothilo.eventbrite.com/.

On Saturday, October 5th, Grassroot will be at Kona’s Mauni Lani Golf Course for an event entitled “Upholding the Legacy of Freddy Rice.” There, Mr. Rice, a longtime defender of liberty and the free market in Hawaii, will be presented with the Grassroot Institute Legacy Award and Dr. Akina will speak on how Mr. Rice’s example can lead us to a better Hawaii. In addition, former Representative Charles Djou will address how it is possible to “shift the tide” on the Jones Act. For more information on the Kona event, go to https://grassrootkona.eventbrite.com/.

“We are delighted that Grassroot Institute can continue to serve residents of the Big Island and all neighbor island counties,” stated Keli’i Akina, President of Grassroot Institute. “Across the state, there are countless freedom-loving individuals who are banding together to build a better Hawaii for all.  They represent the real hope for the future of Hawaii’s economy, government and society.”