Info agency
gambles for life

Facing elimination, it shifts
some of its attention away
from government secrecy

Hearings to be held on privacy

By Ian Lind
Star-Bulletin

The state Office of Information Practices was formed to help the public pry information from reluctant government agencies, but is now preaching the benefits of privacy.

The move is part of a survival strategy aimed at building support for OIP, but runs the risk of further diluting the agency's dwindling resources and creating a backlash among information advocates.

OIP has shifted its attention from challenging government secrecy to stopping the spread and misuse of personal information gathered by government agencies as well as hospitals, insurance companies, marketers and other businesses.

OIP Director Moya Davenport Gray is gambling that the privacy emphasis will attract enough new support to reverse a five-year downward spiral of budget and staff cuts that have eroded the agency's effectiveness and sapped its public support.

It is a critical gamble for the agency, which may be targeted for elimination in the next round of state budget-cutting.

"It's an unfortunate fact of human nature," Gray said. "You need the bodies who complain before the Legislature is going to listen, and those willing to complain about a lack of access to public records don't include the majority of people in Hawaii."

Gray hopes to gain backing from organizations with a major stake in the outcome of privacy discussions, including the health-care and insurance industries.

"Our experience in dealing with government records is directly applicable to medical records," Gray said. "That is potentially a very large base."

Gray spearheaded a successful effort to push a medical privacy bill through the Legislature during the 1999 session, and her office has scheduled public hearings beginning tomorrow on the commercial handling and use of personal information.

Traditional backers of open government and freedom of information, including public-interest organizations and the news media, have been frustrated by the agency's inability to clear a backlog of cases dating from as far back as 1989, and have provided only cautious support for OIP in recent years.

Policy change 'distressing'

Jeff Portnoy, a First Amendment specialist and openness advocate, called the shift toward privacy "distressing."

"I'm not suggesting that, in a perfect world, privacy is an area they shouldn't devote effort to, but I don't think OIP ought to be taking on a new area in light of their present inability to facilitate access to public records, which historically is the primary reason for their existence."

Gray said the emphasis on privacy will not erode OIP's ability to assist the public in accessing government records and meetings, but OIP has already stopped issuing advisory opinions for the public, which had offered an alternative to going to court to resolve disputes, and is cutting back on direct support previously offered to agencies.

Rules for appeals of agency decisions denying access to records remain unfinished, another victim of staff turnover and limited resources.

"As long as the economy is bad, access to public records will suffer," Gray said earlier this year.

OIP was created by the Legislature in 1988 as part of an overhaul of the state's public-records law.

The move followed several years of controversy over government secrecy, including such an emphasis on privacy that some government reports and contracts were considered secret.

The Legislature recognized the problems and rewrote the law to balance privacy with the public's right to know. OIP was created to administer the law and facilitate public access to government records.

After several successful years, OIP's budget has been slashed by 60 percent since 1994, falling from $827,537 to just $332,858 during the current fiscal year, Gray said.

Budget cuts continued even after OIP took over administration of the state's open-meeting laws in 1998, a move that significantly increased requests for information and advice. The meeting provisions were previously handled by the attorney general's office.

"It's unfair," said Beverly Keever, professor of journalism at the University of Hawaii and a longtime supporter of OIP. "You have to provide more resources when you give them more responsibility, but it seems it went in the opposite direction. I think it's a misjudgment on the part of the state administration."

"We're a leaking ship," Gray said, referring to the loss of most of the agency's experienced attorneys. Gray said the entire staff has turned over twice since 1994.

"It has had a tremendous impact on the capacity of this office to perform its work. You once had a first-class agency that led the nation. Now we're just trying to shore it up."

Privacy hearings The Office of Information Practices has scheduled two hearings to receive testimony about how personal information is used by business and what privacy protections, if any, are warranted and desirable. Individuals or organizations wanting to testify or submit written comments should contact OIP at 586-1400. The hearings: Oahu: tomorrow, 2-5 p.m., state Capitol, Room 325. Neighbor islands (videoconference): Tuesday, 9-11 a.m. Videoconference sites: Honolulu: Keoni Ana Building, 1177 Alakea St., Room 302. Kauai: State Office Building, 3060 Eiwa St., basement. Hilo: State Office Building, 75 Aupuni St., basement. Maui: Wailuku Judiciary Building, 2145 Main St.