Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

Additional testimony has been published regarding the "Vexatious Requester" bill

(Mar. 19, 2010) — The 23 pages of testimony regarding SB2937 which had been posted at the “Bill Status and Documents” section of the Hawaii Legislature website, removed sometime yesterday, have been restored.

The link now brings the reader to a large section of testimony which begins with three supportive testimonies, all from Hawaii state departments.  These are then followed by 19 pages of opposition testimony.

The statements of Cathy Takase and Dr. Chiyome Fukino appear identical to those given on February 23, 2010 to the state Senate Judicial and Government Operations Committee, despite The Post & Email’s report of evidence which it has in its possession which contradicts Fukino’s assertion that the DOH receives “approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to…Obama’s birth certificate.”

An additional link at the legislative bill-tracking site reveals a single page of opposition testimony as well as  commentary on an apparently unrelated bill, SB2441, regarding the Hawaiian seal, the official state mammal.  As reported by The Post & Email, the two aforementioned pages appeared last evening for the first time.

SB2937 was introduced by state Senator Will Espero on January 28, 2010 and sought to label certain requesters of information from the Hawaii state government “vexatious.”  Senator Espero has stated in at least two different email exchanges that he does not believe the bill will go forward during this legislative session.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Is it possible under UIPA to obtain the government purchasing information in regards to 2007 COLB that was alleged received and posted by the Obama camp. Hawaii statues cite the following:
    §92F-12 Disclosure required
    3) Government purchasing information, including all bid results, except to the extent prohibited by section 92F-13
    I checked 92F-13. The only provision that might apply is the following:
    §92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:
    (1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
    Since the COLB was posted, I don’t see what defense the Obama admin could come up with.

  2. And Hawaii hoped no one would notice? Sooner or later they will get it that they are now under a huge microscope and they can either conduct their state affairs like a lawless, pineapple republic out in the Pacific, or they can conduct their affairs with integrity and honesty. Gee, what a concept!

  3. As I understand it the Hawaii DOH MUST respond to every UIPA that is sent them. They are complaining that they are getting too many requests. Even if the law does pass, it won’t go into effect until July 2010. Either way, Hawaii DOH should be continued to be pounded with UIPA requests. If we want to bring the Hawaii DOH to its knees, lets see if the can handle 10 or 20 Thousand UIPA requests regarding Obama’s records which under the law they are required to respond. Try to imagine the time and cost of Hawaii DOH having to respond to 10,000 UIPA requests. I think they will begin to coorporate real fast.

  4. Here is my correspondence with the House representatives related to this matter.

    Dear Hortense Bird

    Thank you for notifying of missing testimony on the Legislature Website.

    House Printshop have lost testimonies of SB 2937 for some reasons.

    I ordered House Printshop to upload testimonies again on the Website.

    Respectfully, yours

    Kenji Kimura


    Kenji Kimura

    Assistant Committee Clerk

    House Committee on Judiciary, Hawaii State Legislature

    Hawaii State Capitol, Room 302

    Honolulu, HI 96813

    Tel: (808)586-8490

    Fax: (808)586-8494



    >>Hon. Karamatsu and Ito,
    >>I’ve looked through the testimony documents for the 3/16/2010 hearing of the Committee on Judiciary on >>SB2937 that is posted on the legislature’s website (http://capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/getstatus.asp?>>query=SB2937&showtestimony=on&currpage=1). I know of a couple of testimony documents that were >>sent on 3/15 put they don’t appear in the website testimony documents. I think that some people sent their >>testimony via e-mail or fax. I sent my testimony using the legislature’s website >>(http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/emailtestimony). Did the committee not receive these documents, or are they >>yet to be added to the record on the legislature’s website?
    >>Hortense Bird