1. LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR STATE OF HAWAII
JAMES R. AIONA, JR. OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CATHY L. TAKASE
ACTING DIRECTOR
EUTENANT GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES
NO. 1 CAPITOL DISTRICT BUILDING
250 SOUTH HOTEL STREET, SUITE 107
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813
Telephone: (808) 586 1400 FAX: (808) 586-1412
E-MAIL: O wai pv
WVW WV L92VQ2
The Office of Information Practices (OIP) is authorized to issue this advisory
opinion under the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F,
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) (the UIPA) pursuant to section 92F-42, HRS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Requester: Carrie K. S. Okinaga, Corporation Counsel
Agency: City and County of Honolulu
Date: September 15, 2010
Subject: Disclosure of Employee Names, Titles and Salaries (U RFO-G 11-1)
Requester seeks an opinion on whether the City and County of Honolulu must
disclose the names of all city employees in conjunction with each employee’s
respective title and salary or salary range in response to a request made under part
II of the UIPA.
Unless otherwise indicated, this advisory opinion is based solely upon the facts
presented in the City’s letter to OIP dated September 7, 2010.
Opinion
The UIPA requires the City to disclose the name, title and salary (or salary range for
covered employees) for all City employees, except present or former law enforcement
personnel. Although there may be legitimate arguments that identifiable salary
information is the type of information that would usually fall under the UIPA’s
privacy and frustration exceptions, those arguments cannot be considered here
because of the statutory requirement that this information be disclosed without
consideration of the exceptions to disclosure under HRS § 92F-13.
Statement of Reasons for Opinion
In HRS § 92F-12, the Legislature specifically listed records that are “unambiguously”
required to be disclosed. S. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 235, Haw. S.J. 689, 690 (1988); H.
U MEMO 11-3

2. Conf. Comm. Rep. No, 112-88, Haw. H.J. 817, 818 (1988); see OIP Op. Ltr. No. 93-10
at 2-3; OIP Op. Ltr. No, 91-26 at 8. For these records, the exceptions to disclosure for
personal privacy and for frustration of a legitimate government purpose are
inapplicable, unless expressly provided for under a specific subsection of § 92F-12.
(Legislature stated that as to the records listed in § 92F-12, “the exceptions
such as for personal privacy and for frustration of a legitimate government purpose
are inapplicable”); HRS § 92F-12(a)(”[alny other provision in this chapter to the
contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available. .“);‘ see e.g., HRS
.
§ 92F-12(a)(2) (requiring disclosure of agency “[f]inal opinions. except to the extent
. .
protected by section 92F- 13(1)”).
HRS § 92F-12(a)(14) is applicable here. Under that subsection, the Legislature
expressly required that “[amy other provision in this chapter to the contrary
notwithstanding, each agency shall make available... [tihe name, compensation (but
only the salary range for employees covered by or included in chapter 76, and sections
302A-602 to 302A-640, and 302A-701, or bargaining units (8)), job title, provided
. .
that this paragraph shall not require the creation of a roster of employees; and
provided further that this paragraph shall not apply to information regarding present
or former employees involved in an undercover capacity in a law enforcement
agency[.]” HRS § 92F-12(a)(14). Subsection -12(a)(14) does not provide for
application of any exception under § 92F-13. Thus, an agency must disclose the
names, job titles and exact salary amounts for each exempt employee and salary
ranges for each covered or included employee, unless an employee is or was in an
undercover law enforcement capacity. OIP Op. Ltr. No. 93-10 (finding that § 92F-
12(a)(14) required exact salaries be disclosed for exempt employees and salary ranges
for civil service employees, and discussing in full that section’s legislative history,
including amendments).
The City has raised a variety of privacy and frustration concerns over the requested
disclosure of the names, job titles and salaries of all City employees. OIP
understands some of the City’s concerns. However, given the Legislature’s clear
intent to require this information to be made available and to not allow application of
exceptions for privacy and frustration, OIP is constrained to find that these concerns
cannot be considered by OIP under § 92F-12, but must instead be addressed to the
Legislature.
The City also points to HRS § 92F-14(b)(6) for justification in withholding employees’
names. HRS § 92F-14 contains examples provided by the Legislature of the types of
information in which individuals have a significant privacy interest that should be
balanced against the public interest in disclosure. Subsection -14(b)(6), specifically,
provides that individuals have a significant privacy interest in various financial
information, including their income. However, as expressly made clear in subsection
1 Prior to amendment in 2005, this phrase read “[amy provision to the contrary
notwithstanding[.]”
U MEMO 11-3 2

3. -14(b)(4), identifying a significant privacy interest for personnel file type information,
the identification of a significant privacy interest under subsection -14(b)(6) does not
negate the specific, required disclosure of government employees’ names,
compensation and job titles under § 92F-12(a)(14). S HRS § 92F-14(b)(4)
(identifying a significant privacy interest in personnel file type information, but
expressly excepting “[ilnformation disclosed under section 92F-12(a)(14)”); ci’. OIP Op.
Ltr. No. 04-13 (OIP balanced disclosure of other financial information of government
employees identified as significant under § 92F-14(b)(6) where that information was
nç salary or salary ranges that are required to be disclosed under § 92F-12(a)(14)).
The City further cites to three legal authorities that protected the identities of
individuals in connection with certain financial information. These authorities,
however, are inapposite. First, the City cites an opinion in which OIP found that the
UIPA’s privacy exception protected the identity of government employees who elected
to become class C members in the Employees’ Retirement System. This type of
financial information, however, is not information required to be disclosed under
§ 92F-12(a)(14), and thus the privacy exception could and did apply. Second, the City
cites two federal cases that protected the identity of persons on a government annuity
payroll and on certified payrolls. These cases do not provide useful guidance here
because the federal freedom of information law applied in those cases has no
provision identical to § 92F-12(a)(14), and because the cases concerned disclosure of
different information (the names of government employees eligible to participate in
the federal government’s civilian retirement system rather than direct compensation,
and the compensation of individuals who were not government employees,
respectively).
The City also asks what authority requires the City to create a roster of its employees
given the statement in HRS § 92F-12(a)(14) that it does not require the creation of a
roster of employees. If the City does not maintain a “roster” or “rosters,” then one
need not be created in order to respond to the request made. However, HRS § 92F-
11(c) requires an agency to compile a specific list of information requested if it is
“readily retrievable.” S OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-35. Whether information is “readily
retrievable” presents a question of fact that must be determined on a case-by-case
basis. Id. at 9-10 (given that the Commission on Water Resource Management, using
existing programming capabilities, had routinely retrieved an electronic mailing list
of persons filing a Declaration of Water Use for its own use, OIP concluded that such
information is “readily retrievable”). If the data is not “readily retrievable,” the
agency must alternatively provide the records it maintains that contain the requested
2
information. See eneral1y OIP Op. Ltr. No. 94-3 (duty to provide existing records).
2 Note that “there is no exception in the UIPA for requests that an agency
deems too burdensome.” State Org. of Police Officers v. Society of Professional Journalists
University of Haw. Chapter, 83 Haw. 378, 395 (Haw. 1996)
UMEMO11-3 3

4. Lastly, the City seeks guidance regarding disclosure of the identities of certain law
enforcement personnel in light of the exception provided in HRS § 92F-12(a)(14), for
“present or former employees involved in an undercover capacity in a law
enforcement agency.” Specifically, the City has asked for guidance concerning law
enforcement employees who are not currently performing undercover activities but
may be involved in undercover activities in the future.
A plain and narrow reading of the exception for “present or former employees
involved in an undercover capacity” limits withholding to those law enforcement
employees that are, or were, engaged in an undercover law enforcement capacity.
See OIP Op. Ltr. No. 9 1-26; HRS § 92F-2 (chapter to be construed to promote its
underlying purposes and policies of access). Without more specific factual
justification, OIP does not read this language, as the City suggests, to include law
enforcement employees who could potentially receive an undercover assignment at
some future date. S HRS § 92F-27(c) (agency has burden of proof to establish
justification for nondisclosure); see generally OIP Op. Ltr. No. 93-05 (application of
UIPA’s exceptions should be narrow and not rest upon tenuous, conclusory, or
speculative arguments).
OIP is available to provide guidance to the City or its various law enforcement
agencies on whether certain employees fall under the exception for present or
former undercover law enforcement personnel, where the City or individual agency
presents more specific facts on which to opine.
OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES
Cathy L. Takase
Acting Director
UMEMO11-3 4