COM 0314.036 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

62B BILL OF RIGI }}{1. i{I Secondly. one of the previous speakers mentioned that we have the federal Freedc iii of Information Act, and we don't need this at the state level. The federal Freedom of Infc lion Act only applies to federal agencies, it does not apply to state agencies at all. So it we think this issue is important enough--access to state agencies, public information-- then I urge you to vote in support of this amendment. Again, on investigatory records, because there is no federal law governing our state agencies now on investigatory recor< our legislature can decide. By passing this amendment, we will tell them that we are concerned about this investigatory problem and ask them to focus on that exemption, because we are concerned about the problem that has been expressed with confidential names being released of people involved in these invesfigations and retributions. So again I urge the adoption. V1 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate Barnes. i~! DELEGATE STERLING: Mr. Chairman, point of information, please. CHAIRMAN: State your point of information, Delegate Sterling. DELEGATE STERLING: Just a few weeks ago, didn't we have e case like this in 4+ our community, where [he chief of police of Hawaii county refused to release some rec- ords, and I believe he was upheld? I'm not too sure--perhaps one of the attorneys here could answer my question. He refused to release some records he had because he might be releasing information containing informants' names, and I believe he was upheld in the court. iii CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sterling, I'll check with the movant or anyone else who may have that information, Is there anyone here who has that information? Delegate Burgess? i';. DELEGATE BURGESS: I believe that Chief Keala was directed by Judge Fukushima to produce certain records and subsequently he prepared a sealed affidavit which was submitted to the court in confidence. And according to the newspapers, the judge con- sidered the affidavit and decided on that basis that it was not necessary to have the records produced. id CHAIRMAN: Delegate Burgess, before you sit down, did [he matter before the 1;~~ court have a relationship to the language in this amendment? ~ DELEGATE BURGESS: I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate Burgess. The question before the body is the amendment entitled "Access to Public Records," that each person shall have the right F' of access as written. All those in favor will raise their right hand. Al] opposed, by like sign. The noes have it. The amendment is defeated. We will now take up Amendment No. 3 offered by Delegate Tam. This has to do with the right to privacy. Delegate Tam, you're recognized. DELEGATE TAD1: Dlr. Chairman, before I do this, I would just like to preface this by saying that is the beginning of several-- ' CHAIRMAN: Delegate Tam, why don't you make a motion first, and then you can say whatever you wish. DELEGATE TAM: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend Committee Proposal No. 15 by deleting paragraph 6 relating to the right to privacy, as contained in Amendment No. 3 as submitted, entitled "Right to Privacy." I won't read it. DELEGATE SOUKI: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Please proceed. DELEGATE TAM: Mr. Chairman, before I embark on this, 1'd just like to say that this is the beginning of several amendments that I proposed, and I would ask the indulgence . of this body. [.'ve tried to limit my comments, up till today, in response to a message that ~a~. 'i~~ ...._---'-------'r'~-