Gov. Linda Lingle’s office has responded with a split decision to the request for copies of e-mails sent or received by her office during a four-day period in early February. Copies of some emails have been provided, while a claim of “executive privilege” has been used to shield others from public disclosure.
Lingle’s response, received about 4 p.m. on Monday, March 10, was received a month after my February 8, 2008 request, a response time that seems reasonable under the circumstances.
The envelope contains a DVD with copies of an as yet unknown number of Lotus Notes e-mail messages, along with about 60 printed pages described in a cover letter from chief of staff Barry Fukunaga as “a privilege log for documents that were determined to be exempt from disclosure.”
The privilege log lists each e-mail that was withheld, the recipient and source, the date and time, subject, and privilege claimed. They are separated according to the staff member who sent or received the message. It would appear to provide enough information to begin to dispute the privilege asserted, if that seems appropriate.
The nature, basis, and extent of the “executive privilege” claimed is not made clear in the documents provided. The same claim has been questioned by State Auditor Marion Higa after being asserted by the governor’s office in response to document requests for an audit of the administration’s decision making about the Hawaii Superferry. I’ll try to get the privilege log scanned and online by the end of the week.
First lesson for future reference: It may be advisable to request electronic records in a format that you know will be readable by the computers available to you.
I’ve quickly discovered that few regular people seem to use Lotus Notes, although it is relied on the by Dept. of Education and the governor’s office. And Lotus Notes e-mail files are notoriously difficult to convert to a more common format. Without access to Lotus Notes, there are few conversion options. I’ll admit that I gave this issue only passing thought when making the request, thinking that accepting any format would increase the odds of getting the documents requested. But the question of electronic format is certainly something to put on a check-list of things to consider when drafting an information request.
Hopefully I’ll resolve the file format issue within a few days (offers of assistance in reading and converting the files will be gratefully accepted).
In the meantime, here are the file names from the DVD directory. I suppose these could be exported mailboxes containing multiple messages, but that remains to be seen. The individual files range in size from 17.5 MB to a whopping 118.4 MB.
aawana.nsf
acassel.nsf
ajsmith.nsf
bfukunag.nsf
cahlo.nsf
ccchun.nsf
ceferrei.nsf
check.nsf
chironak.nsf
chlching.nsf
chossell.nsf
cveillar.nsf
dalberde.nsf
dchun.nsf
dnonaka.nsf
ebarsata.nsf
gkaya.nsf
gov.nsf
govboard.nsf
govebrie.nsf
governor.nsf
govinfor.nsf
govinnov.nsf
goviwlc.nsf
govleg.nsf
govnews.nsf
govpolic.nsf
govrecep.nsf
gshigeta.nsf
gsshigeta.nsf
hdecosta.nsf
hilogov.nsf
jcastrom.nsf
jcausey.nsf
jcooper.nsf
jmenolas.nsf
jwatari.nsf
kauaigov.nsf
kkaumehe.nsf
kodachi.nsf
konagov.nsf
krawlins.nsf
kwasnich.nsf
lcicotel.nsf
lfernand.nsf
lhamaguc.nsf
lkim.nsf
lklompus.nsf
llingle.nsf
llyoshida.nsf
lsiu.nsf
lsmith.nsf
mauigov.nsf
mklompus.nsf
mmacias.nsf
mmiranda.nsf
mshinozu.nsf
mtoba.nsf
mwienert.nsf
nmedeiro.nsf
nreyes.nsf
qkuheana.nsf
rmakaula.nsf
rupang.nsf
rzane.nsf
sbrunett.nsf
sching.nsf
spoon.nsf
tchen.nsf
tleupold.nsf
tloop.nsf
tmount.nsf
How does the sunshine law really work? For example, how does the governor’s office respond to a request to provide all e-mails from Feb. 1-4th?
I would think that the office gets hundreds of e-mails a day, many of which are junk, spam, blanket e-mails sent to all elected officials, etc.
Are they required to keep all of that and then have it ready for dissemination upon request?
And how long do they have to keep all this stuff?
I would think most offices simple delete the junk, no?