UIPA Memo 11-3
Disclosure of Employee Names, Titles and Salaries
Corporation Counsel asked OIP 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 the UIPA.
OIP found that 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. The City raised a variety of privacy and frustration
concerns over the requested disclosure. 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, OIP was constrained to find that those arguments could
not be considered because of the statutory requirement that this
information be disclosed under § 92F-12 without consideration
of the exceptions to disclosure under HRS § 92F-13, but must
instead be addressed to the Legislature.
The City also asked 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.” See OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-35.
Lastly, the City sought 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.
OIP found that 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.
Without more specific factual justification, OIP did not read this
language to include law enforcement employees who could potentially
receive an undercover assignment at some future date.