RELATING TO FEES FOR PUBLIC RECORDS UNDER CHAPTER 92F.
Summary
SB863 would amend Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act, chapter 92F, to limit what agencies may charge for searching, reviewing, and segregating public records and to require a fee waiver in qualifying public-interest cases. The bill directs the Office of Information Practices to adopt rules setting maximum fees of $5 per 15 minutes for search time and $7.50 per 15 minutes for review and segregation time, while also establishing criteria for when those fees must be waived because disclosure would significantly advance public understanding of government operations and is not primarily for commercial gain.
The measure also updates the statutory duties of the Office of Information Practices to reflect these fee rules and the public-interest waiver standard. It retains the office’s existing responsibilities for reviewing access denials, issuing guidance, assisting agencies, handling complaints, and overseeing compliance with open meetings and public records laws, but clarifies that the office must promulgate rules that incorporate the new fee caps and waiver framework. The bill would apply prospectively and would not disturb rights, penalties, or proceedings that arose before its effective date.
Impact
If enacted, SB863 would change chapter 92F by imposing statewide limits on agency cost recovery for public-records requests and by creating a mandatory public-interest fee waiver standard modeled on the federal FOIA approach. It would directly affect the Office of Information Practices, state and county agencies that process records requests, and requesters who seek government documents, especially journalists, advocates, researchers, and members of the public pursuing noncommercial disclosure.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and framing suggest a pro-transparency, pro-access policy goal, emphasizing government accountability and citizen involvement. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and report description. The available context therefore points to a generally favorable posture toward public access, with the measure presented as a reform to reduce barriers to obtaining records.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is the balance between public access and agency administrative costs. Supporters would favor the fee caps and waiver as a way to prevent high charges from discouraging legitimate records requests, while agencies may be concerned about lost cost recovery, increased workload, and the administrative burden of applying the public-interest waiver factors. Another possible issue is the FOIA-based standard itself, which requires judgment about the requester’s commercial interest, the public value of disclosure, and whether the request is unreasonably burdensome.