OCS Letter 5/24/84

Request to:
City Office of Council Services
Law used:
State of Hawaii UIPA
Status of this request:
Response overdue
Refusal Reason
attorney-client privilege

Messages in this request

From CBLC Fellow (The Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest)
Subject Records Request for City Office of Council Services: OCS Letter 5/24/84 [#294]
Date Dec. 23, 2019, 11:34 a.m.
To City Office of Council Services
Status Awaiting response
Attachments

[... Show complete request text] CBLC Fellow (The Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest)
  1. 3 months, 1 week agoDec. 23, 2019, 11:34 a.m.: CBLC Fellow (The Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest) sent a message to City Office of Council Services.
From Council Services – City Office of Council Services
Subject RE: Records Request for City Office of Council Services: OCS Letter 5/24/84 [#294]
Date Dec. 27, 2019, 4:32 p.m.
Status Awaiting response
Attachments

Aloha, Attached is our response to your information request. Mahalo, Council Services
-----Original Message----- From: CBLC Fellow <<e mail address>> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 11:34 AM To: Council Services Subject: Records Request for City Office of Council Services: OCS Letter 5/24/84 [#294] Aloha, Pursuant to the public records law, I would like to request the following records in electronic format sent to my email address. A copy of the Office of Counsel Services Letter dated May 24th, 1984, authored by Cynthia Thielen Mahalo, CBLC Fellow The Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest
  1. 3 months, 1 week agoDec. 27, 2019, 4:32 p.m.: Received an email from City Office of Council Services.
From CBLC Fellow (The Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest)
Subject RE: Records Request for City Office of Council Services: OCS Letter 5/24/84 [#294]
Date Dec. 27, 2019, 4:49 p.m.
To City Office of Council Services

Dear Sir or Madam, I respectfully request reconsideration. The opinion was previously released and included in a 1986 Common Cause special report. In the index to the Common Cause report, it summarizes the opinion as follows: "Cynthia Thielen, attorney with the Office of Council Services, City and County of Honolulu, prepared a lengthy memo on additions to a meeting agenda. The question is reviewed in light of the sunshine law and the relevant sections of the City Charter. The memo also reviews the legislative history of Section 92-7 HRS related to agendas. The memo concludes that 'due to the strong State policy for open government, as articulated in the Sunshine Law, it would be prudent for the committees to refrain from adding new agenda items other than of an honorary, initial procedural introduction or referral, informational, or similar nature unless an emergency arose.' In addition, the memo advises that 'a hand-carried item relating to a properly noticed agenda matter should be examined to determine whether or not its impact changes the agenda item so significantly that it...becomes new subject matter.'" Sincerely yours CBLC Fellow
  1. 3 months, 1 week agoDec. 27, 2019, 4:49 p.m.: CBLC Fellow (The Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest) sent a message to City Office of Council Services.
From Council Services – City Office of Council Services
Subject RE: Records Request for City Office of Council Services: OCS Letter 5/24/84 [#294]
Date Jan. 3, 2020, 9:57 a.m.

Dear CBLC Fellow: Rule 1.6 of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer may not reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or as permitted by certain exceptions not applicable in this instance. The failure of an attorney to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a Rule of Professional Conduct is basis for invoking the disciplinary process. In Formal Opinion No. 38, the Disciplinary Board addressed the instances in which attorney/client communications between an attorney and a deceased client could be disclosed: (1) to carry out the representation (for example, to carry out the client's estate plan); or (2) if the disclosure is authorized by court order or other law. Neither criterion is met in this instance. Nobody in our office was here in 1984 when attorney Thielen wrote the opinion being requested for release, and our office has no record of how or why Common Cause obtained a copy of the opinion or of excerpts from the opinion. Because we do not know that the release was surreptitious or authorized by the client Councilmember for whom the opinion was written, we must take the cautious position of protecting attorney/client confidentiality or risk being disciplined by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the State Supreme Court. For these reasons, we continue to deny release of the document requested. Sincerely, The Office of Council Services _____________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This message, including any attachments, is intended solely for the addressee(s) and is confidential.  It may also contain information that is legally privileged.  Any person other than an intended recipient, or other party expressly authorized by the sender, is prohibited from using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing the information contained herein.  If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete this message and all copies.  Thank you.
-----Original Message----- From: CBLC Fellow <<email address>> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2019 4:50 PM To: Council Services < <name and email address> > Subject: RE: Records Request for City Office of Council Services: OCS Letter 5/24/84 [#294] Dear Sir or Madam, I respectfully request reconsideration. The opinion was previously released and included in a 1986 Common Cause special report. In the index to the Common Cause report, it summarizes the opinion as follows: "Cynthia Thielen, attorney with the Office of Council Services, City and County of Honolulu, prepared a lengthy memo on additions to a meeting agenda. The question is reviewed in light of the sunshine law and the relevant sections of the City Charter. The memo also reviews the legislative history of Section 92-7 HRS related to agendas. The memo concludes that 'due to the strong State policy for open government, as articulated in the Sunshine Law, it would be prudent for the committees to refrain from adding new agenda items other than of an honorary, initial procedural introduction or referral, informational, or similar nature unless an emergency arose.' In addition, the memo advises that 'a hand-carried item relating to a properly noticed agenda matter should be examined to determine whether or not its impact changes the agenda item so significantly that it...becomes new subject matter.'" Sincerely yours CBLC Fellow
  1. 3 months agoJan. 3, 2020, 9:57 a.m.: Received an email from City Office of Council Services.