[BuckeyeTexan]

Let me be clear that I am not saying you are wrong in your conclusions because I have no way to make that determination. But I also don't believe that we can make an absolute determination that the HDoH confirmed anything either. I think you've made some good conclusions and some probable conclusions. I also think that some of your conclusions are based on TerriK's interactions and therefore cannot be confirmed because Okubo was playing fast and loose with her responses to Leo and TerriK.

[butterdezillion]

I agree that Okubo has been playing fast and loose, which is one of the reasons why I think an investigation is called for.

But I also know that the OIP is legally responsible to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of responses that are appealed. Both of these responses made it past OIP inspection.

To realize what that means a person should look at the OIP Opinion Letter (can’t remember the number off-hand) where an agency denied access to a legal memo. The OIP’s first step was to ask to see the memo so they could decide whether it was properly denied. They discovered that the record had not been found after a reasonable search and ended up deciding that the agency didn’t have to produce the memo because it doesn’t exist; there wasn’t even a UIPA response to be given (denial of access or otherwise) because UIPA only applies to records that exist.

So the process is to look at the actual records and decide if they can be disclosed. If the records don’t exist the OIP would respond that there isn’t a UIPA answer that could be given(either access or denial of access) because UIPA only applies to records which exist.

IOW, if Joesting was following the protocols for UIPA appeals, she actually saw those records herself before she wrote to Terri K saying that the denial of access was proper.