When you’re in need of a licensed professional such as a realtor, dentist, plumber, contractor or electrician, it’s always a very good idea for consumers to check whether the person has a history of complaints before inviting them into your home and your life. A handful of complaints can always be attributed to customers who will never be happy, while a slew of complaints is a warning sign that, if heeded, can save consumers lots of money and aggravation.

Today it’s easy to check on those complaints by calling the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, or by checking its online database, and both are heavily used. During 2007, there were 20,000 calls received by DCCA concerning complaint histories and 438,486 public views of its complaints database.

But under the terms of Senate Bill 2059, already approved by the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor, regulators would be barred from disclosing information about a licensed professional’s complaint history, even if they’ve drawn a string of complaints for shoddy workmanship, unfinished jobs, over billing, bait and switch, fraud or other problems.

If the bill is passed into law, complaints would be considered personal information belonging to the professional and entitled to privacy protection, in the same way that your medical history or bank records are protected from public disclosure. Nothing would be made public unless ‘the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.’

Proponents of the bill want to see disclosure restricted to the very few cases that ultimately result in legal action by regulators, including fines or suspension. They say that letting the public see a person or business’ full complaint history can unfairly tarnish their reputation if the complaints are ultimately dismissed or found to be frivolous.

Regulators say the bill would mean they could only disclose complaints that resulted in final legal action. The problem, of course, is that investigations can take years to complete. A bad contractor can rack up dozens of complaints in the time it takes to complete an investigation, much less follow up on several and go through the extra step of imposing sanctions. Many investigations end in a finding of ‘insufficient evidence,’ perhaps because records have been lost, witnesses move away, or there’s a ‘he said-she said’ stalemate.

A long list of licensed professions and vocations are affected, including accountants, cosmetologists and barbers, chiropractors, contracts, elevator mechanics, massage therapists, auto mechanics and repair shops, pest control companies, psychologists, veterinarians, collection agencies, funeral plans, nurses, employment agencies, mortgage brokers and solicitors, travel agents and others. A total of 45 different professions and vocations are licensed by DCCA.

Who doesn’t want you to know about complaints? The Hawai’i Association of Realtors testified for the bill, as did the president of the Hawai’i Dental Association.

Both professional associations carry a lot of political clout.

During the 2006 election, the Association of Realtors had contributed over $144,000 to candidates through September 13, and still had nearly $300,000 ready to spend in the general election. During the same period, the Hawai’i Dental Political Action Committee had made contributions totaling $36,435.69 and still had $87,684.76 in the bank.

The Hawai’i Association of Realtors is also one of the top dogs when it comes to lobbying. The group spent $335,163.79 trying to influence legislation over the past three years, according to reports filed with the State Ethics Commission, while the Hawai’i Dental Association, a much smaller player, spent another $57,886.07.

Overall, that’s a lot of money that translates into a lot of influence.

The Office of Information Practices was the only organization to testify against the bill. OIP director Paul Tsukiyama testified, ‘It is highly questionable as to how this bill would serve anyone other than the few licensees who want to hide their complaint records from the public’s view.’

Voting for the SB 2059 in committee were Judiciary Chairman Brian Taniguchi, who introduced the measure, along with Sens. Gabbard, Clarence Nishihara and Sam Slom. Senators Clayton Hee and Russell Kokubun were excused and not present for the vote. The bill now moves to the Senate floor for action by the full Senate, which is likely to follow the committee’s recommendation and approve the measure. Whether or not it passes into law, depriving the public of an important informational resource, will then be up to the House of Representatives.

Although impacting the largest number of people, SB 2059 isn’t the only measure under consideration that diminish the public’s right to know.

House Bill 2978 would establish a task force that would push aside established academic procedures and create a task force to decide on a formula for distributing money between the various campuses and programs. The task force would be exempt from the Sunshine Law’s requirements for open meetings and public access to its records. The bill was approved by the House Higher Education Committee and is pending before the Finance Committee.

HB 3360 would create a task force to develop the Hawai’i state science and technology plan, including goals for the high tech sector, a plan to achieve those goals and a timeline for completion. The bill would exempt the task force from the Sunshine Law.

The bills got initial committee approval despite calls by the Office of Information Practices for legislators to ‘carefully consider whether it is good policy to exempt the Task Force from the Sunshine Law in light of the express policy and intention of the statute,’ which is to conduct the public’s business as openly as possible.

To be fair, some other bills that would have carved out additional exceptions from the public’s right to know have already been shelved. But in these and other cases, there is a danger that legislators will allow the public’s right to open government to be nibbled away in ill-considered ad hoc exemptions.

Luckily, there’s still time for legislators to get the message and do the right thing.

To check on complaints against a licensed person or business, you can call the Consumer Resource Center at 587-3295 or 587-3222, or check online at [hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/rico].

For more by Ian Lind visit [iLind.net]