PART I.
379 words·~2 min read·
/hi/chapter-92/part-iA research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
PART I. MEETINGS
Attorney General Opinions
Department of agriculture advisory committee on plants and animals subject to provisions of this part; subcommittees not subject to this part. Att. Gen. Op. 90-7.
Law Journals and Reviews
Hawai`i's Sunshine Law Compliance Criteria. 26 UH L. Rev. 21.
2013 Law and Administrative Rules Governing Appeal Procedures of Hawaii's Office of Information Practices. 36 UH L. Rev. 271 (2014).
§92-1 Declaration of policy and intent. In a democracy, the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Governmental agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest. Therefore, the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy - the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of governmental agencies - shall be conducted as openly as possible. To implement this policy the legislature declares that:
(1)It is the intent of this part to protect the people's right to know;
(2)The provisions requiring open meetings shall be liberally construed; and
(3)The provisions providing for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings. [L 1975, c 166, pt of §1]
Attorney General Opinions
This section and sections 92-7 and 92-9 require commission to specify subject matter of items on public meeting agenda. Att. Gen. Op. 85-2.
Interpretation of "board" as excluding county council would be inconsistent with policy and intent of sunshine law. Att. Gen. Op. 86-5.
Case Notes
Based on the office of information practices' construction of the sunshine law as well as the legislative history of §92-7(d), the land use commission and Maui county council did not violate the sunshine law by continuing and reconvening meetings beyond a single continuance without requiring a new agenda and additional public testimony to be accepted at every continued meeting. However, while the legislature did not expressly limit the number of continuances permissible under §92-7(d), the legislative history and text of the sunshine law demonstrates that boards are constrained at all times by the spirit of and purpose of the sunshine law, as stated in this section. 130 H. 228, 307 P.3d 1174 (2013).