COM 0149.002 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Joseph K. Kamelamela, Esq. April 3,2019 Page 2 report,over a period from now until October. The Ad Hoc Committee would operate continuously through this period as it would not dissolve until October. Meanwhile,the Finance Committee as well as the full Council would be holding a series of meetings to discuss the County budget during May and June,while the Ad Hoc Committee's work was ongoing. As proposed,the Ad Hoc Committee would likely run afoul of the limitations section 92-2.5(b)(1), HRS, places on an investigative task force aka permitted interaction group,as discussed in OIP Opinion Letter Number 06-02. In that opinion, OIP wrote: The language of the statute . . . anticipates that an investigative task force will undertake an investigation of defined and limited scope and will make a single report back to its board,after which the board(at a later meeting) may discuss and act on the issue. Because the permitted interaction allows board members to privately discuss board business,an exception to the usual open meeting requirements,OlP must strictly construe the statutory requirements. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-1(3) (1993). The proposed timeline would have the Ad Hoc Committee members make two interim reports on aspects of the budget, and discussing them,over a total of six Finance Committee meetings,and participate in four further Finance Committee or Council meetings during which the budget would be discussed. Thus,rather than a single report back to the Finance Committee with no discussion by the full Finance Committee until the next meeting,the Ad Hoc Committee's members would take part in at least eight substantive discussions of the subject matter the Ad Hoc Committee was investigating, including discussion and voting on the budget,before the Finance Committee meeting at which Ad Hoc Committee finally presented its last report and dissolved. This seems likely to present multiple Sunshine Law violations,because the Ad Hoc Committee would be discussing the matters assigned to it as a permitted interaction group under section 92-2.5(b)(1), HRS, with the full Finance Committee and Council membership before the point(when making its final report and then opening it for discussion one meeting later) when it was permitted to do so under section 92-2.5(b)(1), 1-IRS. While the Finance Committee and Council could comply with the requirements of section 92-2.5(b)(I), HRS, by instead refraining from hearing interim reports on or discussing the matters assigned to the Ad Hoc Committee until after the Ad Hoc Committee's report in October,that would seem to present serious practical concerns as it would mean the Council could not discuss the budget during a period in which it needed to discuss and pass out the budget. I would strongly recommend that the Finance Committee instead form the Ad Hoc Committee as a temporary subcommittee holding open meetings, hearing public testimony, keeping minutes,and otherwise following the Sunshine Law's open meeting requirements for committees of a Sunshine Law board. See OIP Op. Ltr.No. 03-07 at 6. Because such a subcommittee would already be holding its discussions in the public eye, it would not be subject to the same restrictions a permitted interaction group would on discussing its assigned subject matter with councilmembers who are not part of the Ad Hoc Committee during meetings of the Finance Committee or the Council. lithe Ad Hoc Committee were a subcommittee holding open noticed meetings,accepting public testimony,and keeping minutes, there would not be a problem with its reports to and participation in Finance Committee and Council meetings on the budget while its work was ongoing. Further, it could report to the Finance Committee and the Finance Committee could discuss its report all in the same meeting, rather than having to hold two separate meetings, as the requirement to wait