In-Depth Sunshine Law Requirements for Multi-site and Remote Meetings

Home

Options two and three both rely on an ICT connection to connect members and the publicwho are not all in the same physical location. The primary difference between these options is that option two is an entirely in-person meeting, even though it has more than one meeting site, and therefore this option does not require the board to also provide a way for the publicto remotely view and testify at the meeting. Underoption two, board members and the public must go to one of the in-person meeting sites listed on the notice to attend (although the board is allowed, but not required, to offer unofficial "additional"sites or accept telephone testimony to accommodate members of the public).Only under option three would members of the board and the public have the right to remotely participate in a meeting from private locations. Underboth options two and three, the ICT being used mustallowfor interaction among all members of the board and the publicwho are participating in the meeting. If the ICT connection is interrupted between the multiple in-person meeting sites under option two, or during a remote meeting held underoption three,the meeting may have to be terminated underAct 220's provisions,to be further discussed below. In contrast, if the ICT connection is interrupted or lost only to "additional locations"described below, the meeting can still continue. II. Additional Unofficial Meeting Locations (formerly known as "courtesy" s ites) Besides the official in-person meeting sites that could be set up under option one or two, and the required physical location connected to the remote meeting underoption three, the Sunshine Law allows boards to set up additional unofficial in-person sites. Prior to the amendments adding the remote meeting option,the Sunshine Law did not explicitly recognize that option. However, OIP interpreted the former language of section 92-3.5, HRS, including its requirementthat a meeting terminate if connection is lost to one site, to only apply to sites that are noticed as official meeting siteswhere board members may be present and not to additional sites made available to the publicwith the understanding that no board member would be present. OIP previously referred to these unofficial additional sites as"courtesy" sites. OIP's interpretation is now codified in the Sunshine Law's amendment to expressly allow boards the option to set up unofficial "additional locations"for the public's convenience,where board members will not be present and there is no requirementthat the formal meeting be recessed or terminated if the ICT connection fails to these additional locations. It must be emphasized that providing an additional location does not change the board's obligation underanyofthe three options to provide at least one in- person meeting site open to the publicthat must stay connected to the meeting. Additional locations can be used to help members of the publicwatch or testify at a meeting without having toeitheruse theirown connection to remote meeting or travel to the nearest official meeting site, without increasing the boards' risk of having to terminate meetings early due to connectivity problems. When a board provides an additional location for a meeting, its notice must inform the public that attendees at that site might miss out on part of the meeting in the event of a lost connection. Despite the risk of ICT connection to the official meeting being lost, for some members of In-Depth Sunshine Law Requirements for Remote Meetings, Effective 1/1/2022 Page 3