2003-02 OIP Opinion Re Executive Meetings

Home

Mr. Al Konishi Mr. Lincoln S.T. Ashida July 14, 2003 Page 7 Therefore, the OIP opines that non-members should remain in the meeting only so long as their presence is essential to the agenda item being considered in the executive meeting. Once the agenda item for which the non-board member's participation is needed has been concluded, the non-board member should be excused, and the meeting should continue only with those non- board members whose presence is necessary and permitted by section 92-5(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes. The OIP recommends making a record of the reason a non-board member is summoned to attend an executive meeting. The record will assist the public to evaluate whether or not the non-board member's presence is necessary.? This is especially the case when the justification for the presence of that individual is not apparent. The best practice would be to make the record at the time when the board decides to convene an executive meeting, i.e., before the non-board member is summoned to participate in the executive meeting. For the same reason, if there is a dispute as to whether or not a non-board member should participate in an executive meeting, the matter can be resolved by means of a motion to permit or disallow the attendance of the non-member. Therefore, the OIP recommends that boards both (1) make a record, when advisable, of the reason a non-board member is present in an executive meeting, preferably before the meeting; and (2) if there is a dispute as to whether a particular individual need attend a board meeting, the matter be settled by board vote. The OIP believes these suggested procedures will diminish the likelihood of disputes concerning whether or not an individual was authorized to participate in an executive meeting. III. ATTORNEYS ATTENDANCE AT EXECUTIVE MEETINGS Mr. Ashida relayed a concern raised by Mr. Pranke's letter that the Council allows more than one attorney to be present in executive meetings when they are presenting different cases. Mr. Pranke suggests that a strict reading of section 92-5(a)(4), Hawaii Revised Statutes, would only allow the Council to meet with its "own" attorney; thus if the Corporation Counsel has appointed one attorney to the Council, then only that attorney would be allowed to meet in an executive meeting with the Council. The Corporation 7 The OIP recognizes that public disclosure of this information may defeat the lawful purpose of the executive meeting. If that is the case, disclosure would not be warranted until the need for confidentiality has passed. OIP Op. Ltr. No. 03-12