Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-08 Kaʻū CDP Meeting PacketMitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director Zendo Kern Director Jeffrey W. Darrow Deputy Director County of Hawai‘i PLANNING DEPARTMENT KAʻŪ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 1 Monday, August 23, 2023 1 FINAL Meeting Minutes 2 CALL TO ORDER 3 Chair Leinaʻala Enos called the Kaʻū Community Development Plan (KCDP) Action Committee 4 (AC) to order at 5:30 P.M. This meeting was held at the Pahala County Gym, Multi-purpose room. 5 There was no Zoom option. Quorum was established at this meeting. 6 ROLL CALL 7 AC Members Present: Leinaʻala Enos (Chair), Pernell Hanoa (Vice-Chair), Ka’ohinani Mokuhali’i, 8 Kaweni Ibarra, Jesse Ke, Catherine Williams, Jason Masters 9 AC Members Absent-Excused: Babette Morrow 10 County Officials: Michelle Galimba 11 11 members of the public attended the meeting 12 ANNOUNCEMENTS: 13 • August 24, 2023 Na’alehu Sewage meeting 14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 15 Corrections to minutes for May 8, 2023 CDP meeting, page 3 line 68 Gwen Sorenson, line 71 16 Kekoa Burgos. 17 Committee Member Ibarra motioned to approve the May 8, 2023 minutes with the corrections 18 made. Motion seconded by Committee Member Jesse Ke. Motion passed with 7 votes aye, 0 19 votes nay. 20 BUSINESS: 21 1. Permitted Interaction Groups Updates to AC: 22 a. Punaluʻu Coastline Access and Resources Investigatory Subcommittee: report on 23 Punalu’u Meet and Greet July 10, 2023 24 In Attendance: Iwa Liu Black Sand Beach LLC, Owner Candice Kaawa; Property Manager Jiaying You 25 & Yoga Yang, New Investors; Newell Arnerich, Consultant and friend; community members 26 John Roplogle & Larry Galbon; and Ka’ohinani Mokuhali’i, Ka’u CDP AC 27 www.planning.Hawaiʻicounty.gov/ CDP@Hawaiʻicounty.gov Page 2 Committee Member Ka’ohinani Mokuhali’i attended meet and greet, shared that it started with 28 simply sharing mo’olelo from all participants. Everyone was in a relaxed atmosphere and able to 29 speak freely regarding plans put out on the table. Discussion was made about the lei stand being moved 30 or removed. 31 Buildings: Shared that some community members from other meetings asking to save the 32 buildings. Informed by the County Planning Dept., buildings can either be restored or demolished. 33 Discussion regarding making it into a pavilion not back as a restaurant. Cannot be moved nor new 34 buildings be constructed. 35 Brought discussion on High water mark and rising sea levels. High surf surges into the pond. High 36 water mark could change if the highest water mark surpasses the original twice in the same year. 37 Which we all agreed would happen. Possible parking area that would have no building to be 38 affected by sea levels. Discussion on restricted parking for visitors with fees and monies would go 39 to pay for security, 40 Comments by Black Sand Beach participants: Overall meeting helpful, received solid information 41 leading ideas in the right direction to make things right with the community and to make informed 42 decisions. Will meet again when they return. County Planning to be here monthly. 43 Public Comments: Community member, Gwen Sorensen, was questioning whether it is 44 appropriate for AC members to represent the Ka’u Community Development Plan Action 45 Committee as a single entity without the rest of the committee. All CDP members are not required 46 to be at a meeting they are invited to. It is good to clarify roles and communicate to the community 47 how these types of meetings will be handled. We are an advisory group only. 48 Community Member Sophia Hanoa shared that Black Sand Beach LLC met with the Hawaii tourism 49 authority who dangled money for island-wide input into the conservatory. She shared that this 50 should have come to the community first and that we need to stop having outside entities come 51 into our cultural areas and try to have outsiders be stewards. We feel that they should have 52 informed the CDP of their intent before going to the public. 53 Don’t take anymore kuleana away from our Kupuna who have malama the aina for generations. 54 Further proposals that come to Ka’u need to come through the Action Committee. The purpose 55 of the CDP is to be a single point of contact to avoid further misunderstandings and chaos. 56 We have been working with the LLC for two years now, we have clarified about the parking 57 areas, the security, education and what is going to work. Hawaii Tourism Authority, Rachel K and 58 Cheri Menor are doing the same thing we have already done and established. We must work 59 together so that there are no mixed messages going out to the community and to the tourists. 60 Punalu’u community member Julie Enriques and her family would like to be included in 61 discussions concerning the lei stands or any of the issues around Punalu’u. 62 www.planning.Hawaiʻicounty.gov/ CDP@Hawaiʻicounty.gov Page 3 The Chair shared that all community members need to be included in the discussions with the 63 new owners. Community member, Darlyn Vierra, reiterated that Ka’u is all the communities from 64 Keahou to Ocean View Estates, it’s all of us. 65 Committee member Hanoa motioned to approve the committee report, seconded by committee 66 member Kaweni Ibarra. Motion carried with 7 ayes, 0 nays. 67 b. Mahana Bay Coastline Access and Resources Investigatory Subcommittee 68 Committee members: Jason Masters, Leina’ala Enos, Babette Marrow, Kaweni Ibara 69 Two weeks ago, the committee met, Committee member Babette Marrow proposed that we 70 send a letter to County Planning Director, Mr. Kern. We are in the process of drafting a letter. 71 The committee feels that this is something that has been overly studied. The issues are well 72 known in Ka’u, and the resources have been identified to address the issues. We would like to 73 tell the County Planning Director that this is what the community has identified over many 74 decades as the solution. One factor that may be a deterrent is that many entities including 75 Hawaiian Homelands and DLNR who would have the primary resources and responsibility to do 76 something about the problems. Update is that we will be creating a letter to re-explain how to 77 use the resources through Hawaiian Homelands and DLNR to do something to address the 78 issues. We want to move along, and we will bring a draft letter to the meeting for approval or 79 invite Director Kern to a meeting. 80 As an advisory group we need to get them to take action, no more investigation is needed. 81 Department of Hawaiian Homelands will be having a meeting in Pahala on September 17, 2023. 82 Committee member Ibarra motioned to approve the committee report, seconded by committee 83 member Pernell Hanoa. Motion carried with 7 ayes, 0 nays. 84 c. Kupuna Housing Investigatory Subcommittee 85 Committee members Jesse Ke, Leina’ala Enos, and Jason Masters had nothing to report at this 86 time. 87 d. Na’alehu Theatre/Land Investigatory Subcommittee 88 Committee members Catherine Williams, Jason Masters had nothing to report at this time. 89 e. Development in Ka’u Investigatory Subcommittee 90 Report was submitted previously in 8/2/23 agenda packet by committee members Jesse Ke, 91 Ka’ohi Mokuhali’i, and Leina’ala Enos. 92 Geoffrey Bower, Scientist with ASIAA group introduced himself. ASIAA group will be installing a 93 10 year term satellite project in Wood Alley. Geoffrey wishes to be a good neighbor and promote 94 educational projects here in Ka’u as part of the community. 95 The chair addressed some community concerns, the satellite project report is available, this is 96 beneficial for the community. Their process does show that they are working with the 97 community in every way. The community wants to be a part of the conversations. 98 Committee member Mokuhali’i presented June 14, 2023 OHA Zoom meetings with minutes. 99 www.planning.Hawaiʻicounty.gov/ CDP@Hawaiʻicounty.gov Page 4 Committee member Masters motioned to approve committee reports, seconded by committee 100 member Kaweni Ibarra. 101 Next Meeting: November 8, 2023 at Na’alehu Community Center 102 PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING: 103 1. Committee report backs 104 ADJOURNMENT: 105 Committee Member Hanoa motioned to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Committee 106 Member Masters. Motion passed with 7 votes aye, 0 votes nay. The meeting was adjourned at 107 7:00 P.M. 108 These minutes and all related documents are available in the Planning Department’s Kaʻū 109 Community Development Plan Action Committee folder via the County of Hawaiʻi Public 110 Documents Repository. These documents may also be requested from the Planning Department 111 by calling (808) 961-8288 or emailing cdp@Hawaiʻicounty.gov. 112 1  Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When (Part 1)  (Revised July 2018)  OIP often is asked whether board members can talk to the board’s staff, members of the public,  or one another in various situations when not in a meeting.  To help board members understand what  they can talk about outside a meeting, and with whom, OIP has put together a three‐part Quick Review.    1.Topics that Are Not ‘Board Business’ The Sunshine Law applies whenever board members are discussing board business, i.e., specific  matters within the board’s authority that are on a board’s upcoming agenda or reasonably likely to  appear on an agenda in the foreseeable future.  When board members are discussing matters that are  not board business, the Sunshine Law does not apply to restrict the discussion.  Thus, board members  could discuss with one another, or with anyone else:  o Matters unrelated to what the board does, such as the weather, sports teams, personal news, vacation plans, world events, or similar topics beyond the scope of the board’s responsibilities; o Matters related to what the board does, but that are not being considered by the board as a whole or a committee of the board at a meeting because they are ministerial (i.e., handled by staff) or within the Chair’s sole purview, such as scheduling of meetings, including which items will appear on which meeting’s agenda, members’ travel arrangements, logistical arrangements for an award ceremony, or similar topics; or o Matters that the board considered in the past but does not expect to reconsider in the foreseeable future because the matter has concluded, such as dedication of a completed baseball field that the board gave approval to at an earlier stage, or a report that the board was required to and did submit to a legislative body by a now‐past date. These sorts of matters can be discussed by board members in any number, and need not be discussed in  a meeting, because they are not board business at the time they are being discussed and, thus, the  discussion is not controlled by the Sunshine Law.   Board members may also attend lunches, social and ceremonial events, or board retreats,  without violating the Sunshine Law, so long as board business is not discussed, deliberated, or decided  upon.  Communication Number 2023-06 2    2. Staff, Lobbyists, and the General Public     The Sunshine Law only applies to boards and their discussions, deliberations, decisions, and  actions.  Because the Sunshine Law does not apply to a board member’s communications with people  who are not members of the covered board, a member may discuss board business with people who  are not board members outside of a meeting, without needing to fall into one of the permitted  interactions.  Board members, therefore, can freely talk or otherwise communicate with:     Citizens concerned about a particular issue   Reporters   Lobbyists   Board or agency staff   Other government officials, and   The general public.     It is possible that in some of those cases, the information from one board member will be  transmitted to other board members.  For instance, a lobbyist may be going from one county council  member’s office to the next to talk about a piece of board business and may carry information over, as  in, “Councilmember A said she’d be willing to support us on this if the bill is amended to cover frogs as  well.  Could you support that?”  However, this would not be considered a discussion directly between  the council members.  Similarly, a reporter might speak to multiple council members and say something  like, “Member B told me that the Board expects to reconsider the motion next month.  Can you confirm  that?”  Again, even though information was passed on, because the actual communication was through  a third party, it would not be considered a discussion between the board members.     Note: If board members would like to discuss board business with individuals who are not board  members, members should be mindful not to improperly disclose information that was part of an  executive meeting closed to the public, and may wish to consult with the board’s attorney in such  situations.   Information and materials provided by members to the staff may be incorporated into the  staff’s own analysis or report on a board matter and may be distributed by staff to the board  members in advance of a meeting.  The staff’s report should not identify individual board members’  positions on an issue, but can recognize and discuss the various viewpoints in general and provide  recommendations for actions.     Board members should also refrain from using staffers as mere go‐betweens to carry  messages between board members, as that could be found to be a discussion directly between board  members, depending on the circumstances.  Telling a staffer, “I have concerns about the direction we’re  taking on this issue and I’d like you to do some research on this aspect of it,” is fine, even if the staffer  tells other members, “Member C asked me to research this topic because of her concerns about the way  the board is handling the issue.”  But telling a staffer, “Please go tell Members D and E that I have  3    concerns about the way we’re handing this issue,” would be inadvisable, as it could be construed as a  serial communication with members D and E.     3. Other Board Members     As discussed above, the Sunshine Law applies whenever board members are discussing board  business.  When board members communicate to one another about board business, they need to do  so either in (1) a properly noticed meeting, or (2) in circumstances where the discussion is specifically  permitted by one of the Sunshine Law’s exceptions.  When board members are prohibited by the  Sunshine Law from discussing or communicating about board business face to face, they also cannot do  so by telephone, e‐mail, letters or memoranda, social media such as Facebook and Twitter, or any other  means of communication.      Before communicating with other board members outside a meeting, a board member should  check whether one of the Sunshine Law’s permitted interactions applies.  Permitted interactions are  specific circumstances in which the law permits board members to discuss board business outside a  meeting, so long as the statutory requirements are met.       The most frequently used permitted interaction, section 92‐2.5(a), HRS, allows two board  members to discuss any board business, without limitation, so long as they do not make or seek a  commitment to vote and do not constitute a quorum of their board.  This limitation on making a  commitment to vote does allow discussion of the two board members’ views and inclinations on an  issue, but prohibits, for example, horse‐trading of votes such as, “If you’ll agree to vote my way on this  issue, I’ll give you my vote on your pet project next month.”       The two‐person permitted interaction does not require any prior arrangement on the part of the  two members using it; they can run into each other on the street, e‐mail each other, or telephone each  other, so long as only two members are part of the discussion.  Other people who are not members of  the board can be present, as their discussions with board members are not regulated by the Sunshine  Law.     Permitted interactions cannot be used to circumvent the requirements or the spirit of the law  to make a decision or to deliberate towards a decision upon a matter over which the board has  supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.  Specifically, where two members have discussed an  issue using the two‐person permitted interaction, they cannot then extend the discussion out to other  board members through serial use of the permitted interaction.  If Member X called Member Y to talk  about the feral cat issue on the upcoming agenda, Member Y cannot then stop in the hallway to talk to  Member Z about it, as there would then be three members who were privy to the discussion.  Both  Member X and Member Y must refrain from discussing the feral cat issue with other members until after  the board has next discussed it at a meeting, which essentially clears the slate as to members’ previous  discussions.    4     The other permitted interactions listed in section 92‐2.5, HRS, generally require prior planning,  or apply only in certain circumstances, or both.  OIP will discuss them in the forthcoming Parts 2 and 3 of  this Quick Review series.  Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When 2 (August 2022) Page 1 Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When (Part 2) (Revised August 2022) Hawaii’s Sunshine Law, Part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), generally requires board members to discuss all board business in open meetings that have been properly noticed to allow for public participation. OIP often is asked whether board members can talk to one another in various situations when not in a meeting. To help board members understand when they can talk to each other outside a meeting, OIP put together a three-part Quick Review. This Quick Review is the second in the series. Part 1 concerned discussions of matters that are not board business, and Part 3 will follow and explain “permitted interaction groups” (“PIGs”). The entire series, along with other educational materials, is posted on the training page of OIP’s website at oip.hawaii.gov. What constitutes board business was discussed in Part I. There are, however, a number of exceptions and “permitted interactions” that allow board members to have discussions outside of a meeting, even on matters that constitute board business. A few of these exceptions and permitted interactions are described below. Members should note that the Sunshine Law expressly states that no permitted interaction shall be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of the Sunshine Law to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. For this reason, permitted interactions generally may not be mixed and matched or used serially, as doing so can result in a discussion of board business outside a meeting that does not fit within the limits of any one of the permitted interactions and thus is not authorized under the Sunshine Law. 1.Selection of Board Officers (HRS § 92-2.5(c)) The selection of the board's officers may be discussed between two or more board members, but less than a quorum, in private without limitation or subsequent reporting. 2.Members May Continue to Accept Testimony When a Multi-site Meeting Must be Cancelled or Terminated (HRS §§ 92-2.5(d) and 92-3.5(c)) The Sunshine Law defines a “meeting” at HRS § 92-2 as the convening of a board for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. When a meeting must be cancelled for lack of quorum or terminated when quorum is lost during the meeting, the board members present may Communication Number 2023-07 Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When 2 (August 2022) Page 2 nevertheless receive testimony and presentations on agenda items and may question testifiers or presenters under HRS § 92-2.5(d). Under HRS § 92-3.5(c), when a board is holding a multi-site meeting by interactive conference technology (ICT) and an audio connection to all meeting locations is interrupted for more than 30 minutes, the meeting must be terminated, even if a quorum of the board is physically present in one location. However, under HRS § 92-2.5(d), members present at one location may continue to receive testimony and presentations on agenda items and may question testifiers or presenters, but cannot discuss, deliberate, or decide such matters. Note that the permitted interaction under HRS § 92-2.5(d) specifically applies to HRS § 92-3.5(c) regarding multi-site meetings, and not when remote meetings held by ICT under HRS § 92-3.7 lose their audio or video connection. Also note that this permitted interaction does not address Sunshine Law requirements to continue a meeting, instead of terminating it, which are addressed in a different training document posted on OIP’s website at oip.hawaii.gov/training, “Quick Review: Continuance of a Meeting Under the Sunshine Law.” For both cancelled and terminated meetings, HRS § 92-2.5(d) requires that board members’ discussion, deliberation and decision-making on agenda items for which testimony or presentations are received must occur only at a subsequent, properly noticed meeting held after the cancelled or terminated meeting at which the testimony and presentations were received. And, members who received the testimony at a cancelled or terminated meeting are required to create a record of the oral testimony or presentations in the same manner as would be required for testimony or presentations heard during a meeting of the board. In other words, the members must keep notes of the receipt of testimony and presentations in the same manner that the board would keep minutes of testimony and presentations received at a meeting. Before deliberation or decision-making at a subsequent meeting, the board must provide copies of the testimony and presentations received at the cancelled meeting to all members. The members who were present at the cancelled or terminated meeting must also report about the testimony and presentations received. 3. Informational Meetings (HRS § 92-2.5(e)) Two or more members of a board, but less than a quorum, may attend an informational meeting or presentation on matters relating to official board business, including a meeting of another entity, legislative hearing, convention, seminar, or community meeting; provided that the meeting or presentation is not specifically and exclusively organized for or directed toward members of the board. Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When 2 (August 2022) Page 3 The board members in attendance may participate in discussions, including discussions among themselves, provided that the discussions occur during and as part of the informational meeting or presentation and that no commitment relating to a vote on the matter is made or sought. At the next board meeting, the members who attended the informational meeting are required to report their attendance and the matters presented and discussed that related to official board business at the informational meeting. 4. Circulation of Proposed Legislative Testimony (HRS § 92-2.5(h) A board that has previously adopted a position on a legislative measure may circulate its proposed testimony among board members for review and written comment when it does not have enough time to notice a meeting before a legislative deadline, so long as all proposed testimony drafts and board member communications about the testimony are publicly posted online within 48 hours of the testimony’s circulation to the board. This permitted interaction is best used for proposed testimony drafted by board staff or a single member, rather than by multiple board members using another permitted interaction to confer, in order to avoid conflicts with other permitted interactions as discussed in OIP’s Quick Review on Sunshine Law Options to Address State Legislative Issues and Measures, which is posted on the Training page at oip.hawaii.gov. 5. Discussions with the Governor (HRS § 92-2.5(f)) Discussions between the Governor and one or more board members may be conducted in private without limitation or subsequent reporting; provided that the discussion does not relate to a matter over which a board is exercising its adjudicatory function. Some boards that have adjudicatory powers include the: Hawaii Labor Relations Board; Labor and Industrial Relations Board; Hawaii Paroling Authority; Civil Service Commission; Employees’ Retirement System Board of Trustees; Crime Victim Compensation; and State Ethics Commission. 6. Discussions with Department Head (HRS § 92-2.5(g)) Discussions between two or more members of a board and the head of a department to which the board is administratively attached may be conducted in private without limitation; provided that the discussion is limited to matters specified in section 26-35, HRS. Section 26-35, HRS, provides that: Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When 2 (August 2022) Page 4 • department heads shall represent attached boards in communications with the Governor and the Legislature, unless otherwise requested by the Legislature; • a board’s financial requirements from state funds shall be submitted through the department head and included in the department’s budget; • rules adopted by the board are subject to approval of the Governor; • employment, appointment, promotion, transfer, demotion, discharge, and job descriptions of officers and employees of or under a board must be determined by the board subject to approval of the department head, and subject to applicable personnel laws; • purchases of supplies, equipment, or furniture by a board are subject to approval by the department head; • the department head has the power to allocate the spaces available for the board to occupy; • quasi-judicial functions of a board are not be subject to the approval, review, or control of the department head; and • the department head shall not have the power to supervise or control the board in the exercise of its functions, duties, and powers. Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Page 1 Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When (Part 3) (Revised December 2022) OIP often is asked whether board members can talk to one another in various situations when not in a meeting. To help board members understand what they can talk about when they are not in a meeting, OIP put together a three-part Quick Review. The entire series can be found online on OIP’s Sunshine Law training webpage at oip.hawaii.gov. Boards subject to the Sunshine Law, Part I of Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), are generally required to conduct all business in open meetings that have been properly noticed to allow for public participation. This Quick Review discusses an exception to the open meeting requirement for “permitted interaction groups” or “PIGs,” as set forth in section 92-2.5(b), HRS. While other types of permitted interactions were previously discussed in Part 2 of this Quick Review series, this article explains how members of a board may form a PIG to investigate or to negotiate a matter. PIGs Established to Investigate Two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum, may be assigned to investigate a matter relating to the official business of their board. In order for a board to take action on a matter investigated by a PIG, three separate board meetings must occur in the order described below. At the FIRST meeting of the full board, the investigative PIG is formed and the scope of the investigation and the scope of each member's authority are defined. No new members or issues can be added to the PIG after the first board meeting. The PIG may then conduct its investigation outside of open meetings, which may take months to complete. At a SECOND meeting of the full board, the findings and recommendations of the PIG are presented to the board, but the board cannot discuss or act on the report at this meeting. •A PIG may present its findings to the full board in an executive session if the reason for entering into the executive meeting is one of those set forth insection 92-5(a), HRS, or other law. For example, if a PIG was created toinvestigate whether to take certain disciplinary action against an employee, itmay present its findings to the full board in accordance with section92-5(a)(2), HRS, which allows boards to enter executive meetings to consider the discipline of an employee. In such a situation, OIP generally recommends Communication Number 2023-08 Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Page 2 that the PIG also present a “sanitized” report during the public session that omits the confidential information but informs the public of the general nature of the PIG’s findings and recommendations, so the public is at least generally informed of the PIG’s work and has something upon which to base testimony at the subsequent meeting where the board will discuss and perhaps act on the report. After the PIG makes its report to the board at the second meeting, the PIG is automatically dissolved and should not continue working. The Sunshine Law does not allow a PIG to make more than one report or to continue working on its assignment after its report, so a PIG should not be providing “updates” on its work or more than one report. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. F23-01 on OIP’s Opinions page for an in-depth discussion on investigative PIGs. The board cannot discuss, deliberate, or make any decisions regarding the PIG’s report until a THIRD meeting held separately and after the meeting at which the findings and recommendations of the investigation were presented by the PIG. Waiting until a subsequent board meeting to discuss and act on the PIG’s report gives the public the opportunity to present informed testimony at the meeting where the board will discuss and act on the report. Some Practical Considerations for Investigative PIGs • A PIG is fundamentally a permitted interaction with detailed reporting requirements, not a special type of committee. • Because they are a permitted interaction rather than a type of committee, PIGs are not subject to the Sunshine Law’s requirements for giving notice, holding open meetings, or keeping minutes. • PIG members may communicate by interactive technology (Skype, teleconference, etc.), and by email, telephone, etc., on matters within the scope of the PIG’s authority without violating the Sunshine Law. • Although a PIG is not required to hold public meetings, it can choose to do so if it wishes. • PIGs may solicit input from the public as part of an investigation without the need of filing a meeting agenda in accordance with the Sunshine Law. Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Page 3 • A PIG may include among its members people who are not members of the board that created the PIG. A PIG may also consult with others (i.e., staff, members of the public, individuals with expertise in a field, stakeholders, etc.) in furtherance of its investigation, but should NOT consult with other members of its parent board. • Members of a board who are not part of the PIG may NOT attend PIG meetings or be included in PIG communications. • Before the PIG reports to the board, PIG members should not discuss the status of their investigation with other board members who are not part of the PIG. • A standing committee of a board may create a PIG, and such PIGs must follow all the requirements of section 92-2.5(b), HRS, including reporting back to the committee that created them. • Sometimes, it may be better for a board to establish a temporary committee instead of a PIG, or to delegate authority to one member to perform a task and report back to the board. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. F23-01 at 15-16 for more information. • A PIG may continue its work after the loss of a PIG member. For example, if a PIG’s member’s term on the board ends, that member also ceases to be a PIG member, but the PIG can continue working with the remaining original members. The board should not substitute another board member into that vacant PIG position. The PIG’s membership was previously established at the initial meeting that created the PIG and new members cannot be added. The PIG can continue without the now-departed member, but if a board wants to change the PIG’s membership, it should first allow the current PIG to report back and automatically dissolve. After hearing the investigative PIG’s report and waiting until a subsequent board meeting to discuss and act on the report, the board can then create a new PIG to carry on the now-dissolved PIG’s work. • Similarly, once a PIG is formed, the board may not add new assigned tasks to an existing PIG. Quick Review: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Page 4 PIGs Established to Negotiate Another less common type of PIG can be formed when two or more members of a board, but less than a quorum, are assigned to present, discuss, or negotiate any position adopted by the board at a meeting. The assignment of members to a PIG for the purpose of negotiation, and the scope of each member's authority, must be defined at a board meeting prior to the presentation, discussion, or negotiation. The three-meeting requirement for investigative PIGs does not apply to PIGs established to negotiate. As a final note, boards should keep in mind that they may be subject to other laws or rules in addition to the Sunshine Law, which could affect members’ ability to discuss pending matters. This may be particularly relevant for boards that exercise adjudicatory functions (which are not subject to the Sunshine Law), as they must generally avoid ex parte communications. Similarly, some boards are subject to confidentiality provisions outside the Sunshine Law, and if a board is involved in a procurement, it must follow procurement laws. Boards should consult with their own attorneys on the application of such laws and rules.