S Memo 16-1Posted on Aug 7, 2015 in Informal Opinions - Sunshine Law
S Memo 16-1
August 7, 2015
Public Testimony was not Restricted by Board
Requester asked for an investigation into whether the Honolulu Liquor Commission (Commission) violated the Sunshine Law by restricting oral testimony at its meeting on an agenda item concerning a request for reconsideration of a previous decision.
Even assuming that the meeting was not one in which the Commission was exercising its adjudicatory function, and was thus subject to the Sunshine Law, the evidence shows there was no Sunshine Law violation because the public was given an opportunity to testify and no restrictions on testimony were actually imposed before the Commission made its final decision on the request for reconsideration.