F24-02Posted on Nov 2, 2023 in Formal Opinions
Opinion Ltr. No. F24-02
November 2, 2023
Maui County Councilmembers on the Maui Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board
Need Not Comply With a Different Permitted Interaction’s Requirements
Requester asked whether the three Maui County Council (COUNCIL-M) members appointed to serve on the Maui Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board (MMPOPB) are required by section 92-2.5(e), HRS, to report their attendance and the matters discussed during the MMPOPB meeting to COUNCIL-M at its next duly noticed meeting.
OIP reviewed the legislative history of Chapter 279D, HRS, establishing metropolitan policy organizations (MPOs) and found that the Legislature intended to create a limited exception to the Sunshine Law to allow members of MPO boards to freely discuss issues within the authority of the MPO and any other board on which they serve. Because section 279D-9(b), HRS, provides that “[p]articipation by members of any other board in a meeting of a policy board shall be a permitted interaction as provided in section 92-2.5(i),” the discussions of MMPOPB members are “not meetings” under the Sunshine Law at section 92-2.5(i), HRS. A board that meets the requirements of one permitted interaction need not comply with the requirements of any other permitted interaction. Therefore, COUNCIL-M members need not report their attendance and the matters discussed during the MMPOPB meeting at COUNCIL-M’s next meeting under section 92-2.5(e), HRS.