Office of Information Practices

Opinion Ltr. No. F26-01
December 19, 2025
Permitted Interactions at a
Meeting Lacking Quorum

A member of the public asked whether the Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB) violated the Sunshine Law by discussing board business when its scheduled meeting had not yet achieved quorum.  First, OIP concluded that DCAB violated the Sunshine Law by convening a meeting without a quorum of board members present because under section 92-2, HRS, the definition of “meeting” requires quorum for a valid meeting.  Second, OIP found that DCAB’s “informational meeting” without quorum was not recognized under the Sunshine Law and did not fall within one of the permitted interactions listed in section 92-2.5, HRS.   

Third, although section 92-2.5(d), HRS, allows board members to receive testimony and presentations when a meeting is canceled due to lack of quorum, DCAB did not inform the public that the meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.  Instead, it improperly treated the gathering as a “informational meeting,” which is not authorized under the Sunshine Law.  As result, OIP DCAB’s actions in hearing testimony and presentations without quorum violated the Sunshine law because the meeting had not been canceled as required for section 92-2.5(d), HRS, to apply. 

 Fourth, under section 92-2.5(d), HRS, when a meeting is canceled due to lack of quorum, board members present may receive testimony and presentations and ask testifiers and presenters questions, but they are strictly prohibited from deliberating or making decisions until a subsequent, properly noticed meeting.  OIP found that DCAB members exceeded the scope of permitted interactions by expressing voting preferences and offering suggestions during the period without quorum, which constituted prohibited deliberation and provided an additional reason why the permitted interaction in section 92-2.5(d), HRS, did not apply. 

 Finally, OIP concluded that the Sunshine Law does not permit a canceled meeting to be uncanceled and resumed for deliberation and decision-making.  Any such actions must occur at a separate, duly noticed meeting held after the canceled meeting as required by section 92-2.5(d), HRS.  Once a board informs the public that a noticed meeting is canceled, the public is entitled to rely on that information and for the board to reschedule the meeting for the same day with no posted notice would violate the Sunshine Law’s notice requirements in section 92-7, HRS.  Therefore, OIP concluded that even if DCAB had in fact canceled its meeting for lack of quorum, it still would have violated the Sunshine Law by later considering board business in a meeting that had already been canceled. 

full text