S Memo 09-14Posted on Jun 3, 2009 in Informal Opinions - Sunshine Law
S Memo 09-14
June 3, 2009
Meeting Without Quorum
A member of the public asked whether the Procurement Policy Board (“PPB”) violated the Sunshine Law when: (1) PPB convened a meeting on October 5, 2006 (“October 5, 2006 Meeting”) without a quorum of its members present; and (2) PPB convened an executive meeting at its October 5, 2006 Meeting to discuss three petitions seeking to exempt public, education and government access services from the State Procurement Code (“PEG petitions”).
OIP found that because PPB lacked quorum, PPB should not have held its October 5, 2006 Meeting because it did not qualify as a proper “meeting,” as this term is defined by the Sunshine Law. However, PPB’s violation was not willful because, in good faith, PPB had believed that it had quorum and only learned after the meeting that it had lacked quorum due to a recent replacement of a member present at the meeting. No further corrective action is required after PPB’s reconsideration at a subsequent meeting of its actions taken at this improper meeting.
OIP also found that PPB’s executive session was authorized under the Sunshine Law. Specifically, HRS § 92-5(a)(4), permitted PPB to meet in executive session to consult with its legal counsel on questions and issues relating to PPB’s “powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities” concerning the PEG petitions.