S Memo 13-2Posted on Sep 4, 2012 in Informal Opinions - Sunshine Law
S Memo 13-2
September 4, 2012
Sunshine Law Complaints About
Agendas and Executive Meeting
Requester asked whether the Hawaii County Board of Ethics (Board) violated the Sunshine Law at its meetings on October 14, 2009, and November 19, 2009. The issues were whether the Board violated the Sunshine Law by allegedly (1) insufficiently and inconsistently describing agenda items and (2) holding an executive session for a discussion that should have taken place in an open meeting. OIP found the following:
1. The agenda items listing petitions and informal advisory opinions for the October 14, 2009 and November 19, 2009 meetings had sufficient detail to meet the Sunshine Law’s notice requirements. In other words, the agenda allowed the public to understand what the Board intended to consider and to decide whether or not to participate in the meeting.
2. The executive session held by the Board on November 17, 2009, on the Board’s draft letter on Petition 2009-12, was properly a closed session under the Sunshine Law.