S Memo 14-15Posted on Jun 30, 2014 in Informal Opinions - Sunshine Law
S Memo 14-15
June 30, 2014
Sufficiency of Council Agenda
Requesters asked for a decision as to whether: (1) the Hawaii County Council (Council) violated the Sunshine Law by not listing on its agenda for its February 1, 2012 meeting (Agenda) five “Communications” concerning Bill No. 270, which proposed a new county building code and repealed the existing building code; and (2) whether the Council’s time limit on oral testimony was reasonable. The five Communications at issue proposed amendments to Bill No. 270 that had been approved by the Council and incorporated into Draft 7 of Bill No. 270, which was listed on the Agenda.
OIP found that the Council did not violate the Sunshine Law because the Council properly listed Draft 7 of Bill No. 270 on the Agenda as the item for its consideration and was not required to also list the Amendment Communications that related to this bill. The Council’s time limit on oral testimony was reasonable.