S Memo 10-4Posted on Aug 19, 2009 in Informal Opinions - Sunshine Law
S Memo 10-4
August 19, 2009
Sufficiency of Agenda
A member of the public asked whether the County Council, County of Hawaii (“Council”), violated the Sunshine Law because the agenda for its meeting on August 5, 2009 (“Agenda”) omitted the name of the Council’s Vice Chair in the description of an Agenda item, Resolution 218-09 (“Resolution”), designating the Council’s Vice Chair and Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs.
OIP opined that the Council did not violate the Sunshine Law because its Agenda adequately complied with the Sunshine Law’s notice requirements.
OIP found that the Agenda did list the Resolution and hence, at a minimum, complied with the Sunshine Law’s instruction that it “lists all of the items to be considered.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-7(b) (Supp. 2008). Furthermore, in OIP’s opinion, by identifying which positions on the Council were being designated in the Resolution, the Agenda’s description adequately gave the public notice of the Resolution’s subject matter so that the public had the opportunity to elect to attend the meeting and provide testimony on this Agenda item. Thus, OIP found that the Council did not violate the Sunshine Law when its Agenda listed the Resolution but did not name the Council member whom the Resolution was designating as the Council’s Vice Chair.