S Memo 18-4Posted on Jun 21, 2018 in Informal Opinions - Sunshine Law
S Memo 18-4
June 21, 2018
Restriction on Oral Testimony
Requester asked for an investigation into whether the Maui County Council (Council) violated the Sunshine Law at its special meeting on March 3, 2015 by not allowing him to present his oral testimony in full within the three-minute time limit set by the Council’s Rule 17. Not counting the Council’s earlier interruptions and recesses, OIP found that Requester’s testimony totaled less than the three minutes afforded under Rule 17 and that he had stopped testifying on his own accord. Despite the Council’s earlier objections to the relevancy of the testimony, OIP also concluded that the Council did not improperly restrict the content of Requester’s testimony as he was allowed to finish his testimony without further interruption. Ultimately, therefore, the Council did comply with the Sunshine Law’s mandate to afford Requester the opportunity to present oral testimony on any agenda item.