Honolulu Weekly

There’s not likely to be any quick legislative remedy for problems with Hawai’i’s so-called sunshine law, according to a new University of Hawai’i-Manoa study of conflicting criticisms aimed at the state law that protects the public’s right to know by requiring open meetings of public agencies.

In short, although all sides agree the law needs changing, there remains bitter disagreement over the type or even general direction those changes should take.

A 2006 state Senate resolution requested the study after lawmakers found themselves squeezed between members of the county councils and Honolulu neighborhood boards, who have been chafing under new legal interpretations restricting informal contacts between members, and openness advocates among the news media and general public who say a lack of enforcement has allowed many agencies to ignore or finesse their way past public access requirements.

The study was prepared by the UH Public Policy Center under the direction of Dolores Foley, associate professor of urban and regional planning.

In order to solicit diverse opinions and generate discussion, the center organized four community meetings, called ‘deliberative dialogues,’ in October and November 2006, including three on O’ahu and one on Kaua’i. In addition, an unspecified number of ‘in-depth’ interviews were done, although the names of those interviewed are not disclosed.

Although dozens of community organizations and public agencies, including all of Honolulu’s neighborhood boards, school community councils, county councils and media groups were among the targeted audience, only a few dozen individuals were ultimately drawn to participate.

Along the way, Foley and her colleagues unintentionally tripped over at least one of the issues that has drawn increasing complaints from members of the county councils and Honolulu’s neighborhood boards–a restriction on more than two members of any board attending the same public event organized by a third party, even if only there as observers.

Members of certain neighborhood boards were most excited by the prospects of revising the sunshine law, according to center director Susan Chandler, but the study group was unable to get all to key critics together at the same time.

‘The Center was advised that no more than two members from any one board could attend the discussion on open meetings,’ the report notes, putting a quick and perhaps unexpected cap on the range of input available.

In the end, according to the report, the only ‘clear point of consensus’ was criticism of the legislature’s self-exemption from the sunshine law.

‘Many participants argued that the legislature, at a minimum, needs to adopt rules promoting more sunshine, especially in regards to notice and decision-making,’ the report concludes.

Beyond that, the report found ‘contradictory themes throughout our discussion. Many of the solutions proposed are strongly opposed by others.’

Only a few general areas of agreement were identified that might support legislative action. These include proposals to:

1. Allow board members to attend informational meetings sponsored by other organizations to learn more about issues of board interest, as long as less than a quorum of the board is involved.

2. Allow boards to receive, but not discuss, testimony from the public on items that are not on the approved agenda.

3. Increase resources and enforcement powers available to the Office of Information Practices.

The full report can be found at the Public Policy Center’s web site, ([www.publicpolicycenter.hawaii.edu/reports.html]).

([www.iLind.net])