There are large red flags waving over the House Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, February 21, at 2 p.m.
Several bills of note are included on the long afternoon agenda.
HB2742 is yet another attempt to exempt the county councils from the reach of the sunshine law. This bill simply amends the definition of agencies covered by sunshine to exclude the councils.
The councils have made repeated attempts to get out from under the open meeting requirements of the sunshine law. A quick search turned up news stories about many prior attempts, including these from 2003 and 2005. So far, the Legislature has had the good sense to kill these bills.
The exemption in HB2742 is actually broader than the Legislature’s own exemption under existing law.
Currently, the law provides that legislative rules and policies, where they exist, “take precedence over” the statute in particular areas. Here’s what the current law says:
§92-10 Legislative branch; applicability. Notwithstanding any provisions contained in this chapter to the contrary, open meeting requirements, and provisions regarding enforcement, penalties and sanctions, as they are to relate to the state legislature or to any of its members shall be such as shall be from time to time prescribed by the respective rules and procedures of the senate and the house of representatives, which rules and procedures shall take precedence over this part. Similarly, provisions relating to notice, agenda and minutes of meetings, and such other requirements as may be necessary, shall also be governed by the respective rules and procedures of the senate and the house of representatives.
HB2175 is another bill to exempt members of state advisory task forces from ethics restrictions. The Judiciary Committee has already passed the similar HB2455, which is awaiting a vote on third reading. I’m sticking to my view that these bills are overly broad solutions to a problem caused by an overly broad application of the ethics laws.
There are two bills on Tuesday’s agenda that would make it harder for elected officials to run for other offices with overlapping terms, say a mayor running for governor.
HB2157 would advance the date on which a public official has to resign from their current office in order to run for a different position. Currently, resignation is required once the official files as a candidate for the new position. HB2157 would move that forward to the date when the new campaign is required to register with the Campaign Spending Commission, which must be within 10 days of receiving contributions or making expenditures of more than $100. It could require a public official to resign a year or more in advance of the candidate filing deadline.
A second bill, HB259, would prohibit using an elected officials campaign war chest in a run for another elective office without written consent from each donor.
So who do you suppose these bills are aimed at?
There are other bills of concern on the agenda, including HB1730, which sets out conflict of interest provisions applicable to the State Land Use Commission.
But it’s Sunday, and I’ve got to get moving.
Hopefully readers can help by going over this agenda and flagging other matters of concern.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This could gut the Hawaii County Charter that in some ways mirrors state sunshine rules and in others is more stringent. It would destroy 40 years and more of great effort to keep sunshine pouring in.
This current dysfunctional council swore to uphold the charter at its installation. Now we know how little commitment they made to their collective oath of office.
HB2742 simply gives the county councils the same exemption from the sunshine law that the State Legislature has
I believe that’s incorrect.
First of all, as quoted in my entry this morning, the legislature is not totally exempted. It’s rules are given precedence.
Secondly, in the case of the legislature, there’s a question of separation of powers that doesn’t exist with the county councils.
So the situations are quite different.
A more accurate statement by me would have been that the legislation exempts the county councils from being treated as a board under the Sunshine Law
Legislature has no damn right to invalidate our county constitution — the charter. Open meeting provision has been there since the start in 1969. Only voters should amend it, if they wish.
My guess is that the stricter provisions of the County Charter would continue to apply.
Nothing in the bill would invalidate the Hawaii County Charter, as I read it. But, it would open the door to a Charter revision dispensing with its sunshine requirements if the County Council no longer needs to follow the State Sunshine Law.
Thank you for bringing HB2742 to our attention! The backroom-door meetings that occurred with Hannemann and several councilmembers (separately) on October 27, 2009, were bad enough. We certainly don’t need councilmembers meeting with each other prior to the public meetings.
I think there’s a good reason to require certain office holders to resign earlier (HB2157 ). For example, someone on a county council who’s running for mayor will likely be voting on numerous measures that would impact at least the county/city and possibly the mayor directly.
For someone on a county council running for a state or federal position, however, it seems much less likely that there would be any measures that would impact that person’s future position.
It’ll be interesting to see the first set of testimony on this one.
We should just combine the Leg and City Council into one.
Have them meet every other year.
That’s all they are good for.
Too many of these bills are downright dumb and do not represent the public.
The laws harm us more than help us, the taxpayers.