Can I boldly recommend checking out my column at Civil Beat this week, which is about another quirk in Hawaii’s Sunshine Law (“Hawaii Monitor: The ‘New Math’ of Public Meetings“). If you don’t subscribe to Civil Beat and have used up your free views, you can read my column here.
The short version is that if you’ve come to rely on email notices about upcoming public meetings that some state and county officers now offer, you need to know that they apparently have no legal obligation to get those notices to you in a timely fashion.
Although the Sunshine Law requires agencies to provide a public notice six days before a scheduled meeting, that requirement doesn’t apply to email notices or digital postings because the law was written before the advent of the digital age and refers only to regular, print-and-put-it-in-an-envelope snail mail.
So if your mailed notice isn’t sent in time, it can force the meeting to be cancelled so that the public gets the full advance notice required by law.
But if your email notice is delivered late, or even not at all, there’s apparently no legal recourse.
Anyway, read the column. It’s not too long.
But there’s more to the story, and I’ll get to that soon.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there anyone so naive as to think that fiddling with the timing of email notifications is anything other than a deliberate technique to manipulate the outcome of the meetings?
Is there anyone so paranoid as to think intervention by political appointees in secretarial matters rather than workload and screwups is the reason for delays in notices going out, especially when they are not legally required?
I guess you answered my question.
from where I sit, such notifications are not handled by anybody who could possibly care how the meetings turn out. In addition, supporters of both sides regularly ask to be put on the e-mail notification lists. Why do you assume notifications benefit only one side?
Several council meeting notices went out late recently because the “internal DocuShare server went down and therefore did not update the external server.” This information came from the City Clerk’s office after I asked why I hadn’t yet received the council’s agenda.
I thought there was a bill this past session that included email notices for meetings. It’s definitely time to update this law.
There have been bills in the past two sessions which would have changed the legal notice requirement to allow posting on City or State websites and e-mail and snail mail notices in place of the current requirement for publication in newspapers. It would have saved significant money for the governmental agencies. Unfortunately, the bills failed to pass.
does anyone really think that voicing of public opinion at hearings really makes a difference? Last night’s city council hearing on rezoning Koa Ridge was an insult to the public: after unlimited time for Castle & Cooke & associates to FIRST do their “show & tell,” other members of the public were given 60 seconds for testimony before the BUZZer BUZZED.
I do. I’ve actually seen a council bill changed right on the floor based on public testimony.
i guess it depends if there’s big money to be made by the insider big shots, i.e. HCDA variances granted (but not for the new guy on the block); label GMOs
(Preface: I’m not up to speed on the Koa Ridge issue, nor do I choose to invest time to fully understand the opposition.)
It is my understanding that land owners are allowed the fullest use of their land. If the state or counties want to place restrictions on those uses, the land owners are to be compensated in the same manner that condemnation works.
Is the Koa Ridge development seeking exemptions or a land use change? Really, I’m asking b/c I’ve not a clue.
Rezoning.
For anyone interested, the Hawaii State Ethics Commission (HSEC) for a number of years has kept a list of those who would like to receive by email the agenda of an upcoming public meeting.
The HSEC has done a good job of consistently sending out its public agendas to those on its email list on the same day the public notice is provided to the Office of the Lt. Governor, in accordance with the requirements of the Sunshine Law.
The Sunshine Law, however, in HRS section 92-6, specifically exempts, in general, from open meetings, the “quasi-judicial” (i.e., “adjudicatory”) functions of the HSEC (as well as those of some other state boards). The HSEC’s enforcement and investigative functions and its advisory opinions are quasi-judicial or adjudicatory matters, and, at least up to June of 2010, were handled in a separate HSEC meeting that did not require public notice. These HSEC adjudicatory matters to a great degree are confidential by state law anyway, meaning in general that the HSEC cannot discuss the matters publicly. Enforcement matters become public in general when a “notice” of a contested-case hearing is issued. Advisory opinions are in general confidential, though a redacted version is released at some point to the public. As to these quasi-judicial or adjudicatory matters, what I say here is based on my knowledge of the work of the HSEC to around June of 2010. I cannot say with any certainty what current HSEC policies may be, as to quasi-judicial or adjudicatory matters. Interested individuals should contact the HSEC.
The public agendas are interesting, and I would suggest that anyone interested in receiving the public agendas call the HSEC and ask to be placed on the email list. I am on the list, and have received notices of public meetings on the day the agendas were provided to the Office of the Lt. Governor. The public agendas are typically emailed out by the HSEC a few hours after the Sunshine Law filing requirement is met.
The HSEC’s next public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 18, at 10 a.m.
I should have added to my comment that the HSEC posts its public agendas on its website at http://www.hawaii.gov/ethics. However, I do not know when this is done or how long the agendas remain posted.