|
Sunshine Memo 10-4
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.
|
