Sunshine Law Meetings
Can Be Teleconferenced
May 8, 2012
On May 1, 2012, the Hawaii Legislature passed out
SB
2737, S.D. 1, H.D. 2, C.D. 1, which expands the Sunshine Law’s
videoconference provision to allow teleconference meetings, thus
eliminating the need for video coverage. SB 2737 drops the current
requirement in HRS section 92-3.5 that a board have both an audio
and video connection among all locations to begin a public
meeting, and it would now allow board meetings by audio connection
alone.
The bill generally retains the existing requirement
that members attend a meeting only from public locations
listed in the notice; however, the bill does create an exception
allowing “a board member with a disability that limits or
impairs the member's ability to physically attend the meeting”
to attend via teleconference or videoconference from a private
location not open to the public. A disabled member attending from
a private location must identify the location and any persons
present at that location with the member.
The bill uses the term “interactive conference
technology” to describe the type of connection to be used,
and defines it to include videoconference, teleconference, and
voice over internet protocol. As a practical matter, since OIP
already interprets the current requirement of an audiovisual or
audio connection to include voice over internet protocol or other
web-based connections, the new definition does not break new ground
as far as what conference technologies boards may use to achieve
an audio-video or audio connection between meeting sites.
Finally, because the initial proposal was introduced
as an Administration measure to reduce fiscal and time constraints
and to enable the mostly volunteer boards in our multi-island
state to meet their quorum requirements and conduct their business,
the Governor is expected to sign the bill, which would go into
effect July 1, 2012.
For the latest on open government news and facts,
look here on the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on
OIP’s e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
Electronic Notice Bill Fails and Additional
Senate Comments Regarding Appeals
May 4, 2012
On the last day of the 2012 session, the Hawaii
State House of Representatives recommitted a bill requiring the
official Sunshine Law meeting notices to be electronically posted.
H.B.
2404, H.D. 1, S.D. 2, C.D. 1 failed to pass final reading
in the House, and thus, boards must continue to file their official
meeting notices in paper format with the Lt. Governor’s
office. Under the Governor’s existing Executive Order, state
boards are also still required to electronically post their meeting
notices on the state calendar.
What further died with the bill were the Senate’s
proposals to require, within 30 days of a public meeting, the
electronic posting of meeting minutes and written materials that
had been presented to the board at the meeting. Moreover, the
conference draft of H.B. 2404 contained additional provisions
that were strongly opposed by the newspapers, namely, the eventual
elimination of the requirement under HRS Section 1-28.5 for the
newspaper publication of legal notices, such as notices to creditors,
requests for proposals, foreclosure sales, name changes, and summons.
Because this newspaper publication requirement does not apply
to the Sunshine Law, which is Part I of HRS Chapter 92, boards’
meeting notices must continue to be filed under the existing Sunshine
Law provisions as described in the opening paragraph above.
With respect to OIP’s appeals bill, the Senate
Judiciary and Labor Chair, Senator Clayton Hee, submitted for
inclusion in the Senate Journal the attached comments on S.B.
2858, S.D. 1, H.D. 2, C.D. 1. His comments are consistent
with those of the House Judiciary Chair, Representative Gilbert
Keith-Agaran, and reflect the common legislative intent behind
passage of that bill. Both legislators’ comments can be
found on OIP’s website under 2012
Legislation on the Laws/Rules/Opinions page.
For the latest on open government news and facts,
look here on the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on
OIP’s e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
OIP's Bills Are Passed!
May 1, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
is celebrating the final passage of two key open government bills
and wishes to thank all of those who worked hard on this important
legislation, particularly the Judiciary chairs, Senator Clayton
Hee and Representative Gilbert Keith-Agaran, and their staffs.
Rep. Keith-Agaran’s insightful comments that he submitted
for inclusion in the House of Representatives’ Journal during
today’s final reading of the appeals bill are posted on
OIP’s website on the 2012
Legislation page.
The first bill creates a simple, timely, and uniform
process for appeals by agencies of OIP decisions relating to the
Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) and the Sunshine Law.
Under S.B.
2858, S.D. 1, H.D. 2, C.D. 1, agencies have 30 days to exercise
this new right to expedited judicial review and will have to overcome
a high standard of review that would require them to prove that
OIP’s challenged decisions are palpably erroneous on the
facts and law before they could be overturned. Neither OIP nor
the requester are required parties to an appeal, so they will
not become unwillingly embroiled in litigation and an agency cannot
win its appeal simply by default if OIP or the requester choose
not to litigate.
An agency must also put its best case before OIP
and not wait until it is in court to present a serious argument,
because a subsequent judicial appeal will be limited to the record
before OIP, unless there are extraordinary circumstances warranting
the court’s consideration of new information on appeal.
With respect to a UIPA decision mandating disclosure of government
records, an agency that fails to timely appeal will be unable
to challenge OIP’s decision if the requester files a subsequent
enforcement action and, under existing law, the agency will be
liable for reasonable attorney fees and costs if the enforcer
prevails. Thus, while the bill gives agencies a new right to appeal,
it also gives OIP’s decisions more clout and discourages
agencies from frivolously appealing or simply ignoring OIP’s
rulings.
Media and “good government” groups had
rallied around a former journalism professor’s opposition
to the bill on the basis that when the UIPA was written 24 years
ago, it clearly was not intended to allow agencies to appeal from
OIP’s decisions mandating the disclosure of records. OIP
agrees that the UIPA was not originally intended to allow agency
appeals, and indeed, OIP vigorously advocated that very same argument,
which the courts rejected in a 2009 Intermediate
Court of Appeals’ decision that the Hawaii Supreme Court
affirmed. Even if the Legislature acted, as opponents
urged, to overturn the courts’ ruling and made
it even clearer that agency appeals were not allowed, these opponents
fail to realistically acknowledge that, at the same time, the
Legislature undoubtedly would have imposed severe limitations
to counterbalance the absolute power that opponents sought for
OIP and would have instead required OIP to follow something
similar to judicial or contested case procedures.
Given the State’s shaky fiscal condition,
it is also questionable whether such additional procedural
restrictions would have been accompanied by the substantial and
ongoing increase in government funding that OIP would have needed
for more staff and resources. Moreover, by turning OIP
into a nonreviewable body that would nevertheless be subject to
litigious, time-consuming, and complicated contested case procedures,
OIP could no longer be a free, expeditious, and simple
alternative to the courts that also provides training and advice
in response to over 800 annual inquiries from agencies and the
public. Fortunately, the Legislature instead decided upon
a balanced and reasonable solution that allows OIP to
continue its work to informally, impartially, and expeditiously
resolve disputes between the public and agencies, without the
need for agencies or the public to retain expensive legal representation
in lengthy and complex quasi-judicial proceedings.
The second bill passed this year is S.B.
2859, S.D. 1, H.D. 2, which creates two new permitted interactions
under the Sunshine Law. One new permitted interaction would allow
board members to receive testimony and ask questions at public
meetings that must be cancelled due to a lack of quorum, provided
that they make no decisions and thereafter report to the full
board. The second new permitted interaction would allow less than
a quorum of board members to attend and discuss board business
at seminars, conferences, informational meetings, legislative
hearings, and other meetings, again provided that they make no
decisions and thereafter report to the full board. Both of these
new provisions will help to promote greater public participation
in government, better communication between the public and board
members, and a fuller understanding of the issues and various
perspectives by board members.
Still pending is a third key piece of open government
legislation that would, among other things, provide for electronic
notification of meeting notices and require the electronic posting
of meeting minutes and board materials within 30 days of a public
meeting. H.B.
2404, H.D. 1, S.D. 2, C.D. 1 is scheduled for final reading
on May 3, 2012.
For the latest facts and news about open government,
look here on the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on
OIP’s e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
Sunshine Law Modernization Bill
To Be Decked for Final Reading
April 27, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
is pleased to report that the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee
has agreed to the House’s last version of OIP’s Sunshine
Law bill, which clears the way for final reading of S.B.
2859, S.D. 1, H.D. 2. This bill will create two new permitted
interactions, which would (1) allow testimony to be received at
a meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum and (2) allow less than
a quorum of board members to attend informational meetings or
presentations on matters relating to board business, including
a meeting of another entity, legislative hearing, convention,
seminar, or community meeting. Adequate safeguards are also provided
in the bill to prevent board members from committing to vote or
making decisions, unless they are at a duly noticed public meeting
of the board. The addition of these new permitted interactions
will help to improve communication between board members and the
public, to increase public participation in government, and to
enhance board members’ understanding of board issues and
various perspectives.
The proposal for a third, new permitted interaction,
with safeguards to monitor and regulate social media usage by
boards and their members, was not included in the final bill.
Nevertheless, as OIP has previously advised in its March 30, 2012
What’s New article (see below), board members should continue
to be cautious about using social media to communicate with each
other regarding board business.
Finally, as reported yesterday, the conference committee
passed out OIP’s appeals bill, S.B.
2858, S.D. 1, H.D. 2, C.D. 1, which will be decked for final
reading.
For the facts and the latest
on open government news, look here on the What’s New page,
or ask to be placed on OIP’s e-mail list for weekly What’s
New updates.
OIP's Appeals Bill Passed
Out of Conference Committee
April 26, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
is pleased to announce that legislation providing a simple, timely,
and uniform appeals process under both the Uniform Information
Practices Act (UIPA) and the Sunshine Law was passed out of the
conference committee today and will go to the full Legislature
for final reading. S.B.
2858, S.D. 1, H.D. 2, C.D. 1 will (1) eliminate the need for
continued litigation over jurisdictional issues concerning both
laws administered by OIP, (2) give the courts clear direction
to uphold OIP’s decisions unless they are palpably erroneous,
(3) allow agencies to judicially appeal without requiring OIP
or the public to be embroiled as unwilling parties in such litigation,
(4) prevent agencies from indefinitely ignoring OIP’s decision
mandating disclosure of records as they will be under a 30-day
deadline to file an appeal or be bound by a decision, and (5)
help OIP resolve disputes and assist the public in obtaining government
records in a free, informal, and timely manner.
Opponents of the bill have argued that the bill
weakens OIP while other opponents have argued that the bill gives
OIP too much power. Supporters and those who have actually read
and understand the bill and the history behind it know that the
bill reasonably balances these two diametrically opposed positions
by recognizing agencies’ limited right to appeal while instructing
the courts to defer to OIP’s decisions under both laws.
The passage of this bill will also clear the way for OIP to finalize
its appeals rules, which have been placed in doubt since the decision
in County of Kauai v. OIP, 120 Haw. 34, 200 P.3d 403
(Haw. App. 2009) (summarily affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court
on June 23, 2009).
In the Kauai case, which took four years
to resolve, the County directly sued OIP and appealed from an
OIP decision mandating the disclosure of executive session minutes.
OIP vigorously argued that its disclosure decision was made under
the UIPA, not the Sunshine Law, and that the County lacked standing
to appeal because the UIPA did not give government agencies a
right to appeal an OIP determination mandating disclosure of government
records. Kauai, 120 Haw. at 38-39, 41, 43, 200 P.3d at
407-08, 410-11. Nevertheless, the courts rejected OIP’s
jurisdictional arguments and reasoned that both laws applied in
that case and that the “plain” language of the Sunshine
Law allowed “’any person,’ including County”
to sue. Id. at 43-44, 200 P.3d at 412-13.
The Kauai decision arguably made the UIPA’s
deliberate omission of an agency appeal process largely irrelevant.
Many, if not most, UIPA decisions involve OIP’s analysis
of the Sunshine Law and other statutes that affect access to specific
information or records, such as the confidentiality provisions
regarding taxes, competitive bids, utility bills, traffic accident
reports, and countless other laws. Under the Kauai decision,
the appellate procedures found in other statutes would arguably
supercede the UIPA so that agencies would be able to find jurisdiction
in other laws to appeal OIP’s decisions mandating disclosure
of records under the UIPA. Rather than continue to litigate this
and other jurisdictional issues in the courts, OIP has sought
legislative clarification of agencies’ appeal rights.
One opponent of SB 2858 claims that the solution
is to have the Legislature make clear that the UIPA controls and
provides no right for agencies to appeal an OIP decision mandating
disclosure of records, as the Legislature clearly intended when
it first enacted the UIPA 24 years ago. Such a proposal, however,
would almost certainly result today in greater restrictions on
OIP’s authority and effectiveness. If OIP, rather than the
courts, is to be the final arbiter of all UIPA decisions, regardless
of any other statutory or constitutional issues involved, then
the Legislature would probably feel obligated to impose additional
restrictions on OIP, such as those found in judicial or contested
case proceedings that entail costly and time-consuming hearings
and procedures, which virtually require attorneys’ involvement
and would increase taxpayer-funded litigation between agencies.
These new restrictions would destroy OIP’s current effectiveness
as a free and informal alternative to court actions, would substantially
slow OIP’s resolution of cases, and would increase litigation
and costs to the public while delaying access to records.
A realistic and reasonable solution has been provided
by SB 2858. OIP can continue to be an effective, free, and informal
alternative to the courts because SB 2858 allows agencies to challenge
OIP’s decisions (and not OIP itself) in expedited judicial
appeals while setting a high standard of review and requiring
the courts to defer to OIP’s expertise. Agencies will no
longer be able to indefinitely ignore OIP decisions and withhold
records mandated to be disclosed because they will have to appeal
within 30 days if they wish to challenge such decisions. If they
do appeal, agencies will have a heavy burden to overcome and prove
OIP’s decision to be palpably erroneous. OIP and requesters
will no longer have to waste limited resources to hire attorneys
to represent them as parties in lengthy and costly appeals. By
providing a clear, simple, and uniform process for agency appeals
under both the UIPA and Sunshine Law, SB 2858 stops the jurisdictional
battles between agencies, enables OIP to move forward on finalizing
its appeal rules, and allows OIP to continue to freely, informally,
and timely assist the public in obtaining access to government
records.
For OIP’s previous discussions of this bill
and the facts about open government issues, look here on the What’s
New page.
OIP's Streaming Videos
April 25, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
is pleased to announce that its PowerPoint presentations on the
Uniform Information Practices Act and the Sunshine Law, with narration,
are now available as streaming videos at
hawaii.gov/oip/training. The videos can be quickly viewed
in real time, without having to wait to download them first. If
desired, the videos can also be downloaded to your computer, along
with the other written materials that accompany them.
By harnessing technology, OIP has expanded its basic
training to reach more people at times and places convenient to
them, while conserving OIP’s limited staff resources for
more specialized training and other duties.
OIP has also been busy monitoring the conferences on various open
government bills as the Legislature heads into the final days
of the 2012 session.
For the latest news about OIP and open government, look here on
the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on OIP’s
e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
HPR Interview
Regarding OIP's Bills
April 10, 2012
Hawaii Public Radio’s Beth-Ann Kozlovich
recently interviewed Director Cheryl Kakazu Park about the Office
of Information Practices’ (OIP) proposed appeals and Sunshine
Law legislation, S.B.
2858 and S.B.
2859. As discussed in that interview, an opponent of S.B.
2858 claims that OIP is giving up its authority while other opponents
argue that OIP is grabbing too much power. In reality, the bill
balances the competing interests of record requesters and agencies
and creates a clear, simple, uniform process that does not drag
OIP or requesters into court but allows agencies to judicially
challenge OIP’s decisions under both laws that it administers,
subject to a strict standard of review that gives appropriate
deference to OIP’s decisions. Also discussed in that interview
was the elimination of the social media provisions in the latest
House draft of SB 2859, which actually does not prevent social
media usage, but has taken away the proposed safeguards to monitor
and regulate such communications by boards and their members.
To listen to the seven-minute interview concerning
the latest House revisions to the bills, which are heading into
conference, go to The Conversation archive for Friday, April 6,
2012 (starting at minute 4:45) at http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/archive/theconversation.
An in-depth interview about OIP’s powers, duties, resources,
direction, and pending legislation was previously broadcast on
Beth-Ann Kozlovich’s Town Square program on February 23,
2012. The link to that one-hour interview is at http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/content/town-sqaure-february-23-2012.
For the latest news about OIP and open government, look here on
the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on OIP’s
e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
House Finance Committee
Passes Out OIP's Appeals Bill
April 3, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
is pleased to report that the House Finance Committee has voted
to pass out of committee OIP’s proposal to clarify the appeals
process for agencies under both the Uniform Information Practices
Act (UIPA) and the Sunshine Law, as S.B.
2858, S.D. 1, H.D. 2. The committee amended the bill to include
an effective date of July 1, 2030 to ensure that it will go into
conference.
At the March 30, 2012 decision-making on the bill,
the House Finance Committee rejected a proposal to preclude agencies
from bringing judicial appeals under either the Sunshine Law or
the UIPA. The member of the public who suggested the no-appeal
amendment had argued that the bill was weakening OIP’s power,
contrary to the UIPA’s original legislative intent. Interestingly,
other testimony, primarily from the counties, has argued that
the bill was giving OIP too much power. Actually, the bill is
a realistic and reasonable compromise, which is supported by the
Governor, many departments, agencies, and boards, and open government
groups like the League of Women Voters. The bill is designed to:
(1) create a uniform process under both the UIPA and Sunshine
Law by which agencies may judicially challenge OIP’s decisions,
(2) avoid further litigation over jurisdictional issues, (3) protect
both OIP and requesters from being forced to obtain legal counsel
in order to defend against agency appeals, and (4) recognize the
high standard of review that the courts have already applied in
reviewing OIP’s decisions. Thus, in order to settle contentious
issues concerning agency appeals and to provide a clear and uniform
process to resolve challenges to OIP’s opinions, OIP strongly
supports the passage of this bill.
For updates on this and other open government legislation,
look here on the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on
OIP’s e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
House Finance Committee
Passes Out OIP's Sunshine Bill
March 30, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
is pleased to announce that the House Finance Committee unanimously
voted last night to pass out OIP’s Sunshine Bill, S.B.
2859, S.D. 1, with a House Draft 2. The Committee amended
the bill to delete section (f) beginning on page 4, which would
have created a new permitted interaction with various safeguards
to regulate board members’ communications through social
media. Assuming the bill is passed by the entire House, it will
head into conference with the Senate.
If the social media provision is not reinserted
during the conference proceedings, then board members should continue
to be cautious about using social media to communicate with each
other regarding board business. As with any other form of communication,
more than two board members cannot discuss board business through
“tweets” or “postings” outside of a properly
noticed meeting under the Sunshine Law. Depending on the specific
situation, even board members’ status as Facebook “friends”
could be considered unlawful participation in a serial discussion
if the members were writing posts about board business and those
posts automatically showed up in the other members’ news
feeds as posts by friends or tweets from an account the members
were “following.” Assuming no other board member involvement,
however, the Sunshine Law, as currently written, would still permit
social media discussions among board members that do not relate
to board business as well as discussions of board business between
a board member and the member’s constituents or the general
public.
Tonight, the House Finance Committee
will hear S.B.
2858, S.D. 1, H.D. 1, which would create a uniform process
under the UIPA and the Sunshine Law to clarify an agency’s
right to judicially appeal an OIP decision. For updates on these
and other open government legislation, look here on the
What’s New page, or ask to be placed on OIP’s e-mail
list for weekly What’s New updates.
Correcting Misunderstandings
About OIP's Appeals Bill
March 21, 2012
As regular readers of our What’s New articles
know, the state Office of Information Practices (OIP) has kept
you informed of the development and progress of our legislative
proposals, including Senate
Bill 2858, Senate Draft 1, which clarifies the process for
agencies to appeal from OIP decisions under the Uniform Information
Practices Act (UIPA) and the Sunshine Law. Long before the session
even started, OIP explained the challenges, solicited comments,
and provided a detailed summary of its legislative proposal to
clarify the uncertainty surrounding the appeals procedure in light
of a 2009 appellate court decision that allowed an agency to judicially
challenge an OIP decision. Despite OIP’s efforts and the
wealth of information freely available on OIP’s website
at hawaii.gov/oip,
there are still people who have misread S.B. 2858, S.D. 1 and
have urged against its passage.
Quite simply, what happened during the 2009 case
is what OIP is seeking to avoid with its proposed legislation:
government agencies litigating against each other for years at
taxpayer expense, while adversely affecting OIP’s ability
to assist the public and agencies at no cost and in a reasonable
amount of time. As OIP explained in its What’s New articles
and in its testimony before the Legislature, S.B. 2858 will eliminate
the need for continued litigation over jurisdictional issues as
it would provide for a simple and uniform appeals process and
a high standard of review that agencies must meet to judicially
challenge OIP decisions under either the UIPA or the Sunshine
Law. Neither OIP nor the record-requesting member of the public
would be made parties to the new appellate procedure, and thus,
the agency could not win by default if OIP or the requester failed
to appear in the proceeding. The judicial review would be of the
OIP decision itself, rather than a suit against OIP or the requester
personally. Just as a judge is not sued or required to appear
in a case challenging his or her decision, OIP would not be required
to appear as a party in the appeal. Similarly, requesters would
not be named as parties and so would not have to incur attorney
fees and costs, unless they choose to intervene in the appeal,
as requesters and OIP would have the right to do.
For the agencies, the bill finally provides a clear
path to judicially challenge an OIP decision. Currently, the UIPA
does not give the agencies a right to appeal and its legislative
history is clear that agencies should not be suing agencies. Even
the Sunshine Law has no provision expressly giving agencies the
right to appeal from OIP decisions. Although the appellate courts
have recognized the agencies’ right to appeal under its
“any person” standard, OIP did not exist at the time
the Sunshine Law was enacted in 1975 and the “any person”
standard was more likely established by the Legislature to allow
an individual to sue Sunshine Law boards, not to allow the boards
to sue OIP. S.B. 2858, S.D. 1 removes these jurisdictional barriers
by giving agencies an express right to judicially appeal within
30 days of OIP’s decision being challenged. The proposed
House Draft 1 would encourage agencies to timely exercise their
new right rather than ignore an OIP decision rendered in the public’s
favor.
In light of the various changes to each law over
the years, it is time for the Legislature to clarify agencies’
appeal rights under both laws. Since 1998, both the UIPA and the
Sunshine Law have been administered by OIP. Additionally, both
laws have a common purpose. Sometimes, a case will involve disputes
concerning both laws. Thus, both laws should now have the same
appeals procedure as proposed in S.B. 2858, S.D. 1 (soon to be
amended as a House Draft 1).
For the latest information concerning open government news, look
here on the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on OIP’s
e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
House Judiciary to Send
Open Government Bills
to Final Committee
March 19, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
is pleased to report that the House Judiciary Committee has voted
to pass house drafts of OIP’s appeals and Sunshine Law bills
on to the House Finance Committee. Also moving on to the Finance
Committee is the Administration’s bill to allow teleconferenced
meetings.
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing held
on March 16, 2012, the appeals bill, S.B.
2858, S.D. 1, was amended at the request of the League of
Women Voters to add a provision clarifying that if an agency does
not timely appeal an OIP decision such that the requester must
go to court to force the agency to comply, then the agency will
not have the opportunity to challenge the decision at that point.
This provision would be a disincentive to keep the agency from
indefinitely stalling and refusing to disclose a record, despite
an OIP determination that disclosure is mandated under the UIPA.
Instead, an agency would be motivated to promptly exercise its
new appeal rights that are being created by S.B. 2858, S.D. 1,
H.D. 1. The bill was further amended by the House Judiciary Committee
to correct the intentionally defective date inserted by the Senate
and it now restores the January 1, 2013 effective date.
The House Judiciary Committee also made minor amendments
OIP’s Sunshine Law bill, S.B.
2859, S.D. 1. Both the appeals and Sunshine Law bills will
go to the House Finance Committee.
At the previous day’s hearing, the House Judiciary
Committee reported out S.B.
2737, S.D 1 with House Draft 1, which makes a major change
to the Sunshine Law’s public meeting requirement. The committee
voted to add the word “public” on page 2, lines 17
and 22, of S.B. 2737, S.D. 1, which would require the Sunshine
Law notice to identify all of the “public locations”
where participating board members will be physically present and
indicate that members of the public may join board members at
any of the “identified public locations.” This amendment
effectively removes the current requirement for all meetings to
allow physical access by members of the public, as board members
would now be able to participate in meetings from the privacy
of their homes. The amendment would also allow board meetings
to be held via webinars or teleconferences where board members
and members of the public would log in or call in to participate
in the meeting. Although the amendment was proposed in order to
accommodate disabled board members, it may have unintended consequences
that could reduce the ability of members of the public, whether
or not disabled, to participate in public meetings. S.B. 2737,
S.D. 1, H.D. 1 will be referred next to the House Finance Committee.
Today, the Senate Committees on Economic Development
and Technology and on Judiciary and Labor will hear H.B.
2404, H.D. 1, relating to the electronic posting of public
meeting minutes.
For the latest on open government news, look here
on the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on OIP’s
e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
Hearings on Open Government Bills
March 12, 2012
The House of Representatives has wasted no time
in scheduling important open government bills that crossed over
from the Senate last week. The state Office of Information Practices’
proposals—S.B.
2858, S.D. 1 (appeals bill) and S.B.
2859, S.D. 1 (Sunshine bill)—will be heard by the House
Judiciary Committee this Friday, March 16, 2012, at 2 p.m. On
Thursday, March 15, at 2:00 p.m., the House Judiciary Committee
will hear S.B.
2737, S.D. 1 regarding teleconferenced meetings and S.B.
2233, S.D. 2 appropriating funds to establish a centralized
state website for publication of legal notices and to provide
website access from public libraries.
OIP hopes for your continued support of its proposals,
as well as for its request for additional funding in S.B. 2233,
S.D. 2 to provide necessary training and support for the new electronic
notice requirements proposed by the Senate in S.B.
2234, S.D. 2.
For the latest on open government news, look here
on the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on OIP’s
e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
Open Government Bills Pass Half-Way Point
March 8, 2012
Open government proposals, which directly affect
the Office of Information Practices (OIP), Uniform Information
Practices Act (UIPA) or Sunshine Law and have crossed over to
the other house, are as follows:
S.B.
2858, S.D. 1 (OIP’s appeals bill) – establishes
a uniform process to allow government agencies to challenge OIP’s
decisions under the UIPA and Sunshine Law.
S.B.
2859, S.D. 1 (OIP’s Sunshine bill) –
establishes three new permitted interactions and safeguards under
the Sunshine Law to increase public participation by (1) allowing
less than a quorum of board members to attend community events,
Neighborhood Board meetings, legislative hearings, and other meetings;
(2) allowing testimony to be received at meetings cancelled due
to lack of quorum or technical difficulties; and (3) allowing
greater communication with the public through the use of social
media by less than a quorum of board members.
S.B.
2234, S.D. 2 (electronic posting of agendas, minutes,
and meeting materials) – requires all state and county Sunshine
Law boards to electronically post agendas and eliminates need
to file hard copies; requires state (but not county) boards to
electronically post, within 30 days after a public meeting, the
board’s minutes and written materials that were presented
at the meeting. Allows for meeting notification by e-mail. Implicitly
requires (under the UIPA) boards to redact personal, confidential,
or excluded information from meeting materials before electronic
posting. Defective effective date to ensure further discussion,
including how to make electronic postings accessible to disabled
persons.
S.B.
2233, S.D. 2 (electronic notice and appropriations)
– eliminates the requirement for newspaper publication of
legal notices, and appropriates funds for the state to establish
a centralized website for electronic publication of notices and
to provide website access from the public libraries. Through this
bill, OIP intends to seek funds to train agencies and implement
S.B. 2234’s new requirements.
S.B.
2737, S.D. 1 (teleconferenced meetings) – allows
a public meeting to be conducted by audio communication alone,
and requires a meeting to be terminated if audio communication
cannot be maintained at all meeting locations where a board member
is physically present. Also prevents action upon an agenda item
if the visual aids required for that item are not available for
all participants at all meeting locations within 15 minutes after
audio-only communication is used. Does not change the current
law’s requirement to allow the public to join board members
at any of the noticed locations where board members will be physically
present.
H.B.
1611, H.D. 2 (Sunshine Law) – creates a new
permitted interaction allowing any number of board members to
attend a public gathering or community event that does not directly
relate to any specific board matter over which the board is exercising
its adjudicatory, advisory, or legislative function; creates a
second new permitted interaction allowing any number of board
members to attend conferences and seminars; adds e-mail as a method
by which notice of meetings shall be sent.
H.B.
2404, H.D. 1 (electronic posting of minutes) –
requires public meeting minutes to be electronically posted on
a board’s, the state’s, or the county’s website;
also requires hard copies of minutes.
For the latest on open government news, look here
on the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on OIP’s
e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
OIP Bills Are Crossing Over
March 2, 2012
Both bills proposed by the state Office of Information
Practices (OIP) will be crossing over from the Senate to the House
as S.B.
2858, S.D. 1 (appeals bill) and S.B.
2859, S.D. 1 (Sunshine bill). The bills were amended as previously
described in OIP’s What's New articles on February 7 and
15, 2012. Because the House Judiciary Committee decided to hold
the companion House bills (H.B. 2596 and H.B. 2597), these Senate
bills will be the vehicles for legislative consideration of OIP’s
proposals.
Also crossing over from the Senate to the House
is S.B.
2234, S.D. 1, which requires all state and county boards to
electronically post Sunshine Law meeting agendas, will be crossing
over from the Senate to the House. S.B. 2234, S.D. 1 additionally
requires state (but not county) boards to electronically post,
within 30 days after a public meeting, the board’s minutes
as well as copies of written materials that were presented to
the board at the meeting (“attachments”). Although
the bill has an otherwise intentionally defective enactment date,
the new requirement to electronically post minutes and
attachments will go into effect this July 1, 2012. OIP
intends to seek additional funding in a related bill, S.B.
2233, S.D. 1, to be able to conduct statewide workshops and
handle increased inquiries about these new Sunshine Law requirements
as well as boards’ Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA”)
obligations to redact personal, confidential, or excluded information
from meeting attachments before electronically posting them.
In the meantime, boards may want to study OIP's
existing guides and videos on Sunshine Law and UIPA requirements,
which can be found at hawaii.gov/oip/training.
For information about OIP’s bills’ progress, and other
open government news, look here on the What’s New page,
or ask to be placed on OIP’s e-mail list for weekly What’s
New updates.
OIP Interview on Hawaii Public Radio
February 27, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices’
(OIP) director Cheryl Kakazu Park and staff attorney Jennifer
Brooks were interviewed by Beth-Ann Kozlovich on Hawaii Public
Radio’s Town Square program on February 23, 2012. The in-depth
interview discussed various issues, including a recent records
request made to all state and county agencies as well as OIP’s
powers, duties, resources, direction, and pending legislation.
To listen to the one-hour interview, go to http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/content/town-sqaure-february-23-2012.
For the latest news regarding OIP and open government,
look here on the What’s New page, or ask to be placed on
OIP’s e-mail list for weekly What’s New updates.
Legislative Update
February 23, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
has been tracking 264 bills pending before the Hawaii Legislature,
and has prepared testimony for 48 of them. OIP’s three highest
priority bills are S.B.
2858 (appeals bill), S.B.
2859 (Sunshine Law bill), and S.B.
2234 (electronic posting bill), all of which are being amended
by the Senate. At yesterday’s joint hearing before the Senate
Committees on Economic Development and Technology and on Judiciary
and Labor regarding S.B. 2234, lead chair Senator Carol Fukunaga
asked OIP to work with other stakeholders to suggest amendments
that would address various technical and legal concerns regarding
this proposal to require electronic posting of meeting agendas
and minutes. Decision-making on S.B. 2234 will take place on February
29 at 9:30 a.m.
While the House Judiciary Committee has held hearings
on OIP’s companion bills (H.B.
2596 and H.B.
2597), it decided to hold those bills in order to work with
the Senate drafts that are expected to cross over to the House.
The House Judiciary Committee has also heard and, due to substantial
opposition, decided to hold H.B.
2742, which would have exempted the county councils from the
Sunshine Law. During Tuesday’s hearing on H.B. 2742, Maui
councilmembers raised specific concerns that the Sunshine Law
unduly restricts their ability to utilize social media and to
attend other meetings with community groups and constituents.
As OIP responded, however, these concerns have been addressed
in S.B. 2859, S.D. 1, which contains adequate safeguards while
allowing for better gathering and sharing of information as well
as increased public participation.
For the latest on open government news, look here
on the What’s New page.
OIP Bills Advancing
February 15, 2012
The bills proposed by the state Office of Information
Practices (OIP) will be advancing as S.B.
2858, S.D. 1 (appeals bill) and S.B.
2859, S.D. 1 (Sunshine bill). The House Judiciary Committee,
chaired by Representative Gilbert Keith-Agaran, decided to hold
the companion House bills (H.B.
2596 and H.B.
2597) in order to work with one set of bills when the Senate’s
bills move over to the House.
Both Senate bills are single referrals to the Senate
Judiciary and Labor Committee (JDL) chaired by Senator Clayton
Hee and were passed out of committee. At the JDL decision making,
the committee decided to pass out S.B. 2858 with amendments requested
by the League of Women Voters to place a 30-day time limit for
agencies to file a judicial appeal from an OIP decision. The time
limit is similar to those already found in current court rules.
JDL also voted to pass S.B. 2859 with amendments
that would clarify that the board must provide only the social
media addresses or identifications used for board discussions
subject to the Sunshine Law and not those relating to board members’
personal usage. The JDL committee’s amendments would also
remove the electronic notice provisions of the original bill,
beginning on page 6, line 15 through page 11, line 20. These provisions
will instead be addressed in S.B.
2234, which is another bill requiring electronic posting of
meeting agendas and minutes. S.B. 2234 has been jointly referred
to JDL and the Senate Economic Development and Technology Committee
(EDT) chaired by Senator Carol Fukunaga, and is scheduled to be
heard on Wednesday, February 22, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.
OIP appreciates the widespread support that its
bills have received and will keep you informed of their progress
here on the What’s New page.
OIP's Bills' Status
February 7, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
is pleased to report that the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee
(JDL), chaired by Senator Clayton Hee, voted today to advance
SB
2858, SD 1, which establishes a clear, new appeals
process for government agencies to judicially challenge OIP’s
decisions. At the request of the League of Women Voters, JDL amended
the bill to include a 30-day time limit for agencies to file an
appeal from an OIP decision, and a deliberately defective effective
date was also added to ensure that the bill will go into conference.
In order to work out some logistics with another
Senate committee, JDL deferred decision making on OIP’s
other bill, SB
2859 relating to Sunshine Law revisions, until Thursday,
February 9, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in conference room 016. OIP remains
hopeful, however, that JDL will ultimately pass out SB 2859, with
revisions.
This Friday, February 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., the
House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Gilbert Keith-Agaran,
will be hearing OIP’s companion bills, HB
2596 (appeals bill) and HB
2597 (Sunshine bill).
OIP would like to thank all of the government departments,
agencies, and boards along with the public interest groups and
private sector organizations that testified in support of OIP’s
bills in the Senate, and we hope that you will do the same in
the House this Friday. By pulling together as a team, we can improve
Hawaii’s open government laws to enhance government efficiency
and cost savings while effectively protecting the public’s
right to transparency and increasing public participation in government.
MAHALO!
Senate Hearing on OIP's Bills
This Thursday, 2/2/12
January 30, 2012
The Office of Information Practices’ (OIP)
two bills will be heard by the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee
(Senator Clayton Hee, Chair) this Thursday,
February 2, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in Conference Room 16 at
the State Capitol.
Click
here for detailed summaries of SB 2858
(appeals; companion to HB 2596) and SB
2859 (Sunshine Law; companion to HB 2597). Links to bill
status and bill text are immediately
below in the January 24 What's New.
OIP hopes to have widespread support for these bills.
OIP’S 2012 Legislative Bills Introduced
January 24, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices is pleased
to announce that its two legislative proposals are in Governor
Neil Abercrombie’s administration package and have been
introduced in the 2012 legislative session.
One proposal, introduced as HB 2596 and SB 2858,
seeks to clarify the right of government agencies to appeal
to the courts an OIP determination that mandates the disclosure
of records under the Uniform Information Practices Act.
The second proposal, introduced as HB 2597 and SB
2859, seeks to modernize the Sunshine Law by
providing for the electronic filing of public meeting notices
and establishing three new permitted interactions, including one
regarding social media usage.
HB 2596 (Appeals) - link to bill
status; link to bill text
SB 2858 (Appeals) - link to bill
status; link to bill text
HB 2597 (Sunshine Law) - link to
bill
status; link to bill text
SB 2859 (Sunshine Law) - link to bill
status; link to bill text
OIP GUIDANCE ON UIPA
COMPLEX RECORD REQUESTS AND ‘PUBLIC INTEREST’ FEE
WAIVERS
January 18, 2012
The Office of Information Practices (OIP)
is often asked for advice on dealing with particularly large or
complex record requests that agencies receive under the state’s
Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), Chapter 92F, Hawaii
Revised Statutes. The fact that a request will require extensive
agency efforts to respond is not, by itself, a basis for the agency
to deny that request; however, OIP’s rules set out at chapter
2-71, Hawaii Administrative Rules, do provide government agencies
with some tools in handling such a request in a way that will
not unreasonably interfere with their normal functions. Although
a complex request may have unique aspects for which an agency
will require individual advice, there are many common issues that
arise for agencies responding to such requests.
OIP has attached and posted online a new Informal
Guide to Processing Large or Complex UIPA Record Requests
that basically compiles general legal advice provided primarily
through OIP’s Attorney of the Day service. Although OIP
has provided references to the relevant rules where appropriate,
this guide is intended as informal advice and is not intended
to replace such sources as the rules themselves, the Impact Statement
for the rules, or formal opinions that have interpreted the rules.
Additional guidelines and forms to respond to record requests
are in OIP’s Open
Records Guide to Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices
Act, which can be found on OIP’s website at http://hawaii.gov/oip.
Additionally, OIP issued the attached
letter to the American Civil Liberties Union, which provides
guidance as to when the $60 “public interest” waiver
of search, review, and segregation fees should be granted by an
agency under the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA). Noting
that nonprofit organizations and public interest groups do not
automatically qualify for the public interest fees waiver when
making records requests under the federal Freedom of Information
Act, OIP concluded that a public interest fee waiver could be
denied under the UIPA when a requester offers merely conclusory
or general statements without sufficient facts to demonstrate
its “primary intention and actual ability to widely disseminate
information.” A requester must further demonstrate that
the requested record pertains to an agency’s operation or
activities; however, the record’s relative importance to
the public is not a factor. OIP will generally decline to review
an agency’s factual determinations and will respect the
agency’s decision as to whether a request for a “public
interest” fee waiver fulfills the criteria set forth in
OIP’s administrative rules. To make the guidance letter
readily accessible, OIP has posted it under the “Openline/Guidance”
section of OIP’s website at hawaii.gov/oip.
OIP’S 2012 Legislative Proposals
January 11, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices is pleased
to announce that its two legislative proposals have been submitted
for inclusion in Governor Neil Abercrombie’s administration
package for the 2012 legislative session.
One proposal seeks to clarify the right of government
agencies to appeal to the courts an OIP determination that mandates
the disclosure of records under the Uniform Information Practices
Act. The second proposal seeks to modernize the Sunshine Law by
providing for the electronic filing of public meeting notices
and establishing three new permitted interactions, including one
regarding social media usage.
Click
here for detailed summaries of these proposals. Once the proposals
are finalized and become available for public distribution, the
bills and future updates will also be posted on OIP’s website.
Please contact oip@hawaii.gov with your comments about the bills,
or send them to OIP at 250 South Hotel Street, Suite 107, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96813.
OIP’S 2011 Annual Report
January 4, 2012
The state Office of Information Practices has released
its annual report for fiscal year (FY) 2011, which began on July
1, 2010, and ended on June 30, 2011. The full report can be found
on OIP’s website at hawaii.gov/oip/reports.html.
Because the annual report is on a fiscal year basis,
it does not describe OIP’s activities for the latter half
of the calendar year. For calendar year 2011, OIP initiated the
following new products and activities:
• Three free on-line training videos regarding
the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) and the Sunshine
Law, which are available 24/7 to anyone
• Continuing legal education seminars in Honolulu, Hilo,
Kona, Kahului, and Wailea, which trained over 265 state and
county government attorneys, as well as private attorneys and
members of the public
• Workshops for board personnel and attorneys on how to
write agendas and minutes complying with the Sunshine Law
• A new online “Agenda Guidance for Sunshine Law
Boards”
• A new online Sunshine Law Guide specifically for Neighborhood
Boards
• Updated online guides for the Sunshine Law and UIPA,
as well as Personnel Guidelines
• The first online survey to determine users’ needs
and satisfaction with OIP’s services
• Weekly e-mails of open government news and OIP’s
updates
• Legislative proposals for the 2012 session
While the annual report shows that OIP’s
budget allocations have decreased every year since FY 2008 and
explains that one staff attorney position was largely unfilled
since FY 2010 due to budget restrictions, OIP has accomplished
more with less in 2011, by effectively using technology and efficiently
leveraging its staff. By proactively educating government personnel--especially
the key legal advisors to the agencies and boards--and by making
the training also available to members of the public and “watchdogs”
through the use of technology, OIP hopes to increase understanding
of and compliance with Hawaii’s open government laws and
to quickly resolve any problems that may arise.
OIP will be busy in the first half of 2012 with
the legislative session and OIP’s proposals to clarify and
modernize Hawaii’s open government laws, which will be discussed
in an upcoming What’s New article. Depending on the legislative
results, OIP plans to work on appeal and other administrative
rules in the second half of 2012 and also hopes to reduce its
backlog of cases then.
OIP looks forward to 2012 and wishes everyone
a Hauoli Makahiki Hou!
Two New Training Videos:
on-line at hawaii.gov/oip
December 20, 2011
As our holiday gift to you, the state Office of
Information Practices is pleased to announce that two new training
videos have been posted on our website at hawaii.gov/oip! One
video provides in-depth training on the Uniform Information Practices
Act, while the other explains the Sunshine Law. Each video is
a PowerPoint presentation with a voice-over and is in two parts,
which will take a total of approximately 1-½ hours to complete.
OIP is using technology to efficiently leverage
its limited resources. These on-line videos provide the same content
that OIP formerly presented in person, and they are now more readily
available 24/7 to all government agencies as well as members of
the public. By asking agencies to first view these videos for
basic training on the open government laws, OIP can more effectively
follow-up with specialized in-person training to answer questions
and focus on agencies’ specific areas of concern.
This will be OIP's final What’s
New for 2011. We’ll be back with more next year. In the
meantime, Mele Kalikimaka and Hauoli Makahiki Hou!
Basic UIPA training
video, part 1 (streaming)
Basic UIPA training video,
part 2 (streaming)
Once a video begins playing, you can download and
save it to RealPlayer by mousing over the video and then clicking
in the upper right on "Download This Video." (If you
need to download the free RealPlayer to your computer, go to www.real.com/realplayer.)
Materials for Basic UIPA
training:
1. UIPA training
slides handout (pdf)
2. UIPA
training Shrimp Board record set (pdf)
3. Open Records: Guide
to Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act
(pdf, print in landscape)
4. Open
Records: Guide to Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act
COVER PAGE
(pdf)
Basic Sunshine
Law training video, part 1 (streaming)
Basic Sunshine Law training
video, part 2 (streaming)
Once a video begins playing, you can download and
save it to RealPlayer by mousing over the video and then clicking
in the upper right on "Download This Video." (If you
need to download the free RealPlayer to your computer, go to www.real.com/realplayer.)
Materials for Basic Sunshine
Law training:
1. Sunshine
Law training slides handout (pdf)
2. Sunshine Law
training bad agenda (pdf)
3. Sunshine Law
training good agenda (pdf)
4. Agenda guidance
5. Open Meetings:
Guide to "The Sunshine Law" for State and County Boards
(pdf, print in landscape)
6. Open
Meetings: Guide to "The Sunshine Law" for State and
County Boards COVER PAGE (pdf)
OpenLine Newsletter
with Sunshine Law Quiz
December 7, 2011
The Office of Information Practices’ OpenLine
newsletter
for December is now available on the OIP website. This month’s
edition tests your knowledge about the Sunshine Law with a short
quiz. Check it out and see if you can answer all six questions
correctly! Past newsletters are also available on the OpenLine
page.
Also, spaces have filled fast for OIP’s
Workshop Wednesdays on how to write Sunshine
Law meeting agendas and notices using your own
materials as learning tools. If you have not been able to register
for any of the current workshops, please let OIP know that you
are interested and we will try to add new workshop dates next
year. Contact Dawn Shimabukuro OIP by calling (808) 586-1400 or
e-mailing oip@hawaii.gov.
OIP Survey Results
November 30, 2011
MAHALO to those people who responded to OIP’s
first-ever survey of its users! While a more detailed summary,
along with the survey Response Summary and respondents’
comments are linked below, OIP is pleased to announce that 94.1%
(48 of 51) of the respondents reported being satisfied (39) or
very satisfied (9) with OIP’s services overall, and only
three persons (5.9%) were dissatisfied. Moreover, eight (89%)
of the nine people who had requested OIP’s assistance in
obtaining government records or concerning a potential Sunshine
Law violation were satisfied with the help they received from
OIP.
For more survey results, see a more detailed
written summary, the survey questions and responses in a “Response
Summary,” and comments
received from respondents.
Circuit Court Says Governor Must
Release Judicial Nominee Names
Circuit Court Judge Karl Sakamoto orally ruled
on November 14, 2011, that the Uniform Information Practices Act
(“UIPA”) requires Governor Neil Abercrombie to disclose
the names of the judicial nominees who were not selected for appointment
to the Hawaii Supreme Court. Until Judge Sakamoto’s written
decision is filed, the Attorney General has not decided whether
it will appeal the ruling.
Although Judge Sakamoto’s rationale is not yet available,
it appears that his reported conclusion is consistent with OIP’s
conclusion in Opinion
No. 03-03. In that 2003 opinion, OIP had concluded that the
UIPA did not require the Governor to disclose the list of nominees
prior to Senate confirmation because the judicial
appointment process could be frustrated by political maneuvering
and manipulation, but stated in footnote 9 “that the ‘frustration’
exception no longer applies to a List of Nominees maintained by
the appointing authority after Senate confirmation”
(emphasis added) because “there is no conceivable scenario
in which disclosure [at that time] would frustrate the appointing
authority’s ability to make an appointment.”
Because this issue was addressed in an existing
opinion, OIP declined media requests to divert its small staff
resources to render another advisory opinion on the same issue
that would ultimately be appealed and subjected to de novo judicial
review. Instead, as OIP recommended, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser
exercised its right to obtain expedited judicial review of the
denial of its request for the judicial nominee list.
Rather than being tied up in one case that should be decided by
the courts, OIP has been efficiently using its limited resources
to address matters of equal importance to other members of the
public and government agencies and has been creating new, proactive
materials, such as continuing legal education courses, on-line
video training, and agenda guidelines and workshops.
About one-half of the spaces are still available
for Sunshine boards to sign up for the Workshop
Wednesdays (see below) to learn how to prepare meeting
agendas and minutes, which begin on November 30. To register,
please contact Dawn Shimabukuro at (808) 586-1400 or e-mail oip@hawaii.gov.
Agenda and Minutes Workshops
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP) will
be hosting “Workshop Wednesdays” at the State Office
Tower in Honolulu to teach Sunshine Law boards how to properly
prepare public meeting agendas and minutes.
The free, one-hour workshops will be offered to
boards’ secretaries, executive directors, and attorneys,
who will be asked before the workshop to provide a set of their
agendas and minutes that will be shared with the other participants.
At the workshop, an OIP staff attorney will provide comments and
answer questions as to how each board’s agenda or minutes
could be improved. Using a board’s own materials may help
its key personnel to better understand what the Sunshine Law requires
and will provide a practical learning experience.
Workshops will be held on Wednesday, November
30 and December 7, 14, and 21, 2011, from
10:30 to 11:30 a.m. Registration for each workshop will be limited
to twelve Sunshine Law boards.
To register, please email oip@hawaii.gov
or call Dawn Shimabukuro at (808) 586-1400.
Agenda Guidance for Sunshine Law Boards
and Deadline for Maui Seminar
November 2, 2011
The state Office of Information Practices
(“OIP”) is pleased to announce that its new “Agenda
Guidance for Sunshine Law Boards” is now available on
its website at hawaii.gov/oip. The new guide provides Sunshine
Law boards with tips and examples of how to craft a good, informative
agenda that will withstand OIP’s scrutiny by providing the
public with reasonable notice of what the board intends to consider
at a meeting.
Rather than defining the minimum notice required
by law, the guide explains how boards can prepare agendas that
will exceed the legal standards and will give interested members
of the public enough information to decide whether to participate
in a meeting. Additionally, the guide shows how agendas can be
narrowly or broadly crafted to define the topics of testimony
by the public as well as the deliberation and decision-making
by the boards. Moreover, the guide discusses the notice requirements
for executive sessions that are closed to the public, and it provides
sample good and bad agendas as well as a checklist of agenda requirements.
Instead of solely reacting to complaints, OIP has
proactively created the agenda guidance to provide practical,
useful information to help government agencies and boards comply
with the Sunshine Law and the Uniform Information Practices Act
and prevent problems from arising in the first place.
Next week, OIP continues its proactive efforts by
presenting its fifth legal education seminar,
which will take place in Wailuku, Maui on November
10, with the support of the County of Maui’s Department
of Corporation Counsel and the Hawaii State Bar Association’s
Government Lawyers Section. The registration deadline for the
Maui seminar has been extended to Monday, November 7.
See below for more details.
Maui
Seminar
November 10, 2011
The State Office of Information Practices (OIP),
in conjunction with the County of Maui, Department of Corporation
Counsel and Hawaii State Bar Association's Government Lawyers
Section, is pleased to present a FREE
seminar providing useful information for attorneys and non-attorneys
about how to comply with Hawaii’s open government laws.
OIP will present “Ethical
Considerations for Counsel when Advising Sunshine Law Boards”
(1.0 MCPE credit) and "Government Attorneys' Obligations
Regarding Open Records Requirements of the Uniform Information
Practices Act" (1.5 VCLE credits; appealing for MCPE credits).
WHEN: Thursday, November 10, 2011
at 8:30 a.m. to noon
WHERE: Dept. of Corp Counsel, Conf Room 200,
2 High St., Wailuku, HI 96793
TO REGISTER ONLINE: complete
the registration form by Monday, November 7,
2011.
Handouts: MAUI Course Materials for 11/10/11:
Course #1 (Open Records):
UIPA Manual;
UIPA cover;
Shrimp
Board records;
UIPA Powerpoint Handout;
OIP's August 2011
newsletter;
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Course #2 (Ethical Considerations):
Outline for Sunshine based MPCS training;
Sunshine Guide
for state and county boards;
Sunshine Guide cover;
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Kona
Seminar
October 21, 2011
OIP’s seminar in Kona on Friday,
October 21, 2011, is being sponsored
by the West Hawaii Bar Association at the King Kamehameha Kona
Beach Hotel from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. OIP will present “Ethical
Considerations for Counsel when Advising Sunshine Law Boards,”
for which attorneys may receive 1.0 MCPE credit. To register,
please contact Carol Kitaoka at csk96750@yahoo.com or call (808)
324-1016.
Handouts: KONA Course Materials for 10/21/11:
Ethical Considerations:
Outline for Sunshine based MPCS training;
Sunshine Guide
for state and county boards;
Sunshine Guide cover;
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Electronic Posting of Meeting Agendas
on State Calendar
Governor Neil Abercrombie issued Executive
Memorandum No. 11-11, which continues the prior practice
of posting meeting agendas electronically on the state’s
online
calendar. Sunshine Law boards, however, are still required
by law to provide physical copies of their meeting agendas with
the Lt. Governor’s office, at least six calendar days
prior to the meeting. As the posting with the Lt. Governor’s
office presently constitutes the official agenda, boards are
reminded to provide that office with any addendums or attachments
that should be part of the official agenda.
Despite unsuccessful past attempts to amend the
law, the Office of Information Practices is considering the
re-introduction of legislation in 2012 to require electronic
posting on the state online calendar by state boards and to
allow electronic posting by county boards. OIP believes that
such use of modern technology would provide more timely, cost-effective,
environmentally friendly, and readily available notice to the
public.
OIP's Reapportionment Commission Ruling:
The state Office of Information Practices has
issued a memorandum opinion in a case challenging the State
Reapportionment Commission’s agendas and members’
participation in its Technical Committee. Based on the specific
facts of that case, the ten-page memorandum opinion concludes
that the Commission did not violate the Sunshine Law by discussing
items on its July 12 and 19, 2011 agendas, by adding an item
to its June 28 meeting, and by members’ participation
in its Technical Committee.
Memorandum opinions provide guidance in limited factual circumstances
or on issues that have already been more fully addressed in
OIP’s formal opinions, and they are not relied upon as
precedent by OIP. Given the length of this particular opinion
and the widespread interest in the Reapportionment Commission’s
work, OIP has chosen to release the entire opinion to the public
rather than merely providing a summary of it on OIP’s
website. The full
memorandum opinion is available here, and a
summary is provided under the informal opinion letter summaries
as S Memo 12-6 for 2011.
Online Survey:
Finally, please don’t forget to participate
in OIP’s online survey. We want to hear from you!
To serve you better and to more effectively utilize
our limited resources, the Office of Information Practices is
asking users to participate in an online
survey. The survey should take only five to ten minutes
to complete. Because OIP would like to consider the information
before finalizing our legislative proposals for 2012, please
respond to the survey by October 10, 2011.
Note: The survey has been extended and will be
open until November 11, 2011.
Mahalo!
OIP Revises Personnel Guidelines
The Office of Information Practices
(OIP) has revised its Personnel
Guidelines (effective September 7, 2011) to assist state
and county agencies in understanding what employment records
must be disclosed under the Uniform Information Practices Act.
State Calendar:
Visit the State
Calendar to view meeting notices of state boards and commissions.
Please note: the State Calendar is maintained by the
Department of Accounting and General Services.
See Executive
Memo 11-11 (September 15, 2011) regarding "Posting
Meeting Notices on the State Online Calendar."
Handouts: HILO Course Materials for 9/30/11
and 10/1/11:
Flyer: September
30 - October 1 HILO flyer (pdf)
Registration is now closed for the HILO
seminars.
Course #1 (Open Records):
UIPA Manual;
UIPA cover;
Shrimp
Board records;
UIPA Powerpoint Handout;
OIP's August 2011
newsletter;
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Course #2 (Open Meetings):
Sunshine Guide for state and county boards;
Sunshine Guide cover;
Shrimp Board bad agenda;
Shrimp Board good agenda;
Sunshine Powerpoint Handout;
OIP's August 2011 newsletter
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Courses #3 (Ethical Considerations):
Sunshine Guide
for state and county boards;
Sunshine Guide cover;
Outline for Sunshine based MPCS training;
OIP's August 2011 newsletter;
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Handouts: Honolulu Course Materials for 9/28/11:
Course
#1
Courses #2 and #4
Course #3
Register now for OIP's Free
Legal Education Seminars
in Honolulu, Hilo, and Kona
The Office of Information Practices (OIP) is
pleased to present free seminars providing legal education credits
on the open government laws in Honolulu
on Wednesday, September 28; in Hilo,
on Friday, September 30 and Saturday, October 1; and in Kona
on Friday, October 21, 2011. Attorneys can earn one mandatory
continuing professional education (MCPE) credit for one course,
and possibly more MCPE credits for the two other courses being
presented.
OIP has received the Hawaii State Bar Association’s
approval to offer 1.0 MCPE credit for one course, “Ethical
Considerations for Counsel When Advising Sunshine Law Boards.”
OIP can also offer 1.5 voluntary continuing legal education
credits (VCLE) for each of the following two courses that are
being presented: (1) Government Attorneys' Obligations Regarding
Open Records Requirements of the Uniform Information Practices
Act (1.5 VCLE credits) and (2) Government Attorneys' Obligations
Regarding Open Meetings Requirements of the Sunshine Law (1.5
VCLE credits). OIP is currently seeking reconsideration of the
HSBA’s denial of MCPE credits and has requested retroactive
approval of MCPE credits for the VCLE courses.
Details and registration information for the Honolulu
and Hilo seminars can be found below. Registration
is due by Friday, September 23. Further information
about Kona and other seminars will be sent
in future e-mails and posted at What’s New on OIP’s
website.
HONOLULU SEMINARS September 28, 2011:
NOTE: An afternoon session of the Ethical
Considerations course has been added for Honolulu (as Course
#4 at 3:30). For details and all course times, see the amended
flyer below:
September
28 HONOLULU amended flyer (MS Word) (pdf)
Registration is now closed for the September
28 HONOLULU seminars.
*** HANDOUTS***
HONOLULU Course materials:
Course #1 (Open
Meetings):
Sunshine Guide for state and county boards;
Sunshine Guide cover;
Shrimp Board bad agenda;
Shrimp Board good agenda;
Sunshine Powerpoint Handout;
OIP's August 2011
newsletter
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Courses
#2 & #4 (Ethical Considerations):
Sunshine
Guide for state and county boards;
Sunshine
Guide cover;
Outline for Sunshine based MPCS training;
OIP's August 2011
newsletter;
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Course
#3 (Open Records):
UIPA Manual;
UIPA cover;
Shrimp
Board records;
UIPA Powerpoint Handout;
OIP's August 2011
newsletter;
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
HILO SEMINARS September 30 and October
1, 2011:
September
30 - October 1 HILO flyer (pdf)
Registration is now closed for the HILO
seminars.
*** HANDOUTS***
HILO Course materials:
Course #1 (Open Records):
UIPA Manual;
UIPA cover;
Shrimp
Board records;
UIPA Powerpoint Handout;
OIP's August 2011
newsletter;
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Course #2 (Open Meetings):
Sunshine Guide for state and county boards;
Sunshine Guide cover;
Shrimp Board bad agenda;
Shrimp Board good agenda;
Sunshine Powerpoint Handout;
OIP's August 2011
newsletter
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Courses #3 (Ethical Considerations):
Sunshine
Guide for state and county boards;
Sunshine
Guide cover;
Outline for Sunshine based MPCS training;
OIP's August 2011
newsletter;
Evaluation;
CLE
Certificate of Attendance.
Recent Open
Government News:
What's New: Tweeted Information Requests
Are Valid in the United Kingdom
To tweet or not to tweet – the
question facing government agencies worldwide. If they choose
to tweet, public authorities in England have recently been
told that they must respond to records requests sent via government
agencies’ Twitter accounts. To link to the article,
click
here.
Openline Newsletter:
Q&A: OIP Facts (including: What does
OIP do? What resources does OIP have to do its job? What are
OIP's priorities? What's new at OIP? How does OIP obtain compliance?
What happens if an agency refuses to comply? Can agencies appeal
in court to challenge an OIP opinion?)
Recent Open
Government News
from Around the Nation:
Utah: HB477 and Utah's open government law
...
On March 25, 2011, after a special session,
Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert repealed a controversial bill
that had been passed by the Legislature on March 7 and signed
by him on March 8. HB 477 would have changed the state’s
Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) to narrow
the definition of "public record," exempt the Legislature
from open records requirements, impose new fees for accessing
public records, and place upon a requester the burden of proving
by a preponderance of evidence that a government record should
be disclosed. The bill's text had been first made public on
March 1 and two public hearings on it were held in the final
days of the Legislature, where all testifiers except its sponsors
had opposed HB 477's passage. To view the text and legislative
history of HB 477, visit
the Utah State Legislature site.
Salt Lake Tribune: "Move
to dilute GRAMA stirred up hornets' nest"
Salt Lake Tribune: "Utah
lawmakers repeal HB 477"
Salt Lake Tribune: "Records
expert: GRAMA strong but worth a review"
Salt Lake Tribune: "Working
group considers open records laws"
View more related
links ... Hawaii, USA, and International
Sunshine Law Video:
OIP now has a one-hour training video: "Introduction to the
Sunshine Law" for board and commission members, and also
of interest to the public. You can view the training video here,
or go to OIP's new training page for
additional guides and training materials.
Hawaii State
Office Of Information Practices from Mark
Wolf on Vimeo.
Once the video begins playing, you can download
and save it to RealPlayer by mousing over the video and then clicking
in the upper right on "Download This Video." (If you
need to download the free RealPlayer to your computer, go to www.real.com/realplayer.)
What's New Press Release:
July 19, 2011-
The Raw Truth
OIP administers Hawaii’s open government laws:
the Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA,” Chapter
92F, H.R.S.) mandating open access to public records and the “Sunshine
Law” (Part I of Chapter 92, H.R.S.) requiring open public
meetings. OIP also maintains the Records Report System, which
is an internet database identifying over 27,000 titles of records
maintained by state and county governments and whether the public
is entitled to access them.
While OIP administers the open government laws, it does not make
them and its interpretation of these laws is still subject to
legislative amendments and court rulings. Without presenting an
accurate understanding of the law or OIP’s role in preserving
open government, some people have incorrectly asserted that OIP
has the power to compel government officials to disclose information
based on the UIPA’s statement that when an OIP determination
is to disclose, the agency “shall
make the record available.” H.R.S. Sec. 92F-27.5(b). The
raw truth is that the law does not give OIP the power to enforce
its rulings.
Unlike a court, OIP has never been given authority under the law
to subpoena records or witnesses, to issue injunctions, to compel
an agency to follow its ruling, or to fine a recalcitrant agency
for contempt. As the Hawaii Supreme Court bluntly noted, the “UIPA
does not provide OIP with enforcement powers to compel an agency
to make government records available or to itself seek court assistance
to compel disclosure.” `Olelo v. Office of Inform. Practices,
116 Haw. 337, 346 n.2 (2007). The Hawaii Supreme Court has also
rejected OIP’s vigorous arguments that its determinations
mandating disclosure are binding upon agencies under H.R.S. Section
92F-27.5(b) and that the UIPA does not permit government agencies
to appeal OIP’s decisions in light of the explicit legislative
intent in the original conference committee report stating that
agencies should not be suing agencies. Instead, after two years
of appeals, the Hawaii Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Intermediate
Court of Appeals’ decision in County of Kauai v. OIP,
120 Haw. 34, 200 P.3d 403 (2009), which allowed an agency to sue
OIP under the Sunshine Law and overturned a determination that
OIP had made under the UIPA. In essence, the courts decided that
they, not OIP, have the last word in resolving both UIPA and Sunshine
Law issues. And while judges are not sued when they issue decisions
with which agencies disagree, the County of Kauai opinion
allowed an agency to challenge an OIP decision by suing OIP instead
of the requestor. Consequently, to avoid being mired in new appeals
that would interfere with resolution of OIP’s backlog of
opinion requests and would distract OIP from performing its many
other duties, OIP has temporarily suspended since 2009 the issuance
of determinations mandating disclosure and will provide only advisory
opinions until it can obtain legislative clarification of its
authority and its appeal rights and responsibilities during the
2012 session.
With or without an OIP opinion, requestors always have the right
to sue a recalcitrant agency in court, as one newspaper recently
did to obtain the release of police records. Not only does the
court have subpoena, injunctive, and contempt powers, it is specifically
empowered to compel disclosure of records, to void board action,
and to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing
party on appeal. In past cases that
were important to the media or public interest groups, requestors
have not been afraid to exercise their alternative right to sue
an agency that has refused to abide by OIP’s decisions.
See, e.g., Right to Know Committee v. City Council,
117 Haw. 1, 175 P.3d 111 (2007); SHOPO v. City and County
of Honolulu, 83 Haw. 378, 927 P.2d 386 (1996). After all,
it is the requestor who initiated the complaint against the agency
and has the most direct interest in the case, so the law permits
the requestor to sue the agency in court for alleged violations.
Indeed, under the federal Freedom of Information Act and in most
states, the only way to obtain binding enforcement of the open
records laws is by filing a lawsuit against the agency in court.
In Hawaii, OIP has been the initial and preferred alternative
to court actions because OIP is usually able to resolve disputes
in a free, informal, and timely manner. Members of the public
can now easily seek and obtain advice and assistance from OIP,
without having to be represented by an attorney. But if OIP is
given the power to subpoena, fine, or compel agencies to follow
its rulings, will the cases presented to OIP then become subject
to the more expensive, formal, and lengthy procedures required
in court or contested case proceedings? Since the Legislature
clearly did not intend OIP to follow contested case procedures,
then why would it now grant OIP quasi-judicial authority paralleling
the court’s powers without also requiring more stringent
legal proceedings? With more burdensome procedural requirements,
would OIP be given additional tax dollars and resources to meet
its new responsibilities while continuing to fulfill all of its
other duties, to train and advise agencies, and to provide easy
access to justice for the public, including the media? And, if
OIP no longer offered the alternative of an informal dispute resolution
process, would requestors who will not sue now—even when
armed with OIP advisory opinions in their favor—be prepared
to seek court enforcement of the open government laws each time
an agency denied or dawdled on a record request?
While people may be aware of a few cases selectively profiled
in the media, they do not realize that these cases are just the
tip of the iceberg of work that OIP performs to ensure open government.
Each year, OIP receives over 800 requests for assistance or training,
which are handled by three staff attorneys. More than 80% of these
requests are resolved the same day through OIP’s attorney
of the day service and more than 70% of those daily requests come
from government agencies seeking training or advice on how to
comply with the UIPA or Sunshine laws. The media is one of the
heaviest users of OIP’s services, constituting nearly 20%
of the 187 attorney of the day requests from the public that OIP
received last year. In all but a few cases, OIP has been successful
in obtaining government agencies’ and boards’ voluntary
compliance with its advice and rulings. Thanks to the genuine
desire of government officials and volunteer board members to
comply with the law, OIP is able to fulfill its various responsibilities
and to protect the public’s interest in open and transparent
government.
For OIP to continue to provide free and timely assistance to the
public and to government agencies, OIP cannot be bogged down in
litigation and court appeals, as it was during 2008 and 2009,
which resulted in a backlog of OIP’s pending requests for
opinions. Moreover, given the severe cutbacks in government funding,
OIP is not blind to the costs of hiring special counsel to represent
it in litigation against another state agency because the Attorney
General’s office may be conflicted from representing both
opposing parties in the case. Thus, rather than splurging taxpayers’
dollars and tying up OIP’s and other government entities’
limited time and resources on only a couple of cases requiring
court action for enforcement, OIP has chosen to protect the greater
public interest and to keep the wheels of government functioning
by concentrating on the hundreds of requests daily seeking OIP’s
assistance and by helping the vast majority of agencies who willingly
comply with the law.
In the past three months, OIP has also begun leveraging its small
staff by developing new legal training courses specifically geared
towards government attorneys who advise state and county agencies,
so that these additional attorneys will understand Hawaii’s
open government laws and can properly advise their government
clients on how to comply with them. Moreover, OIP has updated
its on-line UIPA and Sunshine Law guides, has created a new Sunshine
Law guide specifically for neighborhood boards, and has provided
in-person training on Oahu, Maui, and Kauai to assist the general
public, volunteer board members, and state and county government
officials in understanding Hawaii’s open government laws.
OIP has already videotaped one training session on the Sunshine
Law and plans to do more videos, which will soon be posted on
its website so that people can have access to OIP’s training
24/7 from all islands.
During the next few months, OIP will be busy getting input on
and developing proposals for its legislative package for the 2012
session. While OIP’s main priority is to seek clarification
of its authority and appeal rights and responsibilities, OIP is
also developing a proposal to allow government’s use of
social media as a means of increasing public participation and
government transparency.
Since the 1978 Sunshine Law and the 1988 UIPA were originally
enacted, there have been immense changes in technology and how
it is being used by people. Today, social media, such as Facebook,
Twitter, and You Tube, is being used 24/7 to instantly reach millions
of people worldwide and there is increasing interest on the part
of government agencies to use these new communication tools to
disseminate and receive information and to maintain a vibrant
democracy. But because social media discussions using tweets or
Facebook postings are no different than discussions in person,
by telephone, or via email, inadvertent violations of the current
Sunshine Law may occur if social media is used to conduct board
business when more than two board members have been “friended”
or have read other members’ comments posted on mutual friends’
walls. Although there are many policy, legal, technical, and practical
questions that have yet to be resolved, OIP is taking a proactive
role and is reaching out to various government and public interest
groups to avert potential legal problems under the open government
laws and to address other social media issues. Indeed, OIP has
already met with Sonny Bhagowalia, the new Chief Information Officer
of the state’s new Office of Information Management and
Technology, to discuss how the state’s technological capabilities
can be improved to enhance open government and to possibly develop
a model social media policy for the state.
To remain informed of OIP’s activities and for updates,
training materials, rulings, press releases, OpenLine newsletters,
and other information, please check OIP’s website at http://hawaii.gov/oip.
For questions or assistance, please contact OIP via email at oip@hawaii.gov
or by calling (808) 586-1400.
Note: The third and seventh paragraphs of the
originally published article have been clarified to reflect that
OIP temporarily suspended issuance of determinations in 2009,
after court appeals in 2008 and 2009 were concluded.
June 21, 2011-
"Open Records" Guide to Hawaii's Uniform Information
Practices Act
(updated June 2011)
June 14, 2011-
"Open Meetings" Guide to "The Sunshine Law"
(updated June 2011)
June 7, 2011-
OIP Looks to the Future:
2012 Legislative Proposals
The Office of Information Practices (OIP) is already
looking ahead to the 2012 legislative session and has begun
studying issues that may require clarification or updating of
Hawaii’s open government laws, including agencies’
right to appeal OIP’s determinations and the impact of
social media on open government laws.
OIP is charged with administration of Hawaii’s open government
laws: the Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA,”
Chapter 92F, H.R.S.) and the “Sunshine Law” (Part
I of Chapter 92, H.R.S.). While the UIPA clearly gives non-government
requesters the right to sue an agency to compel disclosure of
government records even after an OIP determination that the
agency was justified in denying access to the records, the law
does not specifically give an agency the same right to appeal
an OIP determination that the agency was required to disclose
government records. The agencies’ lack of a right to challenge
OIP’s determinations was expressly acknowledged in a legislative
conference committee report of the original UIPA, which stated
that “[t]he legislative intent for expedience and uniformity
in providing access to government records would be frustrated
by agencies suing each other.”
Based on their interpretation of the Sunshine
Law, however, the courts have allowed a county to challenge
an OIP determination by directly naming OIP in an appeal, rather
than by simply moving the dispute between the county and the
requesters to the court as in a typical appeal. Consequently,
during the next legislative session, OIP intends to seek clarification
of the appeals process and OIP’s authority when issuing
determinations. In the meantime, OIP will continue to provide
advisory opinions instead of determinations.
Another issue for potential legislative action
concerns the government’s use of social media in communicating
with the public, which will also be the main topic of the Hawaii
State Association of Counties’ conference on Maui on June
23, 2011, at which OIP Director Cheryl Kakazu Park will be a
panelist. “There have been vast changes in technology
and communication since 1975 when the Sunshine Law was first
enacted and since 1988 when the UIPA was enacted. Today, there
are new tools and methods to share information, expand discussion,
and engage more people,” Park noted. “These changes
in technology and people’s use of social media, such as
Facebook and Twitter, may require modernization of our open
government laws in order to avoid violations of our current
laws. Therefore, our office is seeking input from various government
agencies and public interest groups to see if changes to the
open government laws are necessary and whether there will be
broad support for proposed legislation that OIP may be willing
to sponsor in the 2012 session.”
For inclusion in its 2012 legislative package,
OIP will consider proposals that are supported with specific
facts or data, such as actual examples of situations indicating
a need for revisions, the adoption of similar legislation by
other states or the federal government, or actual costs of compliance.
“Please keep in mind,” Park said, “that OIP
administers, but does not make, the laws. If there are reasonable
legislative proposals that various interest groups are willing
to support, then OIP will consider including those proposals
in our legislative package next year. And while not all proposed
changes to the law will be supported by OIP as a part of our
legislative package, people always have the right to present
their own proposals directly to the Legislature, which makes
the laws.”
Government entities that would like to participate
in developing OIP’s 2012 legislative package must remember
to follow the usual Sunshine Law requirements to conduct official
business, which includes the establishment of permitted interaction
groups to allow more than two members of the same board or agency
to officially investigate and report on possible legislative
solutions. Proposals to be considered for possible inclusion
in OIP’s legislative package may be submitted to oip@hawaii.gov
by July 5, 2011.
May 31, 2011-
OIP Offers New Training:
MCPE Credits for Attorneys and Board Training Sessions
The state Office of Information Practices (OIP)
will be offering its first accredited legal seminar that provides
attorneys with one credit to meet Hawaii’s mandatory continuing
professional education (MCPE) requirements, beginning in June
2011. Also in June, OIP will be conducting general Sunshine
Law training for county board and commission members on Kauai
and Oahu.
OIP is charged with administration of Hawaii’s open government
laws: the Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA,”
Chapter 92F, H.R.S.) and the “Sunshine Law” (Part
I of Chapter 92, H.R.S.). “To keep our already large backlog
from growing and to prevent violations from occurring in the
first place, OIP is developing new tools to train the many state
and county agencies, boards, and commissions on how to comply
with these laws,” explained OIP Director Cheryl Kakazu
Park. “In addition to our general Sunshine Law training
for board members and staff, our new legal ethics course is
specifically geared to government attorneys who advise state
and county agencies, boards, and commissions on Sunshine Law
issues. Attorneys will earn one MCPE credit for attending this
course. By training these key legal advisors, OIP can leverage
its small staff and be assisted by many other attorneys who
can help us to obtain government agencies’ voluntary compliance
with the laws that we administer,” Park stated.
The new legal course, Ethical Considerations for Counsel
When Advising Sunshine Law Boards, will be offered
for the first time at the Hawaii State Association of Counties’
(HSAC) conference on Maui on June 22, 2011. For HSAC’s
June 22-23 conference, participants must register online at
www.regonline.com/HSAC2011. For a conference informational packet,
contact Toni Rojas, of Sterling Performance Group, by email
at toni@tonirojas.com or by phone at 573-7626.
OIP will be developing two additional legal education
courses on the UIPA and Sunshine Law. After these courses are
accredited, OIP plans to host a seminar with all three courses
in Honolulu in September 2011 and has discussed providing one
or all legal courses in Kona later in the fall. Details of the
upcoming seminars will be announced when they are finalized.
For county board and commission members, OIP will be conducting
general training sessions on the UIPA and Sunshine Law in June.
The training sessions will provide a general overview of the
law and practical information about the public’s right
to participate in meetings of government entities and to obtain
government records. Training on both laws will take place on
Kauai on June 7, 2011, at 8:30 a.m., and additional information
is available from Pualani Borales at pborales@kauai.gov, (808)
241-4917. The Honolulu training on the Sunshine Law will be
held on June 18, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. at the Mission Memorial
Auditorium next to Honolulu Hale, and additional information
is available from Bryan Mick at bmick@honolulu.gov, (808) 768-3717.
