• Illuminating the sunshine law Illuminating the sunshine law By Walter Lewis HRS Section 92 (the sunshine law) sets forth state policy and law for government bodies. It provides that discussions, deliberations, decisions and action by the body should be
• Illuminating the sunshine law
Illuminating the sunshine law
By Walter Lewis
HRS Section 92 (the sunshine law) sets forth state policy and law for government bodies. It provides that discussions, deliberations, decisions and action by the body should be conducted as openly as possible. It also says that although executive meetings are permitted, these exceptions are to be strictly construed. The predominant justification for holding executive meetings is to consult with legal counsel.
The Kaua‘i County Council usage of executive meetings has dramatically expanded in recent years. While Ron Kouchi was chair of the council an average of 20 executive meetings occurred each year. In the over two years that Kaipo Asing has been council chair there have been about 75 executive meetings per year. The county is moving at a rapid pace in a direction of shrouding our government in secrecy.
The purpose of the state Office of Information Practices (OIP) is to assure compliance with the sunshine law. The Garden Island’s May 29 article “County, State battle over Sunshine Law,” discloses that the OIP has found in April that the council has held at least one meeting, (to discuss an item now known as) ES 177, in violation of Section 92. This lapse by itself is not of major concern, and what the county should have done is to quietly acknowledge that it erred in its proceedings and make the disclosures the law requires. However, arrogance intervened, and the council’s strong preference to avoid public discussions of key issues prevailed, so the council is still objecting to the clearly correct OIP position. The council has found a willing ally in the county attorney, who should engage in advising county officials to act in ways that complied with the law. But the county attorney apparently believes in secrecy even more than the council. Under the law, advice from counsel as to claims and litigation matters is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The county attorney has sought to expand this limited doctrine so that all communications from the county attorney’s office to county officials are covered by this cloak, and may not be disclosed except by the recipient, who is encouraged not to do so. The county attorney is supporting the council’s violation of its duties by a path of hindering and delaying the implementation of the OIP ruling with arguments and practices that do not bring credit to her office.
The Garden Island deserves much praise for bringing to public attention our county government’s decline from the standards expressed by state law to require processes of our county government to be conducted in public view and with opportunities for citizen commentaries. It appears that our officials want to transact county affairs behind closed doors and in violation of the laws. If we let this trampling on public right to know to remain uncorrected, we will deserve the loss of our freedoms that will inevitably follow.
- Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and a member of Ohana Kauai.
