• Will the sun shine on public access? Will the sun shine on public access? By Ed Coll The final comment period on the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ (DCCA) plan for the future of PEG access in Hawaii
• Will the sun shine on public access?
Will the sun shine on public access?
By Ed Coll
The final comment period on the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ (DCCA) plan for the future of PEG access in Hawaii are in. Among the elements of the DCCA plan is a option for the counties to oversee PEG. Another element is that if the counties declines this oversight then the DCCA will insist the PEG organizations it oversees comply with Hawaii State Sunshine Laws (HRS 92). So the questions are – should the County of Kauai assume oversight of Ho‘ike? If so, should Hawaii State Sunshine Laws apply to Ho‘ike as they would under the DCCA plan if DCCA continues to maintain oversight?
In considering these options we need to examine Ho‘ike’s historical record regarding Ho‘ike’s willingness to comply with Hawaii State Sunshine Law.
“We abide and construct our organization in light of Sunshine law. As long as I have been a director this has never changed,” testified Ho‘ike Board President Rowena Cobb at an August 13 DCCA public meeting held on Kaua‘i to solicit comments on the DCCA draft plan.
The Ho‘ike bylaws tell a different story. Below are the Ho‘ike bylaw changes approved by the board between March 31, 1999 and August 22, 2002. During this time Rowena Cobb was a board member and/or president.
REMOVED (sec 7.5)
Sec. 7.5 – Open Meetings: Every meeting of the board of directors shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting unless such meeting is closed pursuant to section 7.6 (Executive Meetings)
REMOVED (sec 7.5)
The board shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to present brief oral testimony during a period which is reserved for public comment during the course of the meeting
REMOVED (sec 7.5)
The board shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to present brief oral testimony during a period which is reserved for public comment during the course of the meeting, The board shall afford all persons an opportunity to present oral testimony on non-agenda items during a period reserved for public comment prior to the agenda itself. The time for such testimony shall be limited to 3 minutes unless waived by the board president.
CHANGED (sec 7.5a)
Before change: The Board SHALL provide for reasonable administration of oral testimony by suspending the rules to permit an individual 3 minutes of oral testimony after board discussion and before board action is taken. After change: Should oral testimony be helpful when considering any decision, the Board MAY invite members of the public to provide testimony. The board MAY suspend the rules to permit 3 minutes of oral testimony before board action is taken.
CHANGED (sec 7.5a)
Before change: All or part of a meeting of the board may be recorded by any person in attendance by means of a tape recorder or any other means of electronic reproduction except when a meeting is closed…provided that the recording does not actively interfere with the conduct of the meeting.
After change: There shall be no electronic (video, audio or any other type) reproduction of a meeting unless deemed necessary by the Board of Directors. Only the Board shall be permitted to reproduce Board meetings…
REMOVED (sec 7.8c)
Interested persons will be allowed to place their names in a mailing list to receive written notification of regular, special or rescheduled meetings.
ADDED (sec 7.7)
In addition to the standard wording in HRS92 limiting the reasons to close a public meeting Ho`ike has added
i) Any issues deemed best to be kept confidential
CHANGED (sec. 9.6a)
Before change: The minutes shall be public records and SHALL be available within 30 days after the meeting except where such disclosure will be inconsistent with sec. 7.7 After change: A copy of the minutes MAY be included for publication, as the Board deems appropriate.
Do these bylaw amendments indicate a board willing to comply with Sunshine, or a board that wants to avoid Hawai‘i State Sunshine Laws?
While the pros and cons of county vs state oversight need to be discussed and debated in an open forum it is clear to me that Ho‘ike needs to be watched, and Sunshine Laws provide the light. While Ho‘ike’s mission is to provide public access, Ho‘ike is no friend of the transparency, accountability and oversight Sunshine Laws provides, and have actively worked to eliminate sunshine from their bylaws.
The record speaks for itself. Ho‘ike needs public oversight. Let the sun shine in.
Ed Coll is a resident of Puhi
