Editor’s note: This week’s column is a follow-up to ‘May 1 — The House goes to court’ published April 23, 2025.
First Circuit Court Judge Kawamura heard arguments on the plaintiffs’ motion to summarily decide the case and the House’s argument to summarily dismiss the case. She asked both sides questions and then asked the parties for further briefing on an issue not raised by the parties with a deadline of June 5.
As a member of the audience that day, I found the discussion fascinating, and occasionally somewhat surreal.
The fundamental questions seemed fairly straightforward. Did a specific House Advisory Committee meet privately for the purpose of making a decision on a matter before them, and thus violate the Constitution?
And is this a regular practice of other House Committees?
The plaintiffs’ position was a clear and resounding YES to both questions.
The House, on the other hand, never directly answered either one.
Remember, Article 3 Section 12, paragraph 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution states, “Every meeting of a committee in either house or of a committee comprised of a member or members from both houses held for the purpose of making decision on matters referred to the committee shall be open to the public.”
The House’s position, per its attorney: The Constitutional provision does not apply to the House Advisory Committee because it was formed for “organizational purposes” and committees formed for such purposes are not required to hold public meetings.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys opined that in addition to the constitutional requirement, House Rules required public decision-making, and prior public notice of committee meetings. In addition, there was no “organizational purposes” reference in the rules at the time the committee was originally formed.
The House attorney argued that it doesn’t matter what the House Rules say; the House can choose to follow its own rules or not.
They also claimed that if the House was forced to conduct all of its meetings in public, it would be onerous, impractical, and impossible to do business.
Our Constitution requires public committee meetings, “for the purpose of making decision on matters referred to the committee.” All four County Councils presently conduct their deliberations in public. Clearly the requirement is not unduly onerous.
The House also argued that information provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB), cannot be relied upon by the public or the courts, and should be disregarded.
What?
The (LRB) is an official and respected source of information on the legislative process. Its online description of how legislative committee hearings are normally conducted — supports the plaintiff’s position.
Briefly, committees regularly “recess” after receiving public testimony; discuss and deliberate with staff and committee members privately, with microphones and cameras turned off; then “call the meeting back to order.” With camera and mics back on, they then publicly announce the decision made in private during the recess.
The recess may last a few minutes or a few days. Recess discussions may involve all committee members in the room, or they may be “serial meetings” held with individual members, via telephone, email, text, or maybe even the infamous chat app Signal.
The charade is most obvious during Conference Committee hearings. The House/Senate Committee Chairs will enter the hearing room, sit on opposite sides of the conference table, and summarily announce they’ve “reached agreement” (or not).
Needless to say, it’s impossible to “reach agreement” (or not) without a meeting. These “decision-making meetings before the decision-making meeting” are conducted in private, and thus violate the Constitution.
June 5 will be here soon enough.
Mahalo plenty to the plaintiffs for taking on this important and necessary legal action — Laura Acasio, Sergio J. Alcubilla III, Kaapuni Aiwohi, Tanya Aynessazian, Doug Cobeen, Karen Cobeen, Michaela Ikeuchi and Robert H. Pahia.
•••
Gary Hooser served eight years in the state Senate, where he was majority leader. He also served for eight years on the Kauai County Council. He presently writes on Hawaii Policy and Politics at www.garyhooser.blog.
