In the mid-1970s progressive leaders like Sen. Jean King fought for and won legislation which we call Hawai‘i’s Sunshine Law. It was landmark legislation at the time and took critical steps in opening state and county boards and setting standards
In the mid-1970s progressive leaders like Sen. Jean King fought for and won legislation which we call Hawai‘i’s Sunshine Law. It was landmark legislation at the time and took critical steps in opening state and county boards and setting standards for the way the public’s business is conducted.
The basic standard the law sets is to insist that when public policy is formulated, the discussions and actions of government agencies are to be conducted openly. The Sunshine Law works well for the most part to ensure that the public’s business is not discussed in secret or without public notice.
The way the law works is to assume that all board meetings are public, and then to provide for certain exceptions, that are prescribed by HRS 92-5. Among the exceptions are matters involving personnel or consultations with attorneys on very specific matters. The law also requires boards to do their business in public, although in 1996 certain interactions, like two board members having a conversation about board business were permitted, so long as no commitment on a vote was sought.
The major failing of the Sunshine Law is that it does not cover the Hawai‘i state Legislature. A strong argument can be made that it ought to. It is inconsistent to ask a state board to meet high standards of transparency when we are not asking the same thing of our state Legislature.
Hand in hand with the Sunshine Law is Hawai‘i’s open records law (Uniform Information Practices Act) which was proposed by the administration of Gov. John Waihee, who created a public working group of citizens and journalists to create the legislation. Their work product became legislation and was passed in 1988, with the intent to preserve and ensure open government and public participation.
At its simplest the law reversed the notion that records were private unless there was a reason to make them public. Instead the premise of the law was that records were public unless there was a clear reason to make them private.
The law created the Office of Information Practices to serve as a resource for both the public and government agencies in interpreting and applying its provisions. The Legislature urged “all agencies to accept this new law as a challenge and a mandate to ensure public access to the public’s government.”
This has put tremendous workload pressures on OIP over the years. In recent years, the evolution of newer technology like e-mail has presented challenges. I have talked to reporters and citizens who believe the OIP is less responsive today than it was in its more formative years. It may well be time to look carefully at the effectiveness of the OIP in ensuring the public’s needs are reasonably served.
Still, as we look at our public meetings and records laws, we see a good framework to ensure transparency and access, so long as this framework is coupled with strong citizen vigilance.
Brian Schatz is the chair of the Hawai‘i Democratic Party. He is a regularly featured Leading Voices columnist for The Garden Island.
