§92-11 Voidability. Any final action taken in violation of sections 92-3 and 92-7 shall be voidable upon proof of [wilful] violation. A suit to void any final action shall be commenced within ninety days of the action."
Freedom of Information 2005
High court backs off changing Cameras in the Courtroom rule
12/7/05
The Hawaii Supreme Court has decided not to make any changes to the rule governing cameras in the courtroom "at this time." The news media had vigorously opposed the proposal.
Tlhe courts had proposed changing the rule to allowcamera coverage during court sessions only -- which would have meant the media could not film before and after sessions when many tearful reactions come from family members and other newsworthy items occur.
The courts also had proposed requiring the media to file paperwork to use cameras for appellate arguments.
Chapter's testimony on proposed Cameras in the Courtroom changes
Nov. 16, 2005
P.O. Box 3141
Honolulu, HI 96802
November 16, 2005
Chief Justice Ronald Moon
Hawaii Supreme Court
Judiciary Public Affairs
417 S. King St.
Honolulu, HI 96813
Dear Chief Justice Moon:
At a time when the U.S. Supreme Court is loosening restrictions in the courtroom on releasing audiotapes, the Hawaii courts are tightening restrictions on news media coverage.
We find this to be disheartening and oppose the changes proposed to require extended coverage only during the court session and require approval by appellate judges for extended coverage of appeals.
Limiting extended coverage to the court session only raises problems:
How would the court know if the picture of an attorney and the defendant were taken during a break or during a court session?
What if events occur in the coutroom after or before hearings? A family may hug a defendant after being sentenced. A victim's family may forgive a defendant or make some other significant statement. A victim’s family may react to a verdict. A defendant may attack and bite a reporter.
A defendant may come out of a backroom conference and be photographed, but if the proceeding is continued, can the photo still be used? There are so many possibilities. And under the proposal, a camera would be barred from recording these legitimate news developments. We object to any rule that might be viewed as attempting to regulate the content of a news report.
The rules had been crafted to allow the public a glimpse of what goes on in a courtroom, while protecting a defendant's right to a fair trial. What happens at recess has no bearing on a right to a fair trial because no jury is present and the jury would have been admonished not to pay attention to media coverage. Had something occurred at an arraignment date which would be prejudicial, vigorous voir dire would preserve the right to a fair trial.
There has never been a problem of people overhearing conversations; if the parties are worried about that, attorneys have historically taken the parties to a conference room.
We understand that this proposal stems from two incidents on the neighbor islands that could have been avoided had there been a check for an application for extended coverage – much the way things are done on Oahu. If there were mistakes, must the rest of the news media be restricted because of two miscues?
We also disagree with requiring court permission to use cameras in appellate cases.
Right now, the media are free to cover appellate hearings – as few as they are – without applying for extended coverage. This is not necessary because the safeguards to protect certain people testifying are no longer needed since there is no testimony at that level.
This provision would only make for unecessary paperwork.
In the past, changes to the cameras in the courtroom rules were proposed by a group of lawyers, judges and a few members of the media. As far as we know, no such group was set up to go over the current proposals. We wonder why, particularly since the state courts pride themselves on "transparency."
Thank you for your time and attention.
Cordially,
David Briscoe
FOI Committee
Hawaii Chapter SPJ
Changes proposed for Cameras in the Courtroom
Deadline for testimony is Nov. 21, 2005
The Hawaii Chapter SPJ and other
media outlets will be opposing changes proposed by the state
courts.
One would restrict coverage to the court proceeding only. This
would prevent the news media from filming such newsworthy events
as families hugging defendants after sentencing or interactions
between a victim's family and the defendant. There actually was a
case of photos shot of a reporter being attacked and bitten by a
defendant on Maui. That too would not be allowed under the
proposals.
The other change would require judges' approval to shoot
appellate cases. This has never been required. We contend that
the issue of fair trial doesn't come up in appeals and there is
no testimony given. (Many trial court restrictions on coverage is
based on certain types of people's testimony, such as undercover
agents).
The chapter is readying testimony, but would welcome any others
to submit testimony to the judiciary.
Attached is the notice about the proposed rules:
The Supreme Court of Hawai#i seeks
public comment regarding a
proposed amendment to RSCH Rule 5.1 regarding extended coverage.
The
proposed amendment is as follows (new material is
double-underscored;
deleted material is bracketed and stricken):
5.1 Electronic and Photographic Coverage of Court
Proceedings.
(a) [Reserved.] General Rule. Extended coverage and
extended audio coverage shall be allowed only when court is in
session or as otherwise granted by the court.
(b) Reserved.
(c) Definitions . As used in these Rules 5.1 and 5.2,
unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Proceeding" means any trial, hearing, motion,
hearing on an order to show cause or petition, appellate
argument, or any other matter held [in open court which] while
a court is in session in an open courtroom where members of the
public [is] are entitled to attend.
* * *
(f) Standard for consent to extended coverage .
(1) [Prior consent of a judge shall not be required for
extended coverage of any appellate proceeding.] Extended
coverage of [all other] proceedings shall not be permitted
without the prior determination of the judge.
Comments about the the above-referenced rules should be
submitted, in
writing, no later than Monday, November 21, 2005 to the Judiciary
Public
Affairs Office by mail to 417 South King Street, Honolulu, HI
96813, by
facsimile to 539-4801, or via the Judiciaryıs website at
www.courts.state.hi.us. If adopted, the proposed rules will
become
effective January 1, 2006 or later.
Bills in 2005 Legislature
Acting governor signs two measures altering the Sunshine Law
Acting Gov. James "Duke" Aiona signed these two information pratices measures into law:
House Bill 553
Bunda
Allows agencies to withhold certain personal identifying information, such as home addresses and social security numbers, in records required to be disclosed under section 92F-12 (a), where disclosure of the information would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Here is the conference committee version of HB 663, CD 1:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/hb553_cd1_.htm
The Senate Judiciary Committee shelved the Senate version.
The House sent over its version, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing March 24 and passed the bill with amendments on March 28. The measure is headed for a House-Senate conference committee.
HB551
Relating to Public Meetings [Clarifies that two members of a board may discuss official board business outside of a meeting, limited only by the requirement that no commitment to vote is made or sought. Also allows two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum, to discuss matters relating to official board business at meetings of another board or at public hearings of the Legislature provided that: (1) the members announce their intent to attend such meeting or hearing at a noticed meeting of the board; and (2) the members report their attendance and the discussion at a subsequent meeting.
The bill has been amended to permit:
-- two members of a board to discuss official board business
The bill now waters down the enforcement provision that requires a judge to void a board's action if it wilfully violated the Sunshine Law. The bill would allow a judge to void a board's action in violation of the law. The Office of Information Practices maintains that the change broadens the power to void actions because it is almost impossible to determine that an agency wilfully violated the law.
The House version crossed over to the Senate, where the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee passed the measure to the Judiciary Committee, which passed the measure to the Senate.
Conference committee version of HB 551, CD 1:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/hb551_cd1_.htm
A hearing was held Feb. 8, but action was deferred to Feb. 15. The Senate Intergovernmental Affairs Committee shelved this bill.
April 1, 2005
Chairwoman Colleen Hanabusa
Senate Judiciary Committee
Room 227 State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
Chairwoman Hanabusa and committee members:
Re: House Bill 551 Relating to the Uniform Information Practices Act
We ask you to throw this bill out.
This bill would water down the only provision the public has to counter improper actions taken in violation of the Sunshine Law. Section 3 would make voiding an action taken by a board in violation of the Sunshine Law optional – rather than mandatory – if the violation is willful or malicious.
If this bill must move forward, we suggest that the Legislature follow the leads of California and Florida, which mandate voiding an action taken in violation of the open meetings laws. We suggest this wording:
§92-11 Voidability. Any final action taken in violation of sections 92-3 and 92-7 shall be voidable upon proof of [wilful] violation. A suit to void any final action shall be commenced within ninety days of the action."
House Finance Committee changes bill so it won't strip funding from Akaku
The House Finance Committee has dramatically revised this bill so that Akaku doesn't have to share most of its funding with Maui Community College and Maui public schools. The measure has been amended to make funding come from other cable money.
The bill was to go into conference committee, but no action has been reported -- although various funding mechanisms could be plugged into the state budget.
Here is the revised bill:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb959_hd1_.htm
HB 784, SB 959
Requires cable franchise fees paid in connection with the provision of cable service in Maui County to be distributed to Maui community college, DOE, Maui County, and Maui's PEG access entity
House Consumer Protection Committee report: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/commreports/hb784_hd1_hscr398_.htm
The House version cleared the House. The Senate Consumer Protection and Intergovernmental Affairs committees sent the measure to Ways and Means committees.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/commreports/hb784_sd1_sscr1268_.htm
The Senate version was sent to the House, where the House Finance Committee passed the bill with amendments.
To view the current wording of the bill:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb959_sd2_.htm
Alliance for
Community Media
666 11th Street NW, Suite 740
Washington, DC 20001-4542
Voice: 202-393-2650
Fax: 202-393-2650
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2005
Contact: Anthony Riddle, 202-393-2650, ariddle@alliancecm.org
Akaku: Maui Community Television
Protecting the Local Voice
Aloha,
In these times when much of our information comes from few sources, the few resources made available to the local voice must be used wisely. We must honor the vision and values of local communities by protecting these resources.
For this reason, we at the Alliance for Community Media are distressed and saddened to hear of the dispute which pits Maui Community College (MCC) against Akaku: Maui Community Television. We are sure that both institutions want what will best serve the community of Maui County.
Federal franchise law allows the County to receive 5% of gross revenues for operation of PEG channels, plus additional amounts for capital expenditures by PEG. The State of Hawaii collects only 4.6%, of which 1% is offered to Public Television which was never meant to be a part of this formula. Just the additional .4%, if collected from the cable operator and applied to the situation, would more than make up for the differences between MCC and Akaku.
More importantly, there are strong business considerations which make the Akaku formulation the best practices model for PEG operations. Public, Education and Government Access may have slightly different content and approaches to community, but they share much in the way of overhead: equipment, scheduling, engineering, playback facilities and staff. This is the most efficient way of operating and, in fact is considered to be the "Best Practice" in countless cities around the country.
Second, and this is important to recognize, there is a great liability in the operation of these channels. We all believe that there is a good to the community greater than the liability and so we strongly advise a model which protects both the good and the institutions. Operations run by separately incorporated non-profits like Akaku: Maui Community TV offer the freedom and community control we all value while protecting the government and college from law-suits and political pressures.
Government cannot directly operate a public forum without raising the specter of censorship on one hand or endorsement of unpopular speech on the other. All decisions by a government-run public forum come under scrutiny from public skeptics. Similarly, and unfortunately, the educational institution in today’s society is threatened by arguments over even the most basic of educational tenets offered in the classroom. How much more so when the classroom is cablecast to a less engaged viewing audience? Witness the horrible disruption occurring on the University of Colorado campus as a result of divergent points of view.
Cable Access operations run directly by government or educational institutions are viewed as deep-pocket targets by social gadflies and special interests. As such, they are forced to operate in an artificially restrained manner which serves the public interest less-well.
These same institutions, if operating through the neutral and separate auspices of a non-profit such as Akaku, gain freedom to communicate effectively, protection from baseless law-suits and the same kind of operating efficiencies sought by businesses throughout our economic system.
We humbly submit to you that the PEG system operated by Akaku represents the most responsible model for the people of Maui County and should be strengthened through increased funding and support. Please feel free to call on our offices at anytime.
Mahalo,
Anthony Riddle, Executive Director
Alliance for Community Media
The Alliance for Community Media advocates on behalf of all people
for free and democratic communications in the electronics age.
Testimony of Sean Mclaughlin
OPPOsing HB 784 "Relating to Cable Television"
HAWAII HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION & COMMERCE
DATE: Monday, February 14, 2005 TIME: 2:00 p.m.
PLACE: Conference Room 325, State Capitol COPIES: 35
Aloha Chair Hiraki, Vice Chair Schatz, and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony regarding HB 784, "Relating to Cable Television." I am available to answer your questions on behalf of Akaku: Maui Community Television, which provides community media services for the islands of Maui, Moloka’i, Lana’i and Kaho’olawe.
First, Akaku strongly supports education and currently provides extensive educational access services as part of our community media operations. And we support additional funding to the University of Hawaii and the State Department of Education for their media infrastructure and projects. However, taking money away from local community based media that is already underfunded is not the proper way to secure such funding.
if enacted, the proposed bill will literally destroy Akaku and effectively silence community access media and the free speech services we provide to citizens, non-profit community groups, students, teachers, parents, candidates for public office, and even visitors to our islands.
Akaku is governed by appointees of the State (DCCA) and Oceanic Time Warner Cable. Monthly public meetings are held on Maui, and members of the public are welcome to offer testimony. Both the University of Hawaii and the Department of Education have special status with ex-officio Board representation guaranteed in Akaku’s bylaws. In addition to stringent reporting requirements and oversight by DCCA, annual independent audits are conducted and open public records are maintained.
Unfortunately, even with this high level of transparency and accountability, Akaku is challenged by members of the community who do not support the First Amendment services we provide. Generally, Akaku’s detractors do not approve of the Free Speech of others, and on occasion they threaten lawsuits to accomplish their goals. However because Akaku is steadfast in our mission, "Empowering our community’s voice through access to media," Akaku refuses to censor local voices.
Because the US Constitution protects Free Speech, threatened lawsuits are usually dropped. But still, some members of our community have substantial resources to fund their private interests, many of which require discretionary approvals by public agencies of County or State government.
These special interests want to silence more than one speaker, they would like to prevent many local voices from being heard. Lacking the ability to legally attack Akaku, it is apparent from the origins of this measure that they would seek to amend the law now to remove transparent oversight and provide more opaque control of Maui’s only local TV.
By diverting limited community media resources available for Maui, Moloka’i, Lana’i and Kaho’olawe to State and County agencies, this bill will reduce both educational and governmental access while increasing State control over local voices. Ironically, under the guise of serving educational purposes, proponents of this bill are supporting the socialization of local media access services that have been properly privatized and community-based as a matter of State policy – similar to PBS Hawaii.
The direct beneficiaries of this measure have every opportunity to make this proposal in open public meetings on Maui, yet they have not done so.
HB 784 is anti-Home Rule as it would directly override accountable, transparent decisions made by a local Board of Directors on Maui over the past eight or more years.
Please protect community-based access media and free speech for Maui and Kalawao Counties by defeating this ill-considered legislation.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and support of community media serving our remote and rural populations. If we can be of any assistance in your deliberations, please feel free to call upon me.
_____________________________________________________
Sean McLaughlin
President & CEO tel: 808-871-5554
Akaku: Maui Community TV fax: 808-871-5510
333 Dairy Rd. #104 e: sean@akaku.org
Kahului, HI 96732 web: www.akaku.org
Chapter testimony for March 23 hearing:
March 23, 2005
Sen. Ron Menor
Sen. David Ige
Consumer Protection and Intergovernmental Affairs committees
State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
Re: H.B. 784, H.D. 2
We ask you to shelve this bill.
It threatens a well-working public access organization and would put government control over a nongovernmental entity. The First Amendment calls on you to keep from intruding into media that should be free from controls.
The bill does so while trying to look like it is benefitting education. If this is the purpose, why is Maui the only neighbor island access organization under consideration? What about the Big Island and the Garden Island? Surely legislators must have better things to do other than singling out Akaku.
This bill is not in the public interest. This is an unjustified raid, and there is no other way to put it.
By passing this measure, you vote to dismantle the effective Akaku, which already provides extensive educational access services.
March 31, 2005
Rep. Dwight Takamine
House Finance Committee
State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
Re: SB 959, S.D. 2
We ask you to kill this bill and prevent any efforts to divert funding from Akaku.
This bill threatens a well-working public access organization and would put government control over a nongovernmental entity. The First Amendment calls on you to keep from intruding into media that should be free from controls. This bill appears to be a form of censorship.
The bill would stifle many voices on Maui while trying to look like it is benefiting education. If this is the purpose, why is Maui the only PEG organization under consideration? What about the Big Island and the Garden Island? Why are legislators putting into law something that should be done by agreement or contract – and by people directly affected – that is the people of Maui?
This bill is not in the public interest, no matter what percentages you put into the bill. This is an unjustified raid, and there is no other way to put it.
By passing this measure, you vote to dismantle the effective Akaku, which already provides extensive educational access services.
Various groups push for House Judiciary Committtee hearing on Senate Bill 1551
Groups led by the Honolulu Community-Media Council and the League of Women Voters have called on House Judiciary Chairwoman Sylvia Luke to hold a hearing on Senate Bill 1551 by the legislative deadline of March 24.
The bill allows the Office of Information Practices to enforce chapter 92, public agency meetings and records; allows OIP to waive fees to access government records if public interest is served by a waiver; requires the judicial council to provide 2 or more nominees to the governor for the OIP director position, which shall be for a term of 6 years; and removes wilful intent from voiding final actions and removes mandatory voiding of sunshine law violations.
For full version of bill, click here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb1551_.htm
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved and moved the bill unamended to the Ways and Means Committee. And the Senate moved the bill to the House.
Judiciary Committee report: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/commreports/sb1551_sscr456_.htm
Chapter testimony on SB 1551
Feb. 14, 2005
Chairwoman Colleen Hanabusa
Senate Judiciary Committee
Room 227 State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
Chairwoman Hanabusa and committee members:
Re: Senate Bill 1551 Relating to the Uniform Information Practices Act
Although there are two provisions of this bill that we like, we
must oppose it.
This bill would water down the only provision the public has to counter improper actions taken in violation of the Sunshine Law. Section 3 would make voiding an action taken by a board in violation of the Sunshine Law optional – rather than mandatory – if the violation is willful or malicious.
If this bill moves forward, we suggest that the Legislature follow the leads of California and Florida, which allow for voiding an action taken in violation of the open meetings laws. We suggest this wording: "
§92-11 Voidability. Any final action taken in violation of sections 92-3 and 92-7 shall be voidable upon proof of [wilful] violation. A suit to void any final action shall be commenced within ninety days of the action."
We like the idea of putting the Office of Information Practices in charge of enforcing the open meetings law. But we are worried that if additional funding is not given to the agency, the added duty will detract from its other important tasks.
Currently, OIP must go through the Attorney General’s Office to file a lawsuit involving open meetings violations. We believe the Attorney General’s Office has a built-in conflict of interest in such matters because it advises the boards and commissions about whether they can meet in secret.
We applaud the provision to waive fees for government records that are sought in the public interest. This tracks the federal FOI law, which grants such waivers.
For too long, some agencies have used the cost of getting information (which belongs to the public in the first place) as a way to discourage the public from getting records.
We take no position on whether the Judicial Council should provide two nominees for OIP executive director to the governor.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Other open records and meetings bills before the 2005 Legislature:
SB625 HB865
PEG Access Organizations; Meeting and Records Access.
Requires DCCA director to include requirements for public access to records and meetings of public, educational and governmental access organizations in organization contracts.
The Senate Media, Arts, Science and Technology Committee has passed this bill. The Senate version of the bill is pending before the House Judiciary Committee
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/commreports/sb625_sd1_sscr651_.htm
The bill can be found at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb625_sd1_.htm
The Consumer Protection Committee has passed the House version of the measure. It remained in the House Judiciary Committee.
SB 626
The legislature finds that the social policies underlying the sunshine law dictate that absolutely no agency meetings should be closed to the public, even executive meetings. When a board chooses to hold an executive meeting, it is because privacy issues are often at stake. Accordingly, the legislature finds that a proper balance between protecting both those privacy issues and the public's right-to-know may be struck by limiting public attendance at an executive meeting to responsible and discreet representatives of the public. The purpose of this Act is to allow a legislator who is a member of a legislative committee with subject matter oversight over the affairs of a board to attend executive meetings of the board.
The Senate Transportation and Government Operations shelved this bill.
SB 661 HB 552
Bunda
Requires notification to the Office of Information Practices (OIP) of any civil lawsuit filed involving the Sunshine Law and to allow the OIP to intervene in such action. Requires approval by the OIP instead of the Attorney General for an emergency meeting under section 92-8 (b). Grants the OIP authority, concurrent with the Attorney General, to civilly enforce violations of the Sunshine Law. Allows the OIP to seek to enforce in the courts any decision issued in accordance with section 92F-15.5.
For full version of the bill, click here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb661_.htm
The House and Senate versions died because they never received a hearing.
SB 663 HB 554
Bunda
Provides that an action taken by a board in violation of sections 92-3 (open meetings) and 92-7 (notice), "may" be voidable by the courts without a finding that the violation was "willful."
For full version of the bill, click here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb663_.htm
Neither the House nor the Senate version received a hearing.
SB 1326
Hanabusa
Requires the office of information practices to conduct a review of all boards and commissions and to determine and report on whether a board or commission is subject to the Uniform Information Practices Act.
For full version of the bill, click here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb1326_.htm
The Senate Judiciary Committee shelved this bill.
Chapter testimony on SB 1326
Feb. 14, 2005
Chairwoman Colleen Hanabusa
Senate Judiciary Committee
Room 227 State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96713
Re: Senate Bill 1326 Relating to the Office of Information
Practices
Chairwoman Hanabusa and committee members:
We oppose this bill because we fail to see the need for a list of boards and commissions subject to the open records section of the state Sunshine Law.
This measure also would burden a hard-working Office of Information Practices.
We believe that exemptions from the records portion of the law should be done by legislative action after hearings to gather information from the public or after a judicial determination.
Thank you for your time and attention,
SB 1455
Requires the governor to make available for public inspection all executive orders; requires the governor to transmit copies of executive orders to the legislature, the legislative reference bureau, and the state archives.
The Senate Transportation and Government Operations Committee shelved this measure.
SB 1547
Ihara
Requires the governor and legislature to ensure public access to information, services, and proceedings of the executive and legislative branches. Authorizes the governor to convene a fair access commission to review public access issues for the neighbor islands and rural Oahu.
For full version of the bill, click here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb1547_.htm
The Senate passed this measure, and the House Judiciary Committee passed the measure March 22, but it still has to go through two more committees:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb1547_sd2_.htm
SB 1549
Ihara
Makes boards established by official government document subject to the open meetings law; requires actions taken in closed meetings to be announced in public; allows legislative committee chairs to attend executive meetings; authorizes the office of information practice to enforce the open meetings law.
For full version of the bill, click here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb1549_.htm
This bill died never receiving a hearing from the Judiciary Committee.
SB 1550
Ihara
Authorizes the OIP to issue administrative fines against state or county agencies that do not comply with OIP opinions.
For full version of the bill, click here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb1550_.htm
The Transportation and Government Operations and Intergovernmental Relations committees shelved this bill.
Chapter testimony on SB 1550
Feb. 16, 2005
Lorraine R. Inouye
Transportation and Government Operations Committee
David Y. Ige
Intergovernmental Affairs Committee
Room 201 State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
Sens. Inouye and Ige and Committee Members:
SB 1550 Relating to the Office of Information Practices
We support the intent of SB 1550. For too long, agencies have ignored opinions from the Office of Information Practices. This measure will give OIP some enforcement powers, which are sorely needed to protect the public’s right to know what its government is doing.
But we note several questions that could be handled through amendments:
-- The bill should specify that the fines would not go back
into the general fund, but
should be transferred to OIP to help administer this provision.
-- Fines should be spelled out to keep toothless rules from being
adopted. Maybe $1,000 per day per violation if the agency has not
followed the law 30 days after a decision is rendered.
-- Can administrative fines be issued by an agency that has advisory powers? Is a board or commission required to issue such fines?
SB 1552
Ihara
Requires each state and county department to designate a contact person for freedom of information inquiries involving the open meetings and records laws (chapter 92 and 92F); requires OIP to provide training to the departmental contacts.
For full version of bill, click here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/sb1552_.htm
The Transportation and Government Operations and Intergovernmental Relations committees shelved this bill.
Chapter testimony on SB 1552
Feb. 16, 2005
Lorraine R. Inouye
Transportation and Government Operations Committee
David Y. Ige
Intergovernmental Affairs Committee
Room 201 State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
Sens. Inouye and Ige and Committee Members:
SB 1552 Relating to the Office of Information Practices
While we understand the intent of this bill, we oppose the measure because we question whether it is needed.
There are a few employees within an agency who designate records as being open or closed. And the Office of Information Practices already trains employees on the law.
Also this bill would make only one person responsible in a department for all of its freedom of information issues. We fear that the agency could use this as a way to avoid disclosure of public records by saying THAT PARTICULAR employee is sick or on vacation or otherwise indisposed.
We believe freedom of information issues should involve as many employees of an agency as possible. It is everyone’s responsibility that the people’s information and documents are given to the people in a timely fashion.
HB 1593
Caldwell
Makes boards established by official government document subject to the open meetings law; requires actions taken in closed meetings to be announced in public; allows legislative committee chairs to attend executive meetings; authorizes the office of information practice to enforce the open meetings law.
For full version of bill, click here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/hb1593_.htm
This bill never received a hearing.
SB 1822 HB 1617
"(e)
Discussions [between] among two or more members of a board [and],
the head of a department to which the board is administratively
assigned, and the executive secretary or executive director to
the board may be conducted in private without limitation;
provided that the discussion is limited to
matters specified in section 26-35."
Both versions of the bill died without a hearing.
Freedom of Information Workshop Jan. 25
Les Kondo looks to the news media as his "stick" to make recalcitrant government agencies heed his advice on open meetings and records.
Afterall, he has no enforcement powers.
"No official wants to be in the media violating the law," Kondo told reporters and others at a workshop Jan. 25 at the state Capitol.
The director of the Office of Information Practices must go through the Attorney General’s Office to file suit to get an agency to comply with his opinions.
Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration has sponsored legislation to grant OIP powers to file their own suits. A similar bill failed to get a hearing last year.
Kondo appeared at a workshop sponsored by the Honolulu Community-Media Council, Hawaii Chapter SPJ, the University of Hawaii School of Communications and advised reporters that the state open records and meetings law are "tailored to help you do your job."
"If you know the statute, you can put them on the spot," he said.
He noted lost opportunities for news media to publicize when the Kauai County Council decided to hold secret sessions on Cabinet members’ appointments and on whether to hold an investigation into the Kauai Police Department.
In both instances, the executive sessions were questionable, he said.
The Sunshine Law allows a board to go behind closed doors for:
Then, the law provides for certain circumstances where a meeting of board members is not considered a meeting where minutes have to be taken:
Boards and commissions (excluding the Judiciary and Legislature) can’t caucus, poll board members outside a meeting, conduct telephone discussions between board members about board business and communicate between board members by e-mail about board business.
If you have any questions about public records or closed meetings, Kondo urges you to call the attorney of the day at 586-1400.
A Keever tip on open records research
University of Hawaii journalism Professor Bev Keever has some good advice for reporters: Go to the Office of Information Practices Web site: www.hawaii.gov/oip
One helpful feature is the Records Reporting System, which is under the Reports section (click on button on left).
There you can find what categories of records an agency keeps. You can search by topic or see all the categories of records of an agency.
Keever said that is a great jumping off point for an article because you can map out how to get information.
The individual categories show the keeper of the records and whether the agency considers the documents to be open or confidential.
The Web site also includes past OIP opinions, which is helpful if you want to know whether the OIP considers a particular record open to the public.