1. (a) Two members of a board may discuss between themselves matters relating to board business to enable them to perform their duties faithfully, as long as no commitment to vote is made or sought and the two members do not constitute a quorum of their board.

2. (b) Two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members that would constitute a quorum for the board, may be assigned to:

   1. (1) Investigate a matter relating to board business; provided that:

      1. (A) The scope of the investigation and the scope of each member's authority are defined at a meeting of the board;
      2. (B) All resulting findings and recommendations are presented to the board at a meeting of the board; and
      3. (C) Deliberation and decision-making on the matter investigated, if any, occurs only at a duly noticed meeting of the board held no less than six business days after the meeting at which the findings and recommendations of the investigation were presented to the board; or
   2. (2) Present, discuss, or negotiate any position that the board has adopted at a meeting of the board; provided that the assignment is made and the scope of each member's authority is defined at a meeting of the board before the presentation, discussion, or negotiation.
3. (c) Discussions between two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members that would constitute a quorum for the board, concerning the selection of the board's officers may be conducted in private without limitation or subsequent reporting.

4. (d) Board members present at a meeting that must be canceled for lack of quorum or terminated pursuant to section 92-3.5(c) may nonetheless receive testimony and presentations on items on the agenda and question the testifiers or presenters; provided that:

   1. (1) Deliberation or decisionmaking on any item, for which testimony or presentations are received, occurs only at a duly noticed meeting of the board held subsequent to the meeting at which the testimony and presentations were received;
   2. (2) The members present shall create a record of the oral testimony or presentations in the same manner as would be required by section 92-9 for testimony or presentations heard during a meeting of the board; and

   3. (3) Before its deliberation or decisionmaking at a subsequent meeting, the board shall:

      1. (A) Provide copies of the testimony and presentations received at the canceled meeting to all members of the board; and
      2. (B) Receive a report by the members who were present at the canceled or terminated meeting about the testimony and presentations received.

5. (e) Two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members that would constitute a quorum for the board, may attend an informational meeting or presentation on matters relating to board business, including a meeting of another entity, legislative hearing, convention, seminar, or community meeting; provided that the meeting or presentation is not specifically and exclusively organized for or directed toward members of the board. The board members in attendance may participate in discussions, including discussions among themselves; provided that the discussions occur during and as part of the informational meeting or presentation; provided further that no commitment relating to a vote on the matter is made or sought.

   At the next duly noticed meeting of the board, the board members shall report their attendance and the matters presented and discussed that related to board business at the informational meeting or presentation.

6. (f) Discussions between the governor and one or more members of a board may be conducted in private without limitation or subsequent reporting; provided that the discussion does not relate to a matter over which a board is exercising its adjudicatory function.
7. (g) Discussions between two or more members of a board and the head of a department to which the board is administratively assigned may be conducted in private without limitation; provided that the discussion is limited to matters specified in section 26-35.
8. (h) Where notice of the deadline to submit testimony to the legislature is less than the notice requirements in this section, a board may circulate for approval a statement regarding a position previously adopted by the board; provided that the position previously adopted by the board, the statement to be submitted as testimony, and communications among board members about the statement, including drafts, shall be in writing and accessible to the public, within forty-eight hours of the statement's circulation to the board, on the board's website, or, if the board does not have a website, on an appropriate state or county website.
9. (i) Communications, interactions, discussions, investigations, and presentations described in this section are not meetings for purposes of this part.

[L 1996, c 267, §2; am L 2005, c 84, §1; am L 2012, c 177, §1; am L 2022, c 264, §3; am L 2024, c 13, §2]

Law Journals and Reviews

Hawai`i's Sunshine Law Compliance Criteria. 26 UH L. Rev. 21.

Case Notes

Even assuming that written memoranda circulated by council members, in which the council members presented proposed actions, included justifications for the proposals, and sought "favorable consideration" of the proposals constituted a permitted interaction under subsection (a), the memoranda violated the mandate under subsection (b) that no permitted interaction be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of the sunshine law to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon board business. The "express premise" of the sunshine law is that opening up the government process to public scrutiny is the only viable and reasonable way to protect the public. 130 H. 228, 307 P.3d 1174 (2013).

Written memoranda circulated by council members, in which the council members presented proposed actions, included justifications for the proposals, and sought "favorable consideration" of the proposals did not fall within the permitted interaction described in subsection (a) because the memoranda: (1) were distributed among all of the members of the Maui county council rather than among only two members of the board; and (2) sought a commitment to vote by asking for "favorable consideration" of the proposals contained within them and thus, violated the sunshine law. 130 H. 228, 307 P.3d 1174 (2013).

Although subsection (a) does not expressly preclude city counsel members from engaging in serial one-on-one conversations, when council members engaged in a series of one-on-one conversations relating to a particular item of council business, under §92-5(b), the spirit of the open meeting requirement was circumvented and the strong policy of having public bodies deliberate and decide its business in view of the public was thwarted and frustrated. 117 H. 1 (App.), 175 P.3d 111.