Open meetings and open records laws tend to be the province of journalists and public-interest organizations, and proposals to change them rarely inspire much popular reaction, spirited or otherwise. Rules about when officials can meet and how transparently they conduct business elicit a big ho-hum from most.
The reality, however, is that anything that adds secrecy to government actions does have a ripple effect. It typically shows up when some unwanted decision is made, too late for public engagement of almost any intensity to change.
People need to be clued in to what their government is doing as early as possible, and be able to weigh in while officials are still sifting through all the information. The public debate has to be the real exchange of views, not just window-dressing that disguises a verdict reached privately.
A couple of bills that concern good-government organizations are still moving in the Legislature. In one case — House Bill 2139, which widens allowances for members of boards and councils to convene outside their usual meeting place — the public would be served best if it were simply spiked.
The bill would amend the chapter on public agency meetings and records, specifically the section on "permitted interactions" of board members. The law now restricts any more than two members, or any number comprising a board quorum, from meeting separately or discussing actions.
Carmille Lim, executive director of Common Cause Hawaii, said proponents of the bill say the law has precluded board members from attending purely social gatherings. If some clarifying language would satisfy that complaint, Common Cause would accept it, but that argument seems to be a stretch.
The organization correctly observes that the bill fixes no actual problems but simply opens new loopholes.
For example, the bill would allow unlimited numbers of county councils to interact at a meeting held in the state that is "free to the public." Lim said this would allow boards to gather without notification at a "free" meeting. Technically, it may be open to the public, but because notification isn’t required, the attendance could be shaped by issuing invitations only to certain stakeholders, Lim said — and she’s right about that, too.
Another bill still alive after last week’s crossover is HB 1812. This measure, which should be enacted, seeks more disclosure about cases of police misconduct. This legislation requires summaries with more detail about incidents that resulted in an officer’s suspension or discharge, including facts about multiple incidents involving the same officers.
It does not violate any privacy rights of individual police officers, and its primary reporting enhancements wouldn’t apply until after the accused had completed administrative appeals. But fuller reports would shine a light on what’s going on in the police department in a manner that serves the public.
The best good-government news so far this session is that bills aiming to provide carve-outs for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands have failed to move.
One measure would have exempted OHA from the Sunshine Law and allowed the agency to set its own rules affecting transparency. The second would have enabled DHHL to shroud many of its records in secrecy.
There is no public good in either bill, so sharp-eyed state Capitol monitors should remain watchful to see they don’t get revived.
On all these issues, keeping government honest and open takes a frustrating degree of vigilance, but that is the price of democracy. The reward is that people’s voices are heard.
