State lawmakers shelved a bill that would allow the county councils on Oahu, Maui, Kauai and Hawaii island to debate in secret before casting votes on proposed legislation. But another measure is still alive this session that government watchdog groups warn could curb the state’s open meetings law.

A Senate committee on Thursday deferred Senate Bill 720, which would have largely exempted county council members from the state’s Sunshine Law, which governs open meetings. The bill is opposed by groups advocating for government transparency, including the state Office of Information Practices, Common Cause Hawaii and the Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest.

The measure “would rip the heart out of the Sunshine Law’s policy of opening up government decision making,” Cheryl Kakazu Park, director of the Office of Information Practices, told members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety, Intergovernmental, and Military Affairs in testimony.

Park said the obvious effect of the bill would be to allow council members to “do their real discussions and negotiations privately,” while using the public meeting for their “ceremonial acceptance of testimony and calling of the vote.”

Ironically, members of the Senate committee adjourned to privately discuss SB 720 and other bills on Thursday’s agenda before reconvening the meeting to vote. The Legislature largely exempted itself from the Sunshine Law, allowing its members to debate bills in private.

After calling the meeting back to order, Sen. Clarence Nishihara (D, Waipahu-Pearl City), who chairs the committee, announced that he was deferring the bill, which means it is likely dead for the year. He did not explain why.

Sen. Kalani English (D, Molokai-Lanai-East Maui, who introduced the bill and is a member of the committee, declined the Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s request to comment.

But a spokesman for the Senate told the Hawaii Tribune-­Herald last week that the intent of the measure was, in part, to make deliberations over legislation more efficient. At the county council level, a single bill can have multiple floor drafts because members can’t negotiate privately.

Jeff Portnoy, a Honolulu attorney who represents numerous media outlets, including the Star-Advertiser, said he was glad the bill was deferred, but blasted the Legislature for its own secretive deliberations.

“The hypocrisy of the Legislature is hard to really reconcile,” he said.

Portnoy said the hearing “just continues to demonstrate how the Legislature is unwilling to do the public’s business in the public eye.”

Nishihara, in an interview with the Star-Advertiser, said he deferred the bill because of opposition from government transparency groups. He acknowledged the irony of the situation but said he was “not going to opine on it.”

The Legislature is debating another measure that would also ease Sunshine Law restrictions for county council members.

In 2014, county council members raised concerns that the Sunshine Law limited their ability to attend community meetings. In response, the Legislature passed a measure that allows any number of county council members to attend an open public meeting without creating an agenda or taking public testimony.

The Legislature included certain requirements, however. There could be only one such meeting per community group each month; no decisions could be made on business that was before the council; and the meetings were subject to videotaping requirements.

House Bill 481 would strip away those safeguards.

Maui County Council Chairwoman Alice Lee testified in support of the bill, saying it would allow council members to be better informed about issues affecting their constituents.

But open government groups warn it could be used to circumvent transparency requirements built into the Sunshine Law.