One of the many dark moments of the pandemic for Hawaii was the loss of sunshine — the suspension of the Sunshine Law as part of the emergency orders authorizing changes in how COVID-19 restrictions would be managed.

The state’s Sunshine Law, the first part of Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is what makes open meetings by lawmakers and government boards and commissions an imperative. Its shuttering, even if its intention was to prevent transmission of a virus that was little understood, needed to be overcome.

Alternative means were found to bring light back to the people’s business. With a new statute enacted in the 2021 session and effective Jan. 1, they will become permanent, welcome additions to the tools of governance. The goal now should be to ensure that they are used correctly and consistently.

When Gov. David Ige issued the rules aimed at maintaining public health, taxpayers had to accept that much government business would be conducted in meetings held at scattered homes and offices not open to attendance.

Instead, access was enabled by internet connections, and despite the initial hiccups in the system, and as people grew more accustomed to Zoom calls and other platforms, some advantages of remote meetings began to emerge.

One was an expansion of access. For example, legislative hearings always enabled testimony by email, but now neighbor islanders, people who are blind or with other special needs, and citizens facing other obstacles to attending in person, could participate.

Their ability to testify face-to-face, at least through the internet connection, enhanced engagement by those unable to attend otherwise. And for those who prefer to share their perspectives verbally rather than submit written comments, they can do so.

That alone was worth preserving even if emergency orders are no longer necessary, which is how Act 220 became law.

The measure, which began as Senate Bill 1034, incorporates the practice in place before pandemic restrictions. That means smaller elected or appointed bodies that have limited staff and resources do not have to change the basic protocols unless there’s a shutdown barring the board from holding in-person meetings.

A second format, already authorized, enables in-person meetings located at multiple sites that are connected by interactive conference technology. These do not have to provide for remote internet connections. Neighbor island boards favor this option particularly, because it allows participation for board members and others who may be in distant locations.

The third is the “remote” meeting in which board members and the public might either participate remotely, using their own internet connection, or at an official in-person meeting site that provides the connection to other participants. This is a needed option, given that people who lack a computer or internet service must have a way to attend as well.

Further, if an official in-person site under the third option loses its connection to the meeting, the board must recess while reconnection is established. If it can’t be done within an hour, and if notice of when and how it will be continued cannot be given to the public, the meeting is terminated.

It’s important that official business be conducted in front of all who have an interest in attending, so the fact that the law also clarifies how public notice should be given is a clear improvement.

Providing this enhanced access to government may be seen as troublesome to agencies, but the ideas and reactions from the public could give fair warning of possible problems from an official action. And that is a benefit to good government, not a burden to be shrugged off.