Open Meetings: Sunshine Law Training Materials

Sunshine Law

Full, unamended text of the Sunshine Law (Unofficial version, August 2025)

Access the Law

Quick Reviews & Resources

Agenda-Guidance-for-SL-Boards-2025-remediated Download

The Sunshine Law, Part I of Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), requires a board with a board packet for its upcoming meeting to make the board packet available to the public before the meeting, with limited exceptions. HRS § 92-7.5. A board packet consists of the documents that are compiled by the board or its staff and distributed to board members before a public meeting for use at that meeting. This could include reports, applications, and documentation relating to items the board will consider at the meeting, as well as written public testimony and draft minutes being circulated to board members. Not all boards create and distribute board packets, and the requirements relating to board packets only apply to those boards that actually distribute board packets.

While the general rule is that a board packet must be made available to the public, the public disclosure requirement only applies to documents that would be disclosable under the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F, HRS (UIPA). In other words, non-public information within board packets can be redacted. In addition, the law allows a board to potentially withhold more records in creating the public version of the board packet than could have been withheld in response to a formal UIPA record request. Specifically, the public version of a board packet is not required to include executive meeting minutes, license applications, and other records for which the board cannot reasonably complete its redaction of nonpublic information in the time available before the meeting.

In this way, the board packet provision recognizes the challenge facing a board that must both put together a board packet and create a public version of it in the short time before a meeting, when the board packet may include materials from third parties that the board has not previously reviewed, or materials with public information and nonpublic information mixed together. For example, if a board packet includes a long document with confidential information embedded throughout it, which would make redaction unreasonable or overly time-consuming in the days before the board meeting, the board could leave the entire record out of the public board packet. On the other hand, if a similarly long document has several distinct sections, only some of which are confidential, it may be relatively straightforward for the board to separate them and include only the non-confidential sections in the public board packet. If a document includes some confidential information but is only a few pages long, the confidential information can readily be redacted before the record is included in the public board packet. If a document of any length is fully public, it should be included in an unredacted form in the public board packet.

Any board packet prepared for a meeting must be made available for public inspection in the board’s office at the time it is distributed to board members, but no later than three full business days before the meeting. Based on legislative history, a full business day means at least six hours before the end of the relevant office’s business hours. The deadline does not apply to written testimony, which may be distributed at any time before the meeting. However, if other materials the board members need to review aren’t available to the board in time to meet that deadline, such as late submissions from applicants or other third parties or a report not scheduled for public release until the meeting date, the board cannot circulate those materials to members in the last three business days before to the meeting without violating the Sunshine Law. Thus, boards should plan to provide such last-minute materials to the board’s members at the meeting itself, rather than before the meeting when they will be considered a board packet. The Sunshine Law does not specifically address a board’s obligation to make materials distributed to members during a meeting available to the public, but OIP recommends that boards plan on having copies available for the public or be otherwise prepared to provide public access to any non-confidential materials being distributed to board members during the meeting itself.

A board is not required to automatically mail or email its board packet to people on its notification list, but it must notify them that the board packet is available for inspection in the board’s office and list the materials included in the board packet. The board must also provide “reasonably prompt” access to the packet to any person upon request and as soon as practicable, post the board packet on its website and accommodate requests for electronic access. To make it easier for the public to access the board packet (thus reducing the number of requests the board must respond to), OIP recommends that the notice also include a link to where the packet is available on the board’s website.

Keep in mind that the UIPA has separate and different requirements from the Sunshine Law, and the new board packet disclosure requirement does not replace the existing right of a member of the public to request a board packet under the UIPA. Either before or after the board meeting, if a UIPA request is made for a copy of the board packet, the board will have ten business days to respond, so the board’s UIPA response deadline typically will not be until after the meeting has taken place. This gives the board more time to carefully examine and redact any confidential information from the board packet. Also unlike the Sunshine Law’s access requirement, the UIPA would require the board to mail a board packet if so requested, but the board could also charge the search, review, and segregation fees and copying and postage costs allowed for UIPA requests. Thus, for most members of the public, free access to the public version of the board packet prior to the meeting, as provided for in the Sunshine Law, will be preferable to waiting two weeks or more to receive what may be a slightly less redacted version, for which review and segregation fees will be assessed under the UIPA.

When compiling a board packet, prepare the public version at the same time. As each document comes in, determine whether it must be included in the public packet and prepare a redacted version if necessary.
Have a copy of the public board packet available in the board’s office by the time the packet goes out to board members (and at least three full business days before the meeting). If the public board packet is available for public inspection only in electronic format, have equipment available for the public to be able to view the packet.
Have a PDF version of the public packet posted to the board’s website, and ready to email or fax upon request.
Materials other than testimony that are received after the board packets are prepared for distribution may be provided to the board at the meeting itself. While not required by law to do so, the board should try to make publicly available at the meeting a physical or electronic copy of the late materials, with appropriate redactions, if any.
Remember that a member of the public can still make a UIPA request for the full packet, which may require more extensive review and segregation work than was done for the public packet prepared for the Sunshine Law meeting, and would be subject to the time limits, procedures, and fees for UIPA record requests.
Consider the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in preparing electronic materials. The board’s attorney or the state Disability and Communications Access Board can provide further ADA information. OIP does not administer the ADA.

The state Office of Information Practices (OIP) has a Quick Review: Notice Requirements for Meetings on this page, which summarizes the Sunshine Law’s notice requirements for public meetings under section 92-7, HRS. While the Sunshine Law has various procedural requirements for new meeting notices, there are no statutory procedures to provide notice that a board has continued an unfinished meeting to a later date and time to allow the board to finish its agenda. This Quick Review fills the gap by providing guidance on how to reasonably provide notice that a meeting is being continued beyond its originally noticed date and time to allow the board to finish hearing public testimony, finish its consideration of agenda items, or for some other reason. It also provides updated guidance on how to continue online meetings that have lost their internet connectivity or experienced other technical difficulties.

Meeting continuances were extensively discussed by the Hawaii Supreme Court (Court) in Kanahele v. Maui County Council, 130 Haw. 228, 307 P.3d 1174 (2013). The Court recognized that section 92-7(d), HRS, requires items of reasonably major importance, which are not decided at a scheduled meeting, to “be considered only at a meeting continued to a reasonable day and time.” A board is not limited by this statute to only one continuance of a meeting and is not required to post a new agenda or accept oral testimony at a continued meeting, but the Court concluded that a board is “constrained at all times by the spirit and purpose of the Sunshine Law, as stated in HRS § 92-1.” Kanahele, 307 P.3d at 1194-95. Although the Sunshine Law contains no specific requirements for a written public notice or oral announcement for continued meetings, the Court stated that “the means chosen to notify the public of the continued meeting must be sufficient to ensure that meetings are conducted ‘as openly as possible’ and in a manner that ‘protect[s] the people’s right to know.’” Id. at 1198.

For a remote or multi-site meeting, the Sunshine Law requires that when an interruption to the meeting’s interactive conference technology (ICT) connection lasts for 30 minutes or longer, the meeting must be automatically terminated, unless reasonable notice has been provided to the public of how the meeting will be continued to another date and time.

Based on the Court’s guidance and examples in Kanahele, OIP has tips for continuing a meeting in this Quick Review. OIP also has a “Notice of Continuance of Meeting” form that boards can continue to use. Depending on the circumstances, boards can follow the most appropriate of the “Practice Tips” described below to ensure that notices of continuances are disseminated as widely as practicable to protect the public’s right to know. Please note that the term “notice” is used herein to describe the notice recommended to continue an ongoing meeting that had been originally posted as required under section 92-7, HRS. The Notice of Continuance is not subject to the same requirements of section 92-7, HRS, as the original meeting notice.

When the meeting is being recessed for longer than 24 hours, a board should provide, if practicable, both oral and written (including electronic) notice of the date, time, and place of a continuance.
Rather than post a new agenda for a continued meeting, a board should attach the agenda of the meeting being continued to a “Notice of Continuance of Meeting,” which can be found on OIP’s Sunshine Law Forms page. On the attached agenda, the board should type, handwrite, or otherwise note the agenda item(s) being continued.
A Notice of Continuance of Meeting, with the agenda from the continued meeting attached thereto, should be physically posted in the board’s office and at the meeting site, if practicable. Additionally, if possible and time permits, the Notice of Continuance and agenda should be electronically posted on the board’s website or the state or county electronic calendar, and emailed to persons on the board’s email list.
OIP anticipates that continuances will normally be held within six days of the originally scheduled meeting, and thus recognizes that there may not be sufficient time to mail notices to interested persons on the board’s mailing list. Depending on the circumstances, mailed notices and/or a new agenda filed as required by section 92-7, HRS may be advisable if continuances are held more than six days after the originally scheduled meeting.
If a board anticipates that a single meeting will be insufficient for consideration of an agenda item and expects extensive testimony or board deliberation, then it could include anticipated dates, times, and places of continuances on its original agenda filed pursuant to section 92-7, HRS. The filed agenda can make clear that the continuances will only occur if necessary, so as not to require the delay of board action if testimony or deliberations take less time than anticipated.
In the case of controversial or complex matters, a board may choose to convene separate meetings with separate agendas on different aspects of the same proposal or case. Testimony can be limited to specific subject matters within a single proposal or case, which would enable the public to testify on the issues of concern to them and to listen to the board’s discussion, deliberations, and actions on those issues.
If new issues develop during the deliberation process for continued agenda items, a board may consider permitting periodic oral testimony by the public on such issues. If the new issues do not fall within the scope of the items described in the agenda, then to discuss those issues, the board must file a new agenda and meeting notice as required under section 92-7, HRS, and identify the new issue as an agenda item. Only if the new issues are still within the scope of the items described in the original agenda does the board have the option to continue the original meeting, with sufficient notice of continuance, for further deliberation and/or additional testimony.
Note that a continuance of a meeting is a reconvening of the same meeting previously noticed in an agenda, and thus, does not require a new agenda to be filed. But if new matters unrelated to the previously posted agenda items are to be discussed at a continuance, then it should be instead treated as a new meeting and a new agenda must be filed in accordance with section 92-7, HRS.

When the interactive conference technology (ICT) being used during a meeting has been interrupted, the meeting is automatically terminated unless the board has provided reasonable notice to the public of how the meeting will be continued to another date and time. What follows are tips on how to provide reasonable notice of continuation of a meeting when the ICT has been interrupted.

The board’s original notice of the meeting may contain a contingency provision stating that if the board loses online connection, then people should check the board’s website (give address) for reconnection information. Alternatively, the notice could provide that if the connection is lost for more than 30 minutes, the meeting will be continued to a specified date and time, with the new link for the continued meeting either on the agenda itself or to be provided on the board’s website.
At the start of the online meeting, the board could announce that if the online connection is lost, information on reconvening or continuing the meeting will be posted on its website, and give the website address.
If the audio and video have gone down but there is still a chat function or similar means of communication available, the board should also post a visual notice of the continuation of a meeting through the chat function.
If a visual connection has been lost during a meeting using ICT, the board could audibly announce that the meeting will be continued and direct people to its website, where the relevant information has been posted.
If time permits, the board can email people on its email list with a Notice of Continuance of Meeting.

Case Summary of Kanahele (1993)

This Quick Review provides questions and answers on how executive meetings work under the Sunshine Law, Part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), for meetings in general and for remote meetings specifically.

An executive meeting (also called an executive session) is a meeting of the board that is closed to the public. Because an executive meeting is a narrowly construed exception to the Sunshine Law’s presumption that all government board meetings will be open to the public, board members are advised to carefully weigh the interests at stake before voting to exercise their discretion to close a meeting.

The “final action” taken by the board in an executive meeting may be voided by the courts if the board has violated the procedural requirements for going into such a closed meeting, so boards must be careful to follow all requirements.

Yes, if the executive meeting is anticipated in advance.

In addition to listing the topic the board will be considering (as is required for all items the board will consider, whether in public or executive session), the agenda for the open meeting generally must indicate that an executive meeting is anticipated and cite the statutory authority for convening the anticipated executive meeting. For an executive meeting, the listing of the topic should describe the subject of the executive meeting with as much detail as possible without compromising the executive meeting’s purpose. For instance, if the board will consider a proposed settlement of a lawsuit in an executive meeting, the agenda should note that the purpose of the executive session is to consult with the board’s attorney on questions or issues regarding the board’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities, and cite section 92-5(a)(4), HRS. The agenda in such a case should also describe the topic of the meeting as, at a minimum, the lawsuit identified by case name and civil number, and unless such

description would compromise the purpose of closing the meeting from the public, that the board will consider a proposed settlement.

With significant restrictions, the Sunshine Law allows the board to convene an executive meeting when the need for excluding the general public from the meeting was not anticipated in advance. If, for example, during the discussion of an open meeting agenda item, the board determines that there are legal issues that need to be addressed by its attorney, the board may announce and vote to immediately convene an executive meeting to discuss those matters pursuant to section 92-5(a)(4), HRS.

The board, however, cannot convene an executive meeting to discuss an item that is not already on its meeting agenda without first amending the agenda to add the item in accordance with the Sunshine Law’s requirements. No item can be added to an agenda if it is of reasonably major importance and the board’s action will affect a significant number of persons. At least two-thirds of the board’s total members (present or absent) must vote in favor of amending the agenda.

To convene an executive meeting, a board must vote to do so in an open meeting and must publicly announce the purpose of the executive meeting. The minutes of the open meeting must reflect the vote of each board member on the question of closing the meeting to the public. Two-thirds of the board members present must vote in favor of holding the executive meeting, and the members voting in favor must also make up a majority of all board members, including members not present at the meeting or vacant membership positions. Note that the 2/3 vote of all members present that is required to convene an executive meeting is different from the 2/3 vote of a board’s total membership (including vacant positions) that is required to amend an agenda.

When a board reconvenes in public session, it must report its discussion and any final action it took during the executive session. The board is not required to disclose any information that would be inconsistent with the purpose of the executive session. If disclosure would frustrate the purpose of the executive session, the board can keep the information confidential for as long as that continues to be true. Instead, a board should briefly summarize what happened in the executive session, without disclosing any sensitive details, and give the public an idea of what topic the board discussed during the session. In the limited instances where a board can and did properly vote during an executive session, it must also inform the public what action it took.

Section 92-5(a), HRS, gives the board the discretion to go into an executive meeting only for the following eight specific reasons:

Licensee Information. A board is authorized to meet in an executive meeting to evaluate personal information of applicants for professional and vocational licenses.
Personnel Decisions. A board may hold an executive meeting to “consider the hire, evaluation, dismissal or discipline of an officer or employee or of charges brought against the officer or employee, where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved.” However, if the person who is the subject of the board’s meeting requests that the board conduct its business about him or her in an open meeting, the request must be granted and an open meeting must be held.
Labor Negotiations/Public Property Acquisition. A board is allowed to deliberate in an executive meeting concerning the authority of people designated by the board to conduct labor negotiations or to negotiate the acquisition of public property, or during the conduct of such negotiations.
Consult with Board’s Attorney. A board is authorized to consult in an executive meeting with its attorneys concerning the board’s powers, duties, immunities, privileges, and liabilities.
Investigate Criminal Misconduct. A board with the power to investigate criminal misconduct is authorized to do so in an executive meeting.
Public Safety/Security. A board may hold an executive meeting to consider sensitive matters related to public safety or security.
Private Donations. A board may consider matters relating to the solicitation and acceptance of private donations in an executive meeting.
State/Federal Law or Court Order. A board may hold an executive meeting to consider information that a State or federal law or a court order requires be kept confidential.

A board may not hold such discussions in an executive meeting unless the discussion falls within one of the eight purposes listed in the statute and discussed above for which an executive meeting is allowed.

Again, unless there is an exception that permits the board to convene an executive meeting, a board cannot consider such information in a closed meeting, no matter how sensitive the information may be. In such a case, a board may be better served by using an applicable permitted interaction governed by section 92-2.5, HRS, to allow less than a quorum of board members to investigate the sensitive information so that it can be discussed in more general terms at the board’s meeting.

No. A board may, but is not required to, convene an executive meeting when one of the eight purposes listed above is applicable.

No. Although section 92-13, HRS, provides for the criminal prosecution of board members who willfully violate the Sunshine Law, the Hawaii Supreme Court has held that holding an open meeting does not violate the Sunshine Law. Consequently, board members are not subject to criminal prosecution under section 92-13, HRS, for holding an open meeting.

No. Section 92-5(a)(2), HRS, gives the subject employee the right to request an open meeting, but does not require the employee’s consent to hold an open meeting. Because the Sunshine Law presumptively requires open meetings, the board may choose to discuss personnel matters in the open. Meetings related to personnel matters are not required to be closed to the public.

No. Certain personnel matters must be discussed in an open meeting. Under the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F, HRS (UIPA), certain types of government employment information must be disclosed upon request, such as employee names, job titles, and salary information. HRS § 92F-12(a)(4). Consequently, government employees do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in such information, and the board cannot justify closing a meeting simply to discuss those types of personnel matters. Additionally, if the discussion is about personnel policies and not about an individual, then there is no legitimate expectation of privacy at stake, and the meeting cannot be closed to discuss such policies. To the extent possible, policy-making must be conducted in public meetings.

The personnel matters that may be discussed in an executive meeting under section 92-5(a)(2), HRS, must relate to “the hire, evaluation, dismissal or discipline” of an individual officer or employee, or to “charges brought against” such an individual, and also requires a showing that “consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved.” Just because a matter involves an employee’s personnel status does not necessarily mean that a legitimate privacy interest will be impacted. If no legitimate privacy interest will be involved in the board’s discussion, then the board cannot properly close the meeting to the public.

Unlike the test balancing private interests against the public interest that is set forth in the UIPA at section 92F-14(a), HRS, to determine if disclosure of a record would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, the Sunshine Law requires a case-by-case analysis of the specific person and information at issue to see whether the person being discussed has a legitimate expectation of privacy. Only people, not companies or entities, can have an expectation of privacy. There is a legitimate expectation of privacy in ‘highly personal and intimate’ information, which may include medical, financial, education, or employment records. Some circumstances, however, may reduce or entirely defeat the legitimacy of a person’s expectation of privacy, as in the case of government officials with high levels of discretionary and fiscal authority, like the University’s president or a head coach.

Moreover, if the information must be disclosed by law, rule or regulation, or if it has already been disclosed, then there is no legitimate expectation of privacy that would warrant holding an executive meeting to discuss such information.

No. The Hawaii Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that “a board’s authority to meet in executive session to consult with its attorney pursuant to section 92-5(a)(4), HRS, is narrower in scope than the attorney-client privilege.” Civil Beat L. Ctr. for the Pub. Int. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 144 Hawai‘i 466, 488, 445 P.3d 47, 69 (2019) (CBLC). “The attorney-client privilege protects ‘confidential communications’ between a client and the client’s attorney ‘made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client[.]’” Id. “[T]he Sunshine Law’s attorney-client exception protects communications relating only to ‘questions and issues pertaining to the board’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities.’” Id. (quoting section 92-5(a)(4), HRS)

No. Simply having an attorney present is insufficient to qualify for an executive meeting exception under section 92-5(a)(4), HRS. At the same time, a board can properly have its attorney present while it is in executive session for one of the other executive session purposes: the Hawaii Supreme Court has cited with approval OIP’s advice that “a board is authorized to consult with its attorney in an executive meeting convened for any of the purposes listed in section 92-5(a), HRS, so long as the consultation is necessary to achieve the authorized purpose of the executive meeting.” CBLC at 144 Haw. 489, 445 P.3d 70, quoting OIP Op. Ltr. No. 03-17, at 4. “[A] board may need its attorney’s assistance to explain the legal ramifications of various courses of conduct available to the board” or to ensure compliance with section 92-5, HRS, by limiting the board’s discussion to publicly noticed items on the agenda and keeping the board from “inadvertently straying into discussion[s] or deliberation[s] of a topic not directly related to the executive meeting’s purpose.” Id.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has admonished reviewing courts, as well as boards and commissions, to “understand that an attorney is not a talisman, and consultation in executive sessions must be purposeful and unclouded by pretext.” CBLC at 144 Haw. 489, 445 P.3d 70. Once the board receives the benefit of the attorney’s advice, it should discuss the courses of action in public, and vote in public, unless to do otherwise would defeat the lawful purpose of having the executive meeting.” Id., quoting OIP Op. Ltr. No. 03-12 at 10. “If a non-board member, including the board’s attorney, remains in an executive meeting after his or her presence is no longer required for the meeting’s purpose, the executive meeting may lose its ‘executive‘ character.” Id., quoting OIP Op. Ltr. No. 03-12 at 6.

The board is entitled to invite into an executive meeting any non-board member whose presence is either necessary or helpful to the board in its discussion, deliberation, and decision-making regarding the topic of the executive meeting. Once the non-board member’s presence is no longer needed, however, the non-board member must be excused from the executive meeting. Because the meeting is closed to the general public, the board should allow the non-board members to be present during the executive meeting only for the portions of the meeting for which their presence is necessary or helpful, such as when a board staff member is there to address a particular issue.

Yes. Boards are allowed to conduct remote meetings using interactive conference technology (ICT), so board members can participate from their private homes, offices, and other locations not open to the public. While board members must generally still be visible and audible during the public portion of remote meetings, the law only requires them to be audible to the other authorized participants during the executive sessions, which are closed to the public. Therefore, a board member could participate in an executive session via telephone conference, rather than online.

To preserve the executive nature of the session that is being conducted remotely, the presiding officer must publicly state the names and titles of all participants authorized to be in the executive session. Upon convening the executive session, all participants must confirm that no one unauthorized is present or can hear them either in person or via another connection, and when the remote meeting platform allows seeing a list of participants, the person hosting the ICT must confirm that no unauthorized person has access.

Note that these safeguards are not required for in-person meetings held in multiple locations and connected to each other via ICT, because the board members at such meetings are physically present at one of the official meeting locations. However, a disabled member participating in a multi-site meeting via ICT from a private location must still identify anyone else there with the member during the meeting (not limited to the executive meeting portion). Although the new provisions of the Sunshine Law do not specifically address executive sessions, a disabled member attending remotely cannot have unauthorized persons with them during the executive session, any more than the members physically present at a noticed location could have unauthorized persons remain in the room for the executive session.

Generally, no. In most instances, the board must vote in an open meeting on the matters considered in an executive meeting. In rare instances, the Sunshine Law allows the board to vote in the executive meeting when the vote, if conducted in an open meeting, would defeat the purpose of the executive meeting, such as by revealing the matter for which confidentiality may be needed. In those rare instances where a board can and does vote in an executive meeting, it must report any action taken when it returns to public session and summarize what happened in the executive session.

Yes, if the challenge is upheld. Section 92-9(a), HRS, requires written or recorded minutes to be kept of all meetings, including executive meetings. Executive meeting minutes may be withheld from public disclosure only for so long as their publication would defeat the lawful purpose of the executive meeting. HRS § 92- 9(b). When a board’s executive session has been challenged, OIP or the court will confidentially review the executive meeting minutes in camera to determine if the board’s discussion fell within the stated purpose of the closed meeting. See CBLC at 144 Haw. 486, 445 P.3d 47 (recognizing the need for in camera review). Executive meeting minutes must be disclosed in camera to OIP or the reviewing court, and if OIP or the reviewing court finds that the discussion should have been done in public session, the board may be required to disclose the minutes of the improper executive session to the public.

Even when a board lawfully met in executive session, a member of the public can request a copy of its executive session minutes and all or portions of those minutes may still be subject to disclosure, if their publication would no longer defeat the purpose of the executive session.

Note that because the meeting minutes also constitute a government record, the UIPA’s provisions may be applicable, including the balancing test for a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under section 92F-14(a), HRS. See CBLC n. 18 at 144 Haw. 490, 445 P.3d 47 (recognizing that it is proper to analyze an issue concerning disclosure of executive meeting minutes under both the Sunshine Law and the UIPA).

Yes. The Hawaii Supreme Court has held that a violation of the executive meeting provisions in section 92-5, HRS, is equivalent to a violation of the open meeting requirement of section 92-3, HRS, thus subjecting any final action taken by the board to being potentially voided under section 92-11, HRS. Therefore, if the executive meeting discussions and deliberations are not “directly related” to a permissible exception under section 92-5(b), HRS, a court has the discretion to void any final action taken by the board. Pursuant to section 92-11, HRS, a suit to void any final action must be commenced within ninety days of the action.

Executive Meetings: Case Summary of Civil Beat Law Center (2019)

The Sunshine Law allows boards to hold an in-person meeting across multiple meeting sites connected via audio- or videoconference or another form of interactive conference technology (ICT), subject to requirements listed in section 92-3.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). This Quick Review discusses the requirements for noticing the official meeting locations for a multi-site meeting and contains recommendations for boards that want to provide additional locations where no board members will attend to accommodate members of the public.

Note that OIP has created a separate Quick Review for Remote Meetings, which are also conducted using ICT but are not considered in-person meetings, since board members are not required to attend remote meetings in person.

The notice of meeting for a multi-site meeting by ICT must list as public meeting sites the locations where board members plan to be present. (As explained below, board members with a disability may attend meetings from a private site under an exception.) All public meeting locations must be listed in the filed notice.
Board members may attend from any of the public meeting sites listed on the filed notice. The notice need not identify which site each board member will attend. However, board members may not attend a location noticed as an “additional” location where no board member will be present, as further described below.
The noticed public meeting sites cannot be cancelled, disconnected, or shut down early while the meeting goes on elsewhere. The Sunshine Law does not require that at least one board member actually be present at each of the noticed public meeting sites. However, even if no board member or member of the public is at a public meeting site, the site must be kept available to the public and linked to the other public meeting sites until the end of the meeting. Failure to do so could draw a complaint from a member of the public who arrived late at a noticed site. If the connection between meeting sites is lost, the meeting is automatically recessed for up to 30 minutes to restore the connection. If the connection cannot be restored within that time, the meeting is automatically terminated, unless the board has provided reasonable notice of how the meeting will be continued. If the board provides reasonable notice, the meeting may be considered to be in recess and continued at a specified date and time, rather than terminated. If the meeting must be terminated, the board will be unable to return to the issues being discussed without noticing a new meeting at least 6 days in advance.
- If a board wants to cancel a noticed public meeting location when the meeting is still more than 6 calendar days away, it can cancel the entire meeting and file a new notice with only the desired locations. If the meeting is less than 6 days away, the board must either convene the meeting at all the originally noticed sites, or cancel the entire meeting.
A board is not required to have multiple meeting sites. The fact that a board previously has had multiple locations, or has used a particular location as a meeting site, does not create any obligation for the board to include those locations as public meeting sites for future meetings. A board always has the option to hold an in-person meeting at a single location in the traditional way.
Meeting sites are not required to be linked by video; an audio connection is sufficient. When a meeting site is connected only by audio, copies of visual aids being used at other sites must be made available at the audio-only site within 15 minutes after audio-only connection is established following an interruption in the ICT connection, or the agenda items for which the visual aids are used cannot be acted on at that meeting. Visual aids may be transmitted by online posting (e.g., on the board’s website) or other means.

The Sunshine Law does not limit remote participation in an in-person meeting by members of the general public, and the requirement to participate at a noticed meeting site applies only to board members. The Sunshine Law also does not require boards to accommodate participation from locations other than the noticed meeting site(s). However, boards are allowed but are not required to list on a meeting notice “additional” locations open for public participation, where board members will not be in attendance, and connectivity to the noticed meeting is not guaranteed. Boards can determine whether to allow testifiers, presenters, and other members of the public to:

Participate from an “additional” location listed on the notice, which is not guaranteed to remain open for the whole meeting; or
Testify remotely via phone or other means from home or another non-noticed location.

Boards may be required to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and should consult with their own attorneys or the State Disability and Communication Access Board at (808) 586-8121 (Voice or TTY) or email [email protected] regarding compliance with the ADA. OIP does not have authority to provide legal advice on the ADA.

If the notice does list one or more additional locations open for public participation, it must make clear the distinction between the noticed public meeting site(s) and the listed additional location(s). Specifically, the notice must specify whether the meeting will continue without the additional location if the connection is lost between the other sites and the additional location. Moreover, as a general rule, board members themselves cannot attend from an additional location or another non-noticed location, which also means that they cannot participate, listen in, vote, or be counted toward quorum from an additional location or a non-noticed location. The only exception to this rule is for disabled board members, as described below.

A board member with a disability that limits or impairs the member’s ability to physically attend a noticed meeting may participate from a location not noticed and not accessible to the public, so long as the member is connected by audio and video means and identifies where he or she is and who else is present with the member. Thus, for example, a disabled board member may participate by video and audio connection from a non-noticed location such as a private residence or hospital, so long as the other requirements in section 92-3.5(d), HRS, are met.

Sunshine Law boards that track legislation and submit testimony on legislative issues or measures are faced with the annual question: how can they keep up with the legislative calendar and submit testimony on a timely basis while still following the Sunshine Law? The State Office of Information Practices has prepared this Quick Review to provide several options. This Quick Review was written to address issues boards commonly have in tracking bills and testifying during the Hawaii State Legislature’s regular session, but most of the options discussed could be adapted for use with other legislative bodies, such as the federal Congress or a county council.

When dealing with legislative matters when legislative committees often give less than six days’ notice of their hearings, one major hurdle that boards face is the Sunshine Law’s six-day notice requirement before conducting a meeting to discuss a legislative measure. Since most boards typically meet on a monthly or less frequent basis, their meeting schedule, together with the six-day notice requirement, leaves them with limited options to timely notice a meeting and discuss the adoption of their legislative testimony or position before the legislative hearing.

The Sunshine Law, however, allows board members to discuss board business outside a meeting in limited circumstances, as set forth in the “permitted interactions” section of the law. HRS § 92-2.5. These permitted interactions are not considered to be “meetings” of a board or subcommittee subject to the Sunshine Law’s six-day advance notice requirements. HRS §92-2.5(i). Note, however, that the Sunshine Law does not allow permitted interactions to “be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements” of the law, and thus permitted interactions generally cannot be mixed and matched or used serially because the resulting communication would go beyond the limits of any one permitted interaction. For instance, if four of nine board members are assigned to a permitted interaction group on a bill, the law would not allow one of those members to also talk about the same bill to a member who was not part of the group under the two-person permitted interaction, because doing so would mean the bill was serially discussed by a total of five members, more than allowed by either of those permitted interactions.

Among the various types of permitted interactions authorized under section 92-2.5, HRS, the most useful in developing or adopting positions on legislative measures are the four described in:

section 92-2.5(a), HRS, which allows two members of a board to discuss board business between themselves so long as no commitment to vote is made or sought;
section 92-2.5(b)(2), HRS, which allows a board to create a permitted interaction group (“PIG”) with less than a quorum of its membership to present, discuss, or negotiate any board position that the board had previously adopted at a meeting;
section 92-2.5 (e), HRS, which allows less than a quorum of board members to attend a legislative hearing (or other “informational meeting”) and report their attendance at the next board meeting; and
section 92-2.5(h), HRS, allowing an unlimited number of board members to circulate draft State legislative testimony for members’ review, written comment, and approval, subject to various limitations.

Permitted interactions are discussed in greater detail in OIP’s Quick Review series on “Permitted Interactions Outside of a Meeting: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When.” Besides permitted interactions, other options for a board to address legislative matters are by delegation to staff, or through the special limited meeting provision for county councils, or at an emergency meeting of the board. What follows are the various options and practical considerations for a board to discuss and submit timely testimony on legislative issues or measures.

At the outset of the legislative session, a board may file a notice of a public meeting with an agenda indicating that the board will consider the adoption of a position or the general policy direction it will take on specific legislative topics, subject matters and legislative measures, including the relevant bill numbers, if available, which the board desires to present in testimony during a legislative session. (A board may contact OIP’s Attorney of the Day to discuss whether the notice of an agenda item is legally sufficient.)

The board could then delegate to staff (e.g., executive director) the authority to track legislative measures and draft testimony in accordance with the positions and policy directives previously adopted by the board. The members of a board’s staff (assuming they are not board members) can freely discuss legislative measures the board is tracking among themselves without implicating the Sunshine Law or requiring a permitted interaction. Likewise, discussions involving staff and a single board member would not raise Sunshine Law concerns, unless the discussions comprise a serial communication between staff and individual board members to solicit a commitment to vote on a specific matter.

If the entire board wanted the opportunity to comment on and approve testimony drafted by staff, the board’s staff could then circulate draft testimony to all board members for their review and written comment and approval under section 92-2.5(h), HRS, (discussed as the fifth option) so long as (1) the legislative deadline was too soon to allow the board to notice a meeting and (2) the board posts all drafts and communications about the testimony within 48 hours on the board’s website or an appropriate state or county website. Alternatively, the staff could submit the testimony without further review or approval by the board, or after running it by one member, such as the board chair. Throughout the legislative session, the board’s staff could also report on legislative measures and testimony at board or committee meetings conducted pursuant to the Sunshine Law, at which time the entire board or committee could discuss and deliberate on the measures.

A board could delegate to two board members the authority to prepare and submit legislative testimony, talk to legislators, and attend legislative hearings, all in accordance with the position or policy direction the board had previously adopted. Under the permitted interaction authorized in section 92-2.5(a), HRS, two board members may discuss between themselves official board business, including legislative measures of interest to the board, provided that no commitment by the board members to vote on board business is made or sought and the two members do not constitute a quorum of the board.

The two board members working on a legislative issue or measure can provide reports at any meeting of the board when the issue is on the agenda. Moreover, different combinations of members may be assigned to work on different legislative issues or measures. However, the two board members assigned to a legislative measure or issue must be careful to avoid involving additional members in discussions of that matter outside a board meeting because these discussions could constitute a serial discussion among three or more members in violation of the Sunshine Law.

Discussions by all members may take place at duly noticed board meetings. The full board can continue to oversee the implementation of the general policy direction by the two board members and address any new issues that arise during the legislative session at its regularly scheduled meetings. If necessary, the full board may also hold emergency meetings, as described in the sixth option below.

Some boards may prefer to have more than two members involved in legislative matters. If so, a board may consider the establishment of a PIG under section 92-2.5(b)(2), HRS, which could consist of more than two members, so long as it is less than a quorum of the board.

Initially, the board should adopt its position or establish policy directives at a public meeting duly noticed under the Sunshine Law. The agenda item in the public meeting notice would describe the specific topic, subject matter, or legislative measure, including any bill number, if known, that the board desires to adopt a position on or to set a policy directive in response to any legislative measure the board anticipates could be discussed during a legislative session. An additional agenda item for the public meeting should describe the PIG to be established under section 92-2.5(b)(2), HRS, including the assignment of specific board members to the PIG and the establishment of the scope of each member’s authority to present, discuss, or negotiate any position that the board had previously adopted.

A legislative PIG established under section 92-2.5(b)(2), HRS, and acting within the scope of each member’s previously defined authority, would not be subject to the investigative PIG’s requirements under section 92-2.5(b)(1), HRS, to initially report its findings at a public meeting before the full board could discuss or act on the report at a subsequent meeting. Nor would a legislative PIG established under section 92-2.5(b)(2), HRS, be subject to the reporting requirements of section 92-2.5(e), HRS, for attending informational meetings described in the fourth option below.

Section 92-2.5(e), HRS, allows two or more members of a board, but less than a quorum, to attend and participate in discussion at an informational meeting or presentation on matters relating to official board business, including meetings of another entity or a legislative hearing. The meeting or presentation, however, must not be specifically and exclusively organized for or directed toward board members, and a commitment by board members relating to a vote on a matter cannot be made or sought. At the next duly noticed board meeting, the board members must report their attendance at the informational meeting or presentation and the matters relating to official board business that were discussed during the meeting or presentation.

Under this permitted interaction, it would not be necessary for the full board to have previously created a PIG under section 92-2.5(b), HRS, or to have established a position or policy on a legislative measure or issue.

If a board has no staff or if its members wish to take a more active role in legislative matters, then a board’s own members may prepare and submit any legislative testimony in accordance with the position or policy direction the board had previously adopted. When a legislative deadline is too soon to allow the board to hold a meeting to approve testimony, any number of board members may circulate draft testimony for approval, so long as all drafts and comments are in writing and are posted within 48 hours of the statement’s circulation to the board, on the board’s website or an appropriate state or county website, pursuant to the legislative permitted interaction found at section 92-2.5(h), HRS.

This testimony permitted interaction, however, may be of limited benefit to boards because it would foreclose the use of other permitted interactions. To comply with specific statutory requirements and to avoid creating a serial use of permitted interactions, the testimony permitted interaction could not be readily used in combination with other permitted interactions, such as a general delegation of legislative authority to two members under section 92-2.5(a), HRS, or to a permitted interaction group (PIG) under section 92-2.5(b)(2), HRS. While these latter two permitted interactions allow in-person or phone communications between board members, the legislative permitted interaction requires all communications to be in writing and posted on the board’s website. Additionally, the two other permitted interactions allow only a limited number of board members to communicate with each other, but the testimony permitted interaction allows communication among all board members. Given these inherent conflicts between the requirements of different permitted interactions, a board that wants its board members to not just prepare and submit testimony but also talk about legislative issues generally outside a meeting, including attending hearings and meeting with legislators, will be better served by delegating the authority to pursue the board’s previously adopted legislative positions to a subset of members acting under another permitted interaction, rather than drafting and approving testimony as a board under the testimony permitted interaction of section 92-2.5(h), HRS. Alternatively, the board could delegate that authority to staff as discussed in option one while retaining the option to have the board’s members review and approve the testimony drafted by staff under this permitted interaction.

Any number of county councilmembers may attend a limited meeting that is open to the public, as guests of a board or community group holding its own meeting, provided that the following requirements of section 92-3.1(b), HRS, are met:

six days’ advance notice of the limited meeting must be provided to indicate whose board or community group the council is attending, but no agenda is necessary as it is not the council’s own meeting;
if the other board or community group is subject to the Sunshine Law, then that board or group must still meet the Sunshine Law’s notice requirements;
no more than one limited meeting per month may be held by the County Council involving the same board or community group;
no limited meetings may be held outside the State; and
the limited meeting shall not be used to circumvent the purpose of the Sunshine Law.

HRS § 92-3.1(b) (formatting altered). Additional requirements under section 92-3.1(c), HRS, for limited meetings apply, such as prior OIP approval and videotaping of the limited meeting, as well as the general meeting requirements, such as keeping minutes.

This option would allow more than a quorum of a county council to meet with constituents or community groups regarding their legislative concerns, but would not be a preferred way for the council itself to address legislative matters. If a quorum or more of a board wanted to attend a specific legislative hearing together, however, this form of limited meeting would be the only option for doing so, other than noticing the hearing as a regular board meeting.

If an unanticipated legislative issue or measure arises that requires the full board’s action, an emergency meeting could be noticed under section 92-8(b), HRS, but this would not be a preferred option. An emergency meeting requires the board to meet the following conditions:

The board must state in writing the reasons for its finding that an unanticipated event has occurred and that an emergency meeting is necessary, and must obtain the Attorney General’s concurrence.
Two-thirds of all members to which the board is entitled must agree that the conditions necessary for an emergency meeting exists.
Although six days’ advance notice is not required, the written finding that an unanticipated event has occurred and that an emergency meeting is necessary, and an emergency meeting agenda, must be electronically posted in the same way as for a regular meeting notice and agenda, and copies provided to the office of the Lt. Governor or appropriate county clerk’s office and made available in the board’s office.
Persons requesting notification of board meetings on a regular basis must be contacted by postal mail, email, or telephone as soon as practicable.
The board’s action must be limited to only action that must be taken on or before the date that a meeting would have been held, had the board noticed the meeting pursuant to section 92-7, HRS.

HRS § 92-8(b)(formatting altered). Because of the additional requirements for noticing an emergency meeting, as well as the logistical challenges of frequently gathering a quorum of a board’s membership on short notice, this option is not one that would be used on a regular basis to deal with legislative issues or measures.

In closing, there are various options available to a Sunshine Law board to deal with legislative matters in a timely fashion. For additional guidance, please feel free to contact OIP’s Attorney of the Day at (808) 586-1400 or [email protected].

For boards subject to the Sunshine Law, Part I of Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), here is a quick review of the Sunshine Law’s minutes requirements for public meetings.

All Hawaii State and county boards that are subject to the Sunshine Law must keep minutes of all meetings, including executive sessions. Minutes of a public meeting must be available to the public within 40 days after the date of the meeting. HRS § 92-9(b).

This automatic disclosure requirement, however, does not apply to the minutes of executive meetings that are properly closed to the public. Executive meeting minutes may be withheld to the extent that their disclosure would defeat the purpose of closing the meeting to the public in the first place. HRS § 92-9(b).

A board has a choice of two formats for minutes: (1) written minutes, or (2) recorded minutes consisting of a recording of the entire meeting accompanied by a written summary. Either way, minutes must provide “a true reflection of the matters discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants.” HRS § 92-9(a).

If a board opts for written minutes, those minutes must include:

The date, time, and place of the meeting;
The members recorded as either present or absent;
The substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided;
A record by individual member of votes taken;
If a recording of the meeting is available online, a link to the recording placed at the beginning of the minutes; and
Any information that a board member specifically asks at the meeting to be included.

Boards opting for written minutes are not required to create a transcript of or (except for remote meetings) to electronically record a meeting. The primary purpose for minutes is to record what the decision-makers (the board members) did and discussed during the meeting, so that the public can scrutinize their actions. While the law also requires the minutes to reflect the views of participants in the meeting who are not board members, it is sufficient for written minutes to describe, in very general terms, the positions expressed by these other participants.

If a board opts for recorded minutes, those minutes must include an audio or audiovisual recording of the meeting accompanied by a written summary, which must include:

The date, time, and place of the meeting;
The members of the board recorded as either present or absent, and the times when individual members entered or left the meeting;
A record, by individual members, of motions and votes made by the board; and
A time stamp or other reference indicating when in the recording the board began discussion of each agenda item and when motions and votes were made by the board.

The written summary requirements will allow the public to quickly find key information about a meeting and skip to the point in the recording where an item of interest was discussed, without having to listen to the entire recording that may be hours long. Although a board does have the choice to record its minutes in either digital (e.g., audio or video computer file) or analog (e.g., a magnetic tape recording) format, OIP recommends that boards record in a digital format to avoid having to convert an analog recording into digital format to be able to place the recording online.

Online meeting platforms typically offer a straightforward option to record a meeting. Thus, boards using such platforms are required to use that option and make the recorded meeting available for public viewers who may not have been able to watch the live meeting. In situations where recording and posting are not practicable, though, the board will not violate the law by its failure to do so. For remote meetings held using interactive conference technology (ICT), the Sunshine Law specifically provides:

Boards shall record meetings open to the public, when practicable, and make the recording of any meeting electronically available to the public as soon as practicable after a meeting and until a time as the minutes required by section 92-9 are electronically posted on the board’s website. Boards are encouraged to keep recordings available on their website.

HRS § 92-3.7(b)(6). A board may choose to use the recording, with the addition of a written summary, as its recorded minutes under section 92-9, HRS. Alternatively, if it prefers to create written minutes, a board is allowed to take down and even delete the recording once its written minutes are posted online, but section 92-9(b) requires it to send a copy of the recording to the State Archives before removing it from the website.

The Sunshine Law does not require board approval of meeting minutes. Although many boards choose to approve their minutes at a subsequent meeting, the Sunshine Law still requires that minutes be made available within 40 days after a meeting, even if the board has not yet approved the minutes. If a board receives a request for minutes of a meeting held 40 or more days ago and the minutes have not been finalized, the board should provide a record of the meeting in whatever form it then exists, even if it is in draft form or in the form of notes. The board can stamp the minutes as a “DRAFT” and let the requester know that a final version will be forthcoming later, but if 40 or more days have elapsed since the meeting, the board must provide minutes of some sort upon request.
Draft minutes are often circulated to board members to review and make corrections in advance of the meeting at which the minutes will be approved. To avoid potential problems with serial communications and discussions outside of a properly noticed meeting, however, board members’ comments and revisions should not be circulated to other board members. Changes could instead be directed to and incorporated into a revised draft by staff for distribution to board members, without identifying the board members who suggested the revisions.
Written minutes should reflect who spoke and the gist of what was said. Instead of simply stating that “Discussion was had,” minutes should summarize or paraphrase the board members’ discussion, such as, “Member A asked whether . . .” and “Member B stated that . . . ”
Written minutes should reflect a participant’s testimony that was presented, but it is sufficient for the minutes to reflect it in a minimal form, such as, “Kimo Doe testified against the proposal to . . . .”
A board member’s right to request that specific information be included in the written minutes only applies while the meeting is still taking place. During a meeting, a board member can make a request such as, “Please let the minutes reflect that I own property adjacent to the parcel discussed in agenda item 5,” or “I would like these written remarks included in the minutes verbatim,” and the board must honor the request. The board member cannot wait until after the meeting, however, to insist that the written minutes be amended to include specific information.
Even after voting to approve a particular set of minutes, a board may choose to amend the minutes at some later time. So long as the minutes continue to provide a true reflection of what happened at the meeting and include the information required by law, there is no Sunshine Law violation when amending old minutes. Since the Sunshine Law does not have procedures for amending minutes that have already been adopted, OIP recommends that boards follow their own procedures or consult with their attorneys regarding such amendments.
There is no requirement in the Sunshine Law that boards maintain a list of persons who wish to receive minutes. Moreover, there is no right under the Sunshine Law to make a continuous, standing request to be notified when a board’s minutes are posted online. The Sunshine Law requirement for minutes to be posted online does not include a specific endpoint for how long they must remain online, so how long minutes for past years must be kept available on a website ultimately depends on the board and its retention policy. The Sunshine Law does, however, require a board to send a copy of a remote meeting recording to the State Archives before taking the recording off its website, and OIP recommends that a board planning to remove historical minutes from its website should first send copies to the State Archives, regardless of whether they are in written or recorded format.
Once disclosure of executive meeting minutes, or relevant portions thereof, would no longer defeat the purpose of closing the meeting to the public, they should be made available to the public, if requested. For example, minutes of an executive meeting to discuss a proposed land purchase could generally be disclosed once the deal was completed. On the other hand, if an executive meeting was held to protect the privacy of an employee being evaluated, the purpose for the executive session generally could continue to apply indefinitely.

For additional assistance, please check out OIP’s training materials, including the Sunshine Law Guide, on this page. For general advice, you may contact OIP’s attorney of the day by calling (808) 586-1400 or emailing [email protected].

Notice-Checklist-for-Meetings-April 2026 Download

For boards subject to the Sunshine Law, Part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), here is a quick review of the Sunshine Law’s notice requirements for public meetings. All Hawaii State and county boards that are subject to the Sunshine Law must provide timely notice of all regular, special, or rescheduled meetings, and of executive meetings that are anticipated in advance, in accordance with section 92–7, HRS. Please note that remote meetings (section 92-3.7, HRS), in-personmeetings held at multiple sites by interactive conference technology (section 92-3.5, HRS), and limited meetings (section 92–3.1, HRS) are subject to the following provisions on notice as well as other conditions set forth in the applicable sections of the Sunshine Law. Emergency meetings (section 92–8, HRS) must also be noticed, but notice may be filed within a shorter time period than the normal six days, and there are additional conditions.

The notice must include the following:

Date of the meeting;
Time of the meeting;
Location(s) of the meeting, including all sites where board members will be physically present for an in-person meeting and the required physical meeting site for a remote meeting;
Board’s electronic and postal contact information for testimony;
Instructions on how to request a disability accommodation;
Agenda listing all items to be considered at the meeting;
If applicable, the purpose of an executive meeting; and
For a remote meeting using interactive conference technology (ICT), online connection information for the public to attend and testify.

The notice may include:

Additional locations provided for the public’s convenience, but must state whether the meeting will continue without the additional location or be automatically recessed to restore communication if the ICT connection between the additional location and the public meeting site(s) is lost. For an in-person meeting, the notice must also state that no board members will be attending from an additional location.
If a meeting is being connected remotely or between multiple in-person sites using ICT, the notice may include arrangements in the event of an ICT connection interruption during the meeting, such as reconnection information, information on how to access visual aids, or an alternative date, time, and place for continuation of the meeting if the ICT connection is lost for longer than 30 minutes.

At least six calendar days before non-emergency meetings, the notice must be:

Electronically posted on the State Calendar (State agencies) or the appropriate county calendar (county agencies), which is the official filing;
Filed with the Office of the Lt. Governor (State boards), or the county clerk’s office (county boards), and a proof of filing retained (but a failure to meet this requirement doesn’t require cancellation of the meeting);
Physically posted at the board’s office for public inspection;
Physically posted at the meeting site (when feasible); and
Provided to persons requesting notification by postal or electronic mail.

Newspaper publication under section 1-28.5, HRS, is not required for Sunshine Law notices.
The Sunshine Law requires that boards maintain a list of persons who wish to receive the notice by postal or electronic mail. For persons who requested to be on a board’s email or postal mailing list, the emails should be sent out and the meeting notices should be postmarked for delivery by regular U.S. Postal Service mail at least six calendar days before the meeting, or OIP will routinely advise the board to cancel the meeting.
If the agenda electronically posted on the county calendar does not reflect the date of the actual posting, then county boards should print and time-stamp a copy of the posted agenda to retain as proof of the date that the agenda was posted. The State Calendar provides this information, so State boards can just print out and keep a copy of the posted agenda in their files.
Boards are not required by the Sunshine Law to file a notice when cancelling a meeting. A board’s mere failure to be present at a noticed meeting automatically cancels the meeting. However, as a courtesy to the public, OIP recommends taking down the electronic calendar notice, posting notification of the cancelled meeting at the board’s office and at the meeting location, and informing those people who asked to receive notice by email.
Boards wishing to change the date or time of a meeting should cancel the original meeting and file a new notice at least six days in advance of the new date and time.
If a board must change the physical location of a meeting on the day of the meeting (for example, the room loses power or air conditioning), it should call the meeting to order at the noticed location, and then announce that the meeting will be recessed and continued shortly thereafter in the new location, in accordance with section 92–7(d), HRS. A written notification of the new meeting location should be posted at the originally noticed location.
If a board needs to change or correct the link to a remote meeting, it should cancel the original meeting and file a timely new notice with the correct link.
When a board is unable to complete an agenda, the Sunshine Law allows the board to continue a meeting by announcing a reasonable date and time for the continued meeting to those in attendance at the meeting. At the continued meeting, the discussion may only be a continuation from the original meeting, allowing discussions of agenda items where the board left off. A board does not need to re-hear or accept new testimony for completed agenda items at the continued meeting. Boards need not file notices for continued meetings, but if practicable, a board should complete and attach OIP’s “Notice of Continuance of a Meeting” form to the agenda that was filed for the original meeting, post it at the board’s office and electronically on the State calendar (State agencies) or the appropriate county calendar (county agencies), and send it to the board’s email list. A board should not place the items continued from a previous meeting together with new items on the agenda for a new meeting unless it is prepared to hear testimony again on the continued agenda items, as they would then effectively be agenda items to be considered at the new meeting rather than agenda items still under consideration as part of a continued meeting. For more detailed information, see Quick Review: “Continuance of a Meeting” which is posted in this section, along with the Notice form, which is posted on the Sunshine Law Forms page.
If there is a non-emergency joint meeting with two or more boards, then each board is responsible for meeting the Sunshine Law’s requirements, but they can coordinate to avoid duplicative actions. All boards must ensure that notices are mailed to persons on their own postal and email mailing lists; but if a person is on more than one mailing list, the Sunshine Law’s notice requirement is met as long as one of the boards sends the notice to that person. If one board meets all Sunshine Law requirements, but the other board in a joint meeting fails to do so, then the first board can proceed with the meeting without the second board. The second board must cancel its meeting and cannot have a quorum or more of its members in attendance at what was originally planned as a joint meeting with the first board. For additional information about joint meetings, see Quick Review: Roundtable Discussions with Multiple Boards Subject to the Sunshine Law, which is posted in this section.
When a board member will attend an in-person meeting via an audio and video connection from a private location (e.g., home or hospital room) due to a disability limiting the member’s ability to attend in-person, the specific address of the private location need not be listed on the notice.

The Sunshine Law requires that the notice include instructions on how to request an auxiliary aid/service or accommodation. The State Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB) has recently revised its recommended instructions for public meeting notices, and now recommends that boards use either one of the two sample statements below:

“If you need an auxiliary aid/service or other accommodation due to a disability, contact [Name] at [phone number and email address] as soon as possible, preferably by [reply date]. Requests made as early as possible have a greater likelihood of being fulfilled.

Upon request, this notice is available in alternate/accessible formats.

Or, if no reply date is provided:

“If you need an auxiliary aid/service or other accommodation due to a disability, contact [Name] at [phone number and email address] as soon as possible. Requests made as early as possible have a greater likelihood of being fulfilled.

Upon request, this notice is available in alternate/accessible formats.”

Failure to follow the Sunshine Law’s notice requirements may necessitate cancellation of the meeting. If the meeting nevertheless proceeds, a court may void any final action taken in violation of the Sunshine Law’s notice requirements. A suit to void any final action must be commenced within 90 days of the action.

For guidance and examples on how to write an agenda, please consult related materials on this page, which include Agenda Guidance for Sunshine Law Boards, a Public Meeting Notice Checklist, a Notice of Continuance form and a Quick Review on Meeting Continuances. For additional assistance, please contact OIP’s Attorney of the Day by calling (808) 586-1400 or emailing [email protected].

Lieutenant-Governors-Memorandum-No.-2024-01-remediated Download

OIP often is asked whether board members can talk to the board’s staff, members of the public, or one another in various situations when not in a meeting. To help board members understand what they can talk about outside a meeting, and with whom, OIP has put together this Quick Review.

Hawaii’s Sunshine Law, Part I of Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), generally requires board members to discuss all board business in open meetings that have been properly noticed to allow for public participation. There are, however, a number of exceptions and “permitted interactions” that allow board members to have discussions outside of a meeting, even on matters that constitute board business. A few of these exceptions and permitted interactions are described below.

Members should note that the Sunshine Law expressly states that no permitted interaction shall be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of the Sunshine Law to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. For this reason, permitted interactions generally may not be mixed and matched or used serially, as doing so can result in a discussion of board business outside a meeting that does not fit within the limits of any one of the permitted interactions and thus is not authorized under the Sunshine Law.

The Sunshine Law applies whenever board members are discussing board business, i.e., specific matters within the board’s authority that are on a board’s upcoming agenda or reasonably likely to appear on an agenda in the foreseeable future. When board members are discussing matters that are not board business, the Sunshine Law does not apply to restrict the discussion. Thus, board members could discuss with one another, or with anyone else:

Matters unrelated to what the board does, such as the weather, sports teams, personal news, vacation plans, world events, or similar topics beyond the scope of the board’s responsibilities;
Matters related to what the board does, but that are not being considered by the board as a whole or a committee of the board at a meeting because they are ministerial (i.e., handled by staff) or within the Chair’s sole purview, such as scheduling of meetings, including which items will appear on which meeting’s agenda, members’ travel arrangements, logistical arrangements for an award ceremony, or similar topics; or
Matters that the board considered in the past but does not expect to reconsider in the foreseeable future because the matter has concluded, such as dedication of a completed baseball field that the board gave approval to at an earlier stage, or a report that the board was required to and did submit to a legislative body by a now‐past date.

These sorts of matters can be discussed by board members in any number, and need not be discussed in a meeting, because they are not board business at the time they are being discussed and, thus, the discussion is not controlled by the Sunshine Law. Board members may also attend lunches, social and ceremonial events, or board retreats, without violating the Sunshine Law, so long as board business is not discussed, deliberated, or decided upon.

The Sunshine Law only applies to boards and their discussions, deliberations, decisions, and actions. Because the Sunshine Law does not apply to a board member’s communications with people who are not members of the covered board, a member may discuss board business with people who are not board members outside of a meeting, without needing to fall into one of the permitted interactions. Board members, therefore, can freely talk or otherwise communicate with:

Citizens concerned about a particular issue
Reporters
Lobbyists
Board or agency staff
Other government officials, and
The general public

It is possible that in some of those cases, the information from one board member will be transmitted to other board members. For instance, a lobbyist may be going from one county council member’s office to the next to talk about a piece of board business and may carry information over, as in, “Councilmember A said she’d be willing to support us on this if the bill is amended to cover frogs as well. Could you support that?” However, this would not be considered a discussion directly between the council members. Similarly, a reporter might speak to multiple council members and say something like, “Member B told me that the Board expects to reconsider the motion next month. Can you confirm that?” Again, even though information was passed on, because the actual communication was through a third party, it would not be considered a discussion between the board members.

Note: If board members would like to discuss board business with individuals who are not board members, members should be mindful not to improperly disclose information that was part of an executive meeting closed to the public, and may wish to consult with the board’s attorney in such situations.

Information and materials provided by members to the staff may be incorporated into the staff’s own analysis or report on a board matter and may be distributed by staff to the board members in advance of a meeting. The staff’s report should not identify individual board members’ positions on an issue, but can recognize and discuss the various viewpoints in general and provide recommendations for actions.

Board members should also refrain from using staffers as mere go‐betweens to carry messages between board members, as that could be found to be a discussion directly between board members, depending on the circumstances. Telling a staffer, “I have concerns about the direction we’re taking on this issue and I’d like you to do some research on this aspect of it,” is fine, even if the staffer tells other members, “Member C asked me to research this topic because of her concerns about the way the board is handling the issue.” But telling a staffer, “Please go tell Members D and E that I have concerns about the way we’re handing this issue,” would be inadvisable, as it could be construed as a serial communication with members D and E.

As discussed above, the Sunshine Law applies whenever board members are discussing board business. When board members communicate to one another about board business, they need to do so either in (1) a properly noticed meeting, or (2) in circumstances where the discussion is specifically permitted by one of the Sunshine Law’s exceptions. When board members are prohibited by the Sunshine Law from discussing or communicating about board business face to face, they also cannot do so by telephone, e‐mail, letters or memoranda, social media such as Facebook and Twitter, or any other means of communication.

Before communicating with other board members outside a meeting, a board member should check whether one of the Sunshine Law’s permitted interactions applies. Permitted interactions are specific circumstances in which the law permits board members to discuss board business outside a meeting, so long as the statutory requirements are met.

The most frequently used permitted interaction, section 92‐2.5(a), HRS, allows two board members to discuss any board business, without limitation, so long as they do not make or seek a commitment to vote and do not constitute a quorum of their board. This limitation on making a commitment to vote does allow discussion of the two board members’ views and inclinations on an issue, but prohibits, for example, horse‐trading of votes such as, “If you’ll agree to vote my way on this issue, I’ll give you my vote on your pet project next month.”

The two‐person permitted interaction does not require any prior arrangement on the part of the two members using it; they can run into each other on the street, e‐mail each other, or telephone each other, so long as only two members are part of the discussion. Other people who are not members of the board can be present, as their discussions with board members are not regulated by the Sunshine Law.

Permitted interactions cannot be used to circumvent the requirements or the spirit of the law to make a decision or to deliberate towards a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. Specifically, where two members have discussed an issue using the two‐person permitted interaction, they cannot then extend the discussion out to other board members through serial use of the permitted interaction. If Member X called Member Y to talk about the feral cat issue on the upcoming agenda, Member Y cannot then stop in the hallway to talk to Member Z about it, as there would then be three members who were privy to the discussion. Both Member X and Member Y must refrain from discussing the feral cat issue with other members until after the board has next discussed it at a meeting, which essentially clears the slate as to members’ previous discussions.

The selection of the board’s officers may be discussed between two or more board members, but less than a quorum, in private without limitation or subsequent reporting.

The Sunshine Law defines a “meeting” at HRS § 92-2 as the convening of a board for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. When a meeting must be cancelled for lack of quorum or terminated when quorum is lost during the meeting, the board members present may nevertheless receive testimony and presentations on agenda items and may question testifiers or presenters under HRS § 92-2.5(d).

Under HRS § 92-3.5(c), when a board is holding a multi-site meeting by interactive conference technology (ICT) and an audio connection to all meeting locations is interrupted for more than 30 minutes, the meeting must be terminated, even if a quorum of the board is physically present in one location. However, under HRS § 92-2.5(d), members present at one location may continue to receive testimony and presentations on agenda items and may question testifiers or presenters, but cannot discuss, deliberate, or decide such matters. Note that the permitted interaction under HRS § 92-2.5(d) specifically applies to HRS § 92-3.5(c) regarding multi-site meetings, and not when remote meetings held by ICT under HRS § 92-3.7 lose their audio or video connection. Also note that this permitted interaction does not address Sunshine Law requirements to continue a meeting, instead of terminating it, which are addressed in Quick Review: “Continuance of a Meeting”, posted further on this training page.

For both cancelled and terminated meetings, HRS § 92-2.5(d) requires that board members’ discussion, deliberation and decision-making on agenda items for which testimony or presentations are received must occur only at a subsequent, properly noticed meeting held after the cancelled or terminated meeting at which the testimony and presentations were received.

And, members who received the testimony at a cancelled or terminated meeting are required to create a record of the oral testimony or presentations in the same manner as would be required for testimony or presentations heard during a meeting of the board. In other words, the members must keep notes of the receipt of testimony and presentations in the same manner that the board would keep minutes of testimony and presentations received at a meeting.

Before deliberation or decision-making at a subsequent meeting, the board must provide copies of the testimony and presentations received at the cancelled meeting to all members. The members who were present at the cancelled or terminated meeting must also report about the testimony and presentations received.

Two or more members of a board, but less than a quorum, may attend an informational meeting or presentation on matters relating to official 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 and that no commitment relating to a vote on the matter is made or sought.

At the next board meeting, the members who attended the informational meeting are required to report their attendance and the matters presented and discussed that related to official board business at the informational meeting.

A board that has previously adopted a position on a legislative measure may circulate its proposed testimony among board members for review and written comment when it does not have enough time to notice a meeting before a legislative deadline, so long as all proposed testimony drafts and board member communications about the testimony are publicly posted online within 48 hours of the testimony’s circulation to the board. This permitted interaction is best used for proposed testimony drafted by board staff or a single member, rather than by multiple board members using another permitted interaction to confer, in order to avoid conflicts with other permitted interactions as discussed in Quick Review on Sunshine Law Options to Address State Legislative Issues and Measures, which is posted further on this page.

Discussions between the Governor and one or more board members 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.

Some boards that have adjudicatory powers include the: Hawaii Labor Relations Board; Labor and Industrial Relations Board; Hawaii Paroling Authority; Civil Service Commission; Employees’ Retirement System Board of Trustees; Crime Victim Compensation; and State Ethics Commission.

Discussions between two or more members of a board and the head of a department to which the board is administratively attached may be conducted in private without limitation; provided that the discussion is limited to matters specified in section 26-35, HRS.

Section 26-35, HRS, provides that:

department heads shall represent attached boards in communications with the Governor and the Legislature, unless otherwise requested by the Legislature;
a board’s financial requirements from state funds shall be submitted through the department head and included in the department’s budget;
rules adopted by the board are subject to approval of the Governor;
employment, appointment, promotion, transfer, demotion, discharge, and job descriptions of officers and employees of or under a board must be determined by the board subject to approval of the department head, and subject to applicable personnel laws;
purchases of supplies, equipment, or furniture by a board are subject to approval by the department head;
the department head has the power to allocate the spaces available for the board to occupy;
quasi-judicial functions of a board are not be subject to the approval, review, or control of the department head; and
the department head shall not have the power to supervise or control the board in the exercise of its functions, duties, and powers.

Boards subject to the Sunshine Law, Part I of Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), are generally required to conduct all business in open meetings that have been properly noticed to allow for public participation. This section discusses an exception to the open meeting requirement for “permitted interaction groups” or “PIGs,” as set forth in section 92-2.5, HRS, and how members of a board may form a PIG to investigate or to negotiate a matter.

Two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum, may be assigned to investigate a matter relating to the official business of their board.

In order for a board to take action on a matter investigated by a PIG, three meetings must occur.

At the FIRST meeting of the full board, the scope of the investigation and the scope of each member’s authority are defined. No new members or issues can be added to the PIG after the first board meeting. The PIG may then conduct its investigation, which may take months to complete, outside of open meetings.
At a SECOND meeting of the full board, findings and recommendations of the PIG are presented to the board, but the board cannot discuss or act on the report at this meeting.
- A PIG may present its findings to the full board in an executive session if the reason for entering into the executive meeting is one of those set forth in section 92-5(a), HRS, or other law. For example, if a PIG was created to investigate whether to take certain disciplinary action against an employee, it may present its findings to the full board in accordance with section 92-5(a)(2), HRS, which allows board to enter executive meetings to consider the discipline of an employee. In such a situation, OIP generally recommends that the PIG also present a “sanitized” report during the public session that omits the confidential information but informs the public of the general nature of the PIG’s findings and recommendations, so the public is at least generally informed of the PIG’s work and has something upon which to base testimony at the subsequent meeting where the board will discuss and perhaps act on the report.
- After the PIG makes its report to the board at the second meeting, the PIG is automatically dissolved and should not continue working. The Sunshine Law does not allow a PIG to make more than one report or to continue working on its assignment after its report, so a PIG should not be providing “updates” on its work or more than one report. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. F23-01 on OIP’s Opinions page for an in-depth discussion on investigative PIGs.
The board cannot discuss, deliberate, or make any decisions regarding the PIG’s report until a THIRD meeting held separately at least six business days after the meeting at which the findings and recommendations of the investigation were presented by the PIG.

Waiting until a subsequent board meeting to discuss and act on the PIG’s report gives the public the opportunity to present informed testimony at the meeting where the board will discuss and act on the report.

Some Practical Considerations for Investigative PIGs:

A PIG is fundamentally a permitted interaction with detailed reporting requirements, not a special type of committee.
Because they are a permitted interaction rather than a type of committee, PIGs are not subject to the Sunshine Law’s requirements for giving notice, holding open meetings, or keeping minutes.
PIG members may communicate by interactive technology (Skype, teleconference, etc.), and by email, telephone, etc., on matters within the scope of the PIG’s authority without violating the Sunshine Law.
Although a PIG is not required to hold public meetings, it can choose to do so if it wishes.
PIGs may solicit input from the public as part of an investigation without the need of filing a meeting agenda in accordance with the Sunshine Law.
A PIG may include among its members people who are not members of the board that created the PIG. A PIG may also consult with others (i.e., staff, members of the public, individuals with expertise in a field, stakeholders, etc.) in furtherance of its investigation, but should NOT consult with other members of its parent board.
Members of a board who are not part of the PIG may NOT attend PIG meetings or be included in PIG communications.
Before the PIG reports to the board, PIG members should not discuss the status of their investigation with other board members who are not part of the PIG.
A standing committee of a board may create a PIG, and such PIGs must follow all the requirements of section 92-2.5(b), HRS, including reporting back to the committee that created them.
Sometimes, it may be better for a board to establish a temporary committee instead of a PIG, or to delegate authority to one member to perform a task and report back to the board. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. F23-01 at 15-16 for more information.
A PIG may continue its work after the loss of a PIG member. For example, if a PIG’s member’s term on the board ends, that member also ceases to be a PIG member, but the PIG can continue working with the remaining original members. The board should not substitute another board member into that vacant PIG position. The PIG’s membership was previously established at the initial meeting that created the PIG and new members cannot be added. The PIG can continue without the now-departed member, but if a board wants to change the PIG’s membership, it should first allow the current PIG to report back and automatically dissolve. After hearing the investigative PIG’s report and waiting until a board meeting held at least six business days later to discuss and act on the report, the board can then create a new PIG to carry on the now-dissolved PIG’s work.
Similarly, once a PIG is formed, the board may not add new assigned tasks to an existing PIG.

Another less common type of PIG can be formed when two or more members of a board, but less than a quorum, are assigned to present, discuss, or negotiate any position adopted by the board at a meeting. The assignment of members to a PIG for the purpose of negotiation, and the scope of each member’s authority, must be defined at a board meeting prior to the presentation, discussion, or negotiation. The three-meeting requirement for investigative PIGs does not apply to PIGs established to negotiate.

As a final note, boards should keep in mind that they may be subject to other laws or rules in addition to the Sunshine Law, which could affect members’ ability to discuss pending matters. This may be particularly relevant for boards that exercise adjudicatory functions (which are not subject to the Sunshine Law), as they must generally avoid ex parte communications. Similarly, some boards are subject to confidentiality provisions outside the Sunshine Law, and if a board is involved in a procurement, it must follow procurement laws. Boards should consult with their own attorneys on the application of such laws and rules.

The open meeting requirements of Hawaii’s Sunshine Law, part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), apply when two or more board members discuss board business. OIP is sometimes asked how multiple boards may comply with the Sunshine Law’s requirements when their members participate together in a roundtable meeting, symposium, or similar event and will be discussing issues that are within their respective boards’ areas of authority.

When planning an event that will bring together members of multiple Sunshine Law boards, each attendee who is a member of a Sunshine Law board must be able to justify his or her presence under the Sunshine Law with respect to his or her own board. Members of different boards can have different justifications under the Sunshine Law. No justification is needed for boards that are not subject to the Sunshine Law or for discussions with roundtable participants who are not Sunshine Law board members.

The key factor in determining an appropriate Sunshine Law justification is the number of members who will be there from any one board. The Sunshine Law applies only when there are two or more board members discussing board business. If each board sent only one member to the event, then there would be no Sunshine Law implications. Even if the other roundtable members belong to other Sunshine Law boards, there is no problem so long as there is no more than one member from the same board.

If two or more members of the same board are part of the roundtable discussion, even if they are participating as representatives of different boards, then the Sunshine Law is implicated and the members’ discussion must be justified. And, if an individual is a member of more than one Sunshine Law board, that person must meet the Sunshine Law’s requirements for each board that he or she sits on.

The simplest approach will be for the various boards involved to rely on the Sunshine Law’s permitted interactions to justify their members’ attendance at the event. The two permitted interactions most likely to be useful in such a situation are sections 92-2.5(a) and (e), HRS.

When no more than two members of the same board will be attending the roundtable discussion, section 92-2.5(a), HRS, permits them to talk about board business so long as no commitment to vote is made or sought. This permitted interaction does not require any sort of prior arrangement or subsequent reporting. However, the attendees will need to be careful to avoid serial use of this permitted interaction- for example, if Board A members One and Two are discussing their board business in the course of the roundtable event, neither of them should then go and talk to Board A member Three about the same issues outside a Board A meeting.

If more than two members of the same board are present, and assuming they constitute less than a quorum of that board, they can still participate in the roundtable discussion under section 92-2.5(e), HRS, which allows two or more members of a board (but less than a quorum) to attend and participate in an informational meeting or presentation covering board business. No commitment to vote can be made or sought during the discussion, and the event cannot be specifically and exclusively directed at the board. This permitted interaction for informational meetings does not require prior arrangement to use, but it does require that the attending members report their attendance and the board business discussed at the next meeting of their own board.

It is not necessary for those attending the event from different boards to all rely on the same permitted interaction to justify their attendance; they can mix and match, based on which permitted interaction is appropriate based on the number attending from each board. For instance, Board A may send three of its members and Board B may send four, with each of those boards relying on section 92-2.5(e), HRS, and the members reporting back later to their respective boards. Board C could send only two people who are relying on section 92-2.5(a), HRS, and need not report to their board. In addition, you could have other people present who are not members of any board and need not justify their attendance under the Sunshine Law at all.

If at least one Sunshine Law board will have a quorum of its members present at the roundtable event, then the event will need to be noticed and conducted as a Sunshine Law meeting, either as a meeting just of the board that will have a quorum present, or as a joint meeting of the various boards that have quorums of their members present. As before, the various boards sending members to the roundtable event can mix and match their methods of ensuring compliance with the Sunshine Law. For instance, you might have Board A with all seven of its members present, Board B with five of its nine members, Board C with three of its seven members, and Board D with two of its five members. In that case, the roundtable event would have to be noticed as a joint meeting of Boards A and B, but it should not be noticed as a meeting by Boards C and D since there would not be a quorum of members present from Boards C or D. Instead, the three Board C members would rely on the informational meeting provisions of section 92-2.5(e), HRS, to justify their attendance, and thus would report back to Board C at its next meeting. The two members of Board D could rely on the two-person permitted interaction under section 92-2.5(a), HRS, to justify their participation.

In closing, when planning an event that will bring together members of multiple Sunshine Law boards, please remember that every attendee who is a member of a Sunshine Law board must be able to justify his or her presence under the Sunshine Law with respect to his or her own board. The justification could be that no one else from that particular board was present, so there was no discussion of board business among that board’s members; or it could be that one of the Sunshine Law’s permitted interactions applied to the particular board’s members who attended; or it could be that the event was noticed as a meeting of the members’ own board (or a joint meeting of multiple boards including theirs). The justification does not have to be the same for all the boards with members attending, but all members of each board should have a Sunshine Law justification before attending and participating in the discussion of their board’s business during the roundtable meeting.

Even though remote meetings may feel different than in-person meetings, the basic Sunshine Law principles set out in sections 92-3 and 92-7, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), still apply to all meetings, with further requirements specific to remote meetings set out in section 92-3.7, HRS. One basic principle is that a board’s notice must tell the public the location of a Sunshine Law meeting. A second principle is that “all persons” have the right to attend a meeting (unless a board is properly in executive session) and to testify at the meeting, even if they choose to be anonymous. A third principle is that a board may provide for the reasonable administration of oral testimony by rule.

In this Quick Review, OIP explains how these principles apply to a board’s remote meeting notice and offers practice tips to sufficiently inform the public of how to view the meeting and to present oral testimony under different situations.

The Sunshine Law requires a board to give written public notice of every meeting, including “the date, time, and place of the meeting,” which “shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend” unless the meeting is closed by law. HRS §§ 92-7(a) and 92-3. Thus, a person may attend a meeting anonymously, and any meeting location must be described sufficiently in the notice to allow the public to find it without having to contact the board or make additional inquiries. OIP Op. Ltrs. No. 02-02 and F16-05.

For a remote meeting, its location includes not just the physical location connected to the meeting that the board is required to provide, but also the online meeting link. Specifically, the remote meeting notice must include information on how to “[r]emotely view . . . the meeting through internet streaming or other means” and “[p]rovide remote oral testimony.” HRS § 92-3.7. Just as the address of a physical location should be sufficient to allow the public to find it without having to call staff for more information, the link or description of how to view the remote meeting or present oral testimony should be sufficient to allow the public to attend and testify without having to take additional steps, such as contacting the board, registering to get a link, or searching a website for the link. Moreover, if the link to the remote meeting or testimony site must be changed, then just as when a meeting’s physical location must be changed, the board cannot simply revise its existing agenda but must post a new notice at least six days in advance of the meeting.

Depending on how the board has chosen to set up its meeting online, the notice may need to inform the public about just one connection that will work to both view and testify at the meeting, or multiple separate connections to view the meeting and to remotely testify. Different remote meeting scenarios are described below.

Many online platforms offer different types of online gatherings to fit different situations. For instance, an organizer may be able to set up either (1) a meeting intended for a relatively small group of participants, or (2) an event or webinar, where some participants (e.g., board members and staff) are designated as hosts or panelists and can unmute themselves, while others (e.g., the general public) are attendees who will primarily be listening but have the ability to request to speak and be unmuted by the host (thus allowing for oral testimony). A board expecting relatively minimal public participation might choose the straightforward approach of setting up a remote meeting and providing the public with the same link board members will use to participate. A board expecting a larger crowd or with concerns about potential disruptions (e.g., “zoombombing”) could set up its remote meeting as a webinar, where board members will use a private link intended only for board members and staff, with a different public access link intended for public participants.

In either of those cases, the board would give the public a single link to use both to watch the meeting and to offer oral testimony, so the notice should include that public link itself as the online meeting address. The notice need not include a separate private link intended to be accessed only by board members and staff during a meeting.

The public link as listed in the notice should take a person directly to the meeting where the person may testify. It should not lead to a registration page with a form that must be filled out to get the actual meeting link. The public link also should not lead to a webpage with information on and links to all the board’s meetings, where the public must browse or search for the correct meeting before being able to click to join it. Although a link to a general listing of the board’s meetings may be helpful as additional information, as discussed in section 3 below, it is not a substitute for the online meeting address itself.

A board may prefer to have a link for the public to view a one-way livestream or webcast of the remote meeting that is separate from the way the public can present oral testimony. For instance, a board might offer a livestream on YouTube or another platform where the public can watch the live meeting, and separately offer an online link for use in giving oral testimony. In that case, the board would give the public two different links: one for the public to watch the meeting and the other for the public to offer oral testimony during the meeting.

When a board uses separate methods for the public to watch the meeting and to offer oral testimony, its notice should provide both the direct link to watch, and the other direct link to offer testimony during the meeting. As discussed in the prior section, the notice must provide the direct link to watch the meeting, and it is not sufficient to either provide a link leading to a registration page with a form that must be filled out to get the actual link, or a link to a webpage the public must browse or search for the correct meeting before being able to click to join it. Similarly, if the board is using a separate link for oral testimony, the notice should provide the link that connects directly to the meeting testimony platform. It is not sufficient to list a phone number or email address to contact (e.g., of a board staffer) in order to get the actual testimony link.

If the Sunshine Law’s requirements for direct access to a remote meeting and to testify are met, a board may choose to include additional options or information in its notice that do require some form of prior registration, as discussed next.

If the Sunshine Law’s basic requirements to allow all persons to attend and testify are met, a remote meeting notice could include additional ways for the public to view or testify at a remote meeting, such as listing an anticipated television broadcast of the meeting (e.g., ʻOlelo) or an additional livestream link. If a board decides to list additional ways to view or testify at its remote meeting, OIP strongly recommends that the board make clear on its notice which is the primary way to view or testify and which are additional alternatives, to avoid a potential complaint if one of the alternatives has connection problems and the meeting continues without it. For example, if the primary way to view or testify is via an online link to the meeting, with the notice clearly identifying ʻOlelo as an alternative means of viewing the meeting, the meeting would not have to be recessed if the ʻOlelo connection is interrupted but the online link to the meeting is not interrupted.

A notice of a remote meeting can also include links to websites with additional information, such as the general website where all of a board’s meetings are listed with links to relevant documents and to the livestream or recording of each meeting. If the extra links serve as additions to, and not replacements for, the direct link to the meeting or livestream of it, then providing the public with this type of general information about the board is a good practice and does not present Sunshine Law problems.

So long as the basic statutory requirements are met, a board can offer an optional alternative way to view or testify at a meeting. For instance, suppose the notice listed an online link as the primary method to provide oral testimony during the meeting and also offered a telephone number as an optional alternative. In this example, the testimony link would meet the statutory requirement to provide information on how to orally testify in a way that allows the testifier to be visible if the testifier so desires, so the additional phone number testimony option would not violate the Sunshine Law.

A board providing one link allowing the public to both view and testify at a meeting could use the following language for the meeting location:

Join Remote Meeting: https://zoom.us/ [direct link to meeting]

Physical Meeting Location:
Room 123, Nui Pilikia Bldg.
123 S. King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813

A board providing separate links, one for the public to view the meeting and another for the public to testify, could use the following language:

View Remote Meeting: https://youtube.com/ [direct link to meeting livestream]

Remote Oral Testimony: https://zoom.us/ [direct link to testimony waiting room]. Please wait for the Chair to ask for testimony on the item you are interested in. The Chair will unmute testifiers one at a time.

Physical Meeting Location:
Room 123, Nui Pilikia Bldg.
123 S. King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813

A board providing separate links for the public to view the meeting and to testify, an additional option to view the meeting on television, and additional informational links, could use the following language:

View Remote Meeting: https://youtube.com/ [direct link to meeting livestream]

Optional Alternative to View Remote Meeting: The meeting is expected to be televised live on ‘Olelo Channel 49 / 1049, which can also be viewed at https://olelo.org/tune-in/. In the event of technical problems with the broadcast, the meeting will continue and may still be viewed at the remote meeting link above.

Physical Meeting Location:
Room 123, Nui Pilikia Bldg.
123 S. King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813

Additional Links: Information about all the board’s meetings, including board packets, recordings of past meetings, and the links to view upcoming meetings, is available at agency.hawaii.gov/board/meetings. General information about the board is available at agency.hawaii.gov/board.

In all meetings, including remote meetings, boards may provide for the reasonable administration of oral testimony by rule, and they have various means of managing a meeting without violating the Sunshine Law. HRS § 92-3. However, the Sunshine Law restricts boards from allowing oral testimony only at the beginning of a meeting or agenda. A board also must hear the testimony on a given agenda item prior to its consideration of that agenda item. Beyond those restrictions, a board can choose when to hear testimony. For instance, a board could allow a limited testimony period at the beginning of the meeting to accommodate members of the public who prefer not to wait, and then continue to hear testimony immediately before each agenda item from those who have not testified earlier on that item. A board could also choose to hear testimony on several agenda items together (in which case it should still allow people testifying on multiple items a full opportunity to testify on each of those items).

A board can also determine the order of testimony and set in advance reasonable time limits for oral testimony. Thus, a board could choose to first receive testimony from those who have indicated in advance that they wish to orally testify, before allowing oral testimony from others, including anonymous testifiers. The board can also adopt a rule limiting the time for a person to testify on each agenda item.

A person who willfully disrupts a meeting to prevent and compromise its conduct may be removed, whether in person or online. Therefore, having a separate link for public testimony may allow the board to more easily remove a person who is disrupting a meeting through use of improper images or language.

OIP reminds boards that the Sunshine Law requires the notice of a remote meeting to include a physical location open to the public that is connected to the remote meeting. There is no further statutory requirement about the physical location, so it could be the board’s office on Oahu, even if the remote meeting is about matters on a neighbor island.

In case the online connection is interrupted during a meeting, boards should include on their notices information on what to do, such as how to reconnect, how to access visual aids, or an alternative date, time, and place for continuation of the meeting if the connection is lost for more than 30 minutes.

A notice must include the board’s electronic and postal contact information for submission of testimony before the meeting. HRS § 92-7 (Supp. 2021). Even if the board’s letterhead contains its electronic (i.e., email address) and postal contact information, OIP recommends that the notice specifically state that written testimony may be submitted before the meeting to those addresses. The postal contact information should be a mailing address, P.O. Box, or other office address where members of the public can submit testimony by mail before the meeting (if they cannot or do not want to email the written testimony).

Finally, boards should remember to abide by the Sunshine Law’s other requirements for all meetings, whether in-person or remote. For example, meeting notices must be mailed or emailed to people requesting such notices at the same time they are posted online, at least six calendar days before the meeting. HRS § 92‑7(e) (Supp. 2021). Meeting notices should contain instructions on how to request an auxiliary aid or service or accommodation due to a disability. HRS § 92-7(a) (Supp. 2021). The agenda must be sufficiently detailed as to what the board intends to consider, so that people will have enough information to decide whether they want to participate in a meeting. HRS § 92-7(a) (Supp. 2021); OIP Op. Ltr. No. 03-22.

Boards can find more information on holding remote meetings under the Sunshine Law, on creating a meeting agenda, on meeting notices, a meeting notice checklist, and board packet requirements elsewhere on this page.

The Sunshine Law allows boards to hold remote meetings where board members and the public participate from various non-public locations as well as at least one physical meeting site, all connected via a remote meeting platform such as Zoom, WebEx, or other interactive conference technology (ICT), subject to requirements listed in section 92-3.7, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). This Quick Review discusses the requirements for holding a remote meeting.

Note that OIP has created a separate Quick Review for In-Person Meetings Held at Multiple Sites, which generally require board member attendance in person and are not considered to be “remote” meetings even if the various sites are connected using ICT.

Whatever remote meeting platform or ICT is used for a meeting must generally allow audio-visual interaction between board members and the public. Board members and the public can attend and participate from anywhere via an online connection to the meeting platform, or in some cases by a phone connection to the meeting platform. Even though a board must still provide a physical public location connected to the meeting, as further discussed below, there is no requirement for either board members or members of the public to go to the public location to participate in the meeting. Similarly, there is no requirement for board members to allow the public to join them at their homes, offices, or other private locations where they are physically located while participating in the remote meeting.

The notice for a remote meeting must inform the public how to remotely participate in the meeting, including how to view and testify at the meeting. This will typically take the form of a link to the scheduled remote meeting on whatever platform is being used, but the law does allow the board to provide separate connections for the public to view the meeting and to provide oral testimony. For instance, a board might choose to have board members, staff, and testifiers access the meeting via a WebEx link, while general public access to view the meeting is via a live one-way YouTube stream. Regardless of how the board provides public access to view and testify, the connection(s) must be contemporaneous with the meeting and allow members and the public to see and hear the public testimony.

Even for a remote meeting, the meeting notice must list at least one physical meeting location that will be open to the public and connected via ICT to the remote meeting. However, unlike an in-person meeting, there is no requirement for board members to appear in-person at the physical meeting location to participate in the remote meeting; the physical location is simply a convenience for members and the public, allowing those without the ability or inclination to use their own connection to an online meeting the option to attend where the board has set up and will maintain the remote meeting connection. If the connection to the remote meeting fails at the requisite physical location, then the meeting will be recessed or terminated, as discussed below.

While the board is required to provide at least one physical location that is guaranteed to remain connected to the remote meeting, the board also has the option to provide one or more “additional” physical locations without a guarantee that those locations will remain connected to the remote meeting. To be considered an “additional” location, the notice must specify that in the event that the location is disconnected from the remote meeting, the meeting will not be terminated or interrupted to restore connectivity.

At the beginning of a remote meeting, the chair must list the members present, and members attending from a private location must state who else is present with them (minors under 18 years old need not be named, unless they have a personal business, property, or financial interest on any issue before the board). A quorum of members must be visible throughout the public portion of the meeting, but so long as that requirement is met, additional members not needed to maintain the quorum visibility requirement can participate via audio only, such as by turning the camera off or calling in by phone. In this way, a member with a poor internet connection or other difficulties in maintaining a visual connection can still participate, so long as a quorum of members are visibly present throughout the remote meeting. All participating members must maintain an audio connection at all times.

Votes during a remote meeting must be done by roll call unless the vote is unanimous. In practice, this means the chair can ask if there are any objections or abstentions and call the roll only when members object or abstain.

When a remote meeting is interrupted by a dropped connection to one of its required components – for example, the whole meeting goes down due to a problem with the meeting platform or the host’s connection to it, the public location is cut off, the public livestream or testimony connection listed in the notice goes down, or the board cannot keep a quorum of members visible – the meeting cannot continue even if a quorum of board members remain connected to one another. (Note that an individual member of the public’s inability to stay connected does not require recessing the meeting, unless the problem is actually with the public meeting link itself.) The meeting must be recessed for up to 30 minutes to restore the connection, and it can reconvene once the connection is restored. If the full audiovisual connection cannot be restored but the board can manage at least an audio connection for all the required components of the remote meeting, the board can proceed with the meeting that way, with each speaker required to state his or her name and visual aids required to be made available to all participants (perhaps by posting on the board’s website). The board should advise the public how to join a reconvened meeting, preferably through its original notice, such as to keep trying the original link, to use a backup link given in the notice, or to look at the board’s website for a new link.

If the board is unable to restore even an audio connection after 30 minutes, the meeting must terminate unless the board has reasonably informed the public how a disconnected meeting would be continued at a later date and time (such as in the notice). With proper notice of continuation, the meeting can be considered in recess and continued at the specified date and time, rather than terminated. If the meeting must be terminated, the only way to finish the intended agenda is to notice a new meeting at least six days in advance.

Executive meetings (also called executive sessions) during remote meetings have slightly different requirements than those applicable to the public meetings. Members are not required to be visible during an executive session, just audible. However, all participants – board members, staff running the meeting, the board’s attorney, anyone properly present during the executive session – must confirm to the chair that no unauthorized person is with them or linked into the meeting, and the meeting host must also confirm that no unauthorized person is participating if able to do so.

Online meeting platforms typically offer a straightforward option to record a meeting. Boards using such platforms are required to use that option and make the recorded meeting available for public viewers who may not have been able to watch the live meeting. Thus, a board must record a remote meeting, but only when doing so is practicable. In a situation where recording is not practicable, the board will not violate the law by its failure to do so. A board must also post the recording online until the meeting minutes are posted. The law encourages keeping the recording online even after that time, but does allow a board to remove it after first sending a copy to the State Archives.

A board may choose to use the recording, with the addition of a written summary, as its recorded minutes under section 92-9, HRS. Alternatively, if a board prefers to keep written minutes and wants to delete the recording despite the statutory encouragement to keep it online, a board can do so after its written minutes are posted online and it has sent a copy of the recording to the State Archives. If a recording is available online, the board must include a link to it at the beginning of its written minutes.

The State of Hawaii Office of Enterprise Technology Services developed this courtesy Step-by-Step Guide to Secured Zoom Meetings (Zoom-Bombers Beware!) guide.

The objective of this guide is to reduce the possibility of problematic participants sharing unwanted comments or content. While we appreciate public participation, it is important to sustain an environment for responsible civic engagement.

Use this guide to lock down your Zoom meeting and prevent “Zoom bombing.” Follow the steps before, during, and after the meeting. Also included are short role descriptions and a tiny script you can copy into an invite so that people know each person’s responsibilities.

Boards and commissions subject to Hawai‘i’s Sunshine Law should be aware that not all of the security practices in this guide may be fully applicable to their meetings. Because Sunshine Law requires that remote meeting links be posted publicly in advance, some preventive measures – such as restricting access only to authenticated users – may not be feasible. Additionally, while boards cannot preemptively block members of the public from attending, they may remove individuals who engage in disruptive behavior and prevent those removed individuals from rejoining the same meeting.

These guidelines are intended to help enhance meeting security while still aligning with Sunshine Law requirements. Boards should apply the recommendations that are compatible with open-meeting obligations and consult their counsel or the Office of Information Practices (OIP) if uncertain. You may contact OIP’s Attorney of the Day with questions about the Sunshine Law’s requirements at [email protected] or 808-586-1400.

Portions of this guideline outline specific instructions in navigating throughout the platform. Due to regular occurring software updates, some steps may alter from what is written. We recommend visiting the Enterprise Technology Services (ETS) Tips to Prevent Zoom Bombings page for the most recent updates.

Host (you / meeting owner): Schedules the meeting, sets security options, able to lock the room, remove participants, and end the meeting.
Moderator (gatekeeper): Monitors the waiting room, admits people in the meeting, removes problematic participants, mutes/unmutes participants as needed, turns off participant video if needed. The host and moderator can be the same person.
- Instructions: Navigate to assigned through Participants → More → Make Co-Host
Facilitator (meeting conductor): In many cases, the chair of the meeting, runs the agenda, calls on speakers, manages time, handles Q&A and polls.
- The facilitator can be the host/ moderator, however facilitating the meeting while performing the gatekeeping tasks of the moderator, is, a lot to handle. Having a separate person for each role is highly recommended.

Tip: Assign both a Moderator and a Facilitator for important meetings. A Moderator manages security/disruptions whereas a Facilitator manages content/flow.

Schedule the meeting with a unique meeting ID
- When scheduling, do not use your Personal Meeting ID (PMI). Let Zoom generate a random meeting ID for that event.
Require a meeting password
- Turn on the password option and include the password only in the calendar invite (not on public social media).
Enable the Waiting Room
- Turn on the Waiting Room option so you can admit participants one-by-one or in small groups.
Turn on Meeting Authentication if appropriate
- Require sign-in with a Zoom account (or SSO) if attendees are internal or you want an extra barrier. This step may not be necessary for a public meeting.
Limit screen sharing by default
- Set “Who can share?” to Host Only. (You can allow others in the meeting when needed.)
Disable “Join before host”
- Prevent attendees from entering before the host to avoid unmanaged presence.
Disable “Allow removed participants to rejoin”
- Prevent banned participants from returning.
Disable file transfer and remote control
- Turn off file transfer and remote control to reduce accessibility for participants unless there is a need for this.
Turn off annotation (or limit it to host)
- Prevent strangers from scribbling on your screen share.
Consider using a Webinar license
- For large, public events, webinars provide more control (attendees are unable to unmute nor share their screen).
Update your Zoom client & recommend attendees to have the latest updated Zoom software
- Use the latest version to get security patches.
Send meeting details securely
- Put link + password in a calendar invite or internal email. Do not post the raw meeting link publicly.

Assign co-host(s) to Moderator & Facilitator.
Require all participants to identify themselves with first and last names.
Admit participants from the Waiting Room intentionally.
Mute all participants on entry (Participants → Mute All).
Confirm screen sharing permission is Host Only.
Confirm chat settings (see below).
If everyone is present, Lock Meeting (Participants → More → Lock Meeting).

Remove the disruptive participant
- Participants → hover name → Remove
- If they try to return, ensure “Allow removed participants to rejoin” is off
Stop their video and audio (if needed)
- Participants → More → Stop Video / Ask to Unmute (or Mute)
Put them in Waiting Room (if you want to temporarily isolate)
- Participants → hover name → Put in Waiting Room
Lock the meeting to stop additional entries (after you’ve admitted everyone)
Turn off screen sharing instantly (Host controls → disable participant sharing)
Suspend participant activities: If severe, use “Suspend Participant Activities” (that disables video, audio, screen share, chat, reactions) or end meeting for all
Report the disruptive user to Zoom after the meeting if content was abusive

Chat: Limit chat to “Host and co-hosts only” or disable private chat to prevent link sharing

File transfer: OFF

Annotation / Whiteboard: Host Only or OFF

Renaming: Disable participants from renaming themselves if you want verified names

Mute on entry: ON

Invite Blurb (calendar invite):
- Please do not share this meeting link publicly. This meeting uses a password and Waiting Room — you will be admitted from the Waiting Room. If you join late, please wait to be admitted.
At Meeting Start (host says):
- Aloha — quick housekeeping: everyone is muted on entry. Please keep your video on or off at the facilitator’s instruction. If you need to speak, click ‘Raise Hand’. The moderator will admit people from the Waiting Room and assist with issues. Thanks!

The State of Hawaii Office of Enterprise Technology Services developed this Step-by-Step Guide to Secured Microsoft Teams Meetings

The objective of this guide is to enable productive, accessible, and secure video-teleconferencing meetings and reduce the ability of bad actors to share unwanted comments or content. While we appreciate public participation, it is important to sustain an environment for responsible civic engagement.

Use this guide to lock down your Microsoft Teams meeting and prevent “Teams bombing.” Follow the steps before, during, and after the meeting.

Boards and commissions subject to Hawai‘i’s Sunshine Law should be aware that not all the security practices in this guide may be fully applicable to their meetings. Because Sunshine Law requires that remote meeting links be posted publicly in advance, some preventive measures—such as restricting access only to authenticated users—may not be feasible. Additionally, while boards cannot preemptively block members of the public from attending, they may remove individuals who engage in disruptive behavior and prevent those removed individuals from rejoining the same meeting.

Portions of this guideline outline specific instructions in navigating throughout the platform. Due to regular occurring software updates, some steps may alter from what is written. We recommend visiting the Enterprise Technology Services (ETS) Guidelines for Secure Public Meetings in Microsoft Teams page for the most recent updates.

Assign Your Team Roles
- To keep the meeting safe AND running smoothly, assign:
  - Facilitator
    - Often the Chair of the meeting
    - Runs the agenda
    - Calls on speakers or testimony
    - Manages Q&A
    - Coordinates the flow of the meeting
    - Can also be a co-organizer for additional controls
  - Organizer
    - The person who schedules the meeting
    - Has full control of meeting options
  - Moderator (gatekeeper)
    - Helps manage security
    - Admits people from the lobby
    - Removes disruptive attendees
    - Monitors attendee behavior
    - Turns attendee mic/camera on or off as needed
- How to assign co-organizers:
  - Add them to the meeting first.
  - Then go to Meeting Options → Assign Co-Organizers → Add their names.
Create the meeting
- Schedule your meeting in Teams (recommended) or Outlook (Old Outlook only).
- After scheduling, open Meeting Options to set security controls.
Set Presenter Permissions
- Under Who can present? select:
  - Only organizers and co-organizers (recommended), or
  - Specific people if a few presenters need control.
- Do NOT allow “Everyone” or “People in my org and guests” for public meetings. This prevents unknown attendees from sharing their screen or taking over the meeting.
Turn Off Mic and Camera for Attendees
- This stops attendees from turning on audio/video until you intentionally allow it.
- Set:
  - Allow mic for attendees → Off
  - Allow camera for attendees → Off
Restrict Lobby Bypass
- Everyone else waits in the lobby until a Moderator intentionally admits them, stopping anonymous users from popping in.
- Set:
  - Who can bypass the lobby? → Only organizers and co-organizers
Control Chat and Q&A
- Chat can be abused easily. Q&A requires moderator approval before messages appear.
- For public meetings, set:
  - Meeting Chat → Off
  - Q&A → On
Distribute the Meeting Link Carefully
- Send link privately (email/invite list)
- Do NOT post public meeting links on social media
- If the meeting must be public, pre-brief your Moderator to screen lobby entries carefully.

Start the meeting early
- Organizer and Moderator join 5–10 minutes before start time
- Review lobby list, check settings, and prepare roles
Admit Attendees from the Lobby
- Teams gives two ways:
  - Admit (for one participant)
  - Admit all (for groups waiting)
- Tip: Hosts should vet names if possible. If unsure, leave them in the lobby.
Use Raise Hand to Manage Speakers
- Tell attendees:
  - “If you’d like to speak or provide testimony, please raise your hand.”
- This gives the Moderator time to control permissions safely.
Enabling Someone to Speak or Use Video
- When a participant is called on:
  1. Moderator enables mic
  2. Ask them to state:
    - Full name
    - Location
    - Organization (optional)
  3. Ask whether they would like camera enabled (optional)
  4. After they finish speaking:
    - Disable their mic
    - Disable their camera
Promote Someone to Presenter Only When Needed
- If someone must share content:
  - Make them a Presenter
  - Important: Presenters automatically gain:
    - Camera
    - Mic
    - Screen sharing
- If they become disruptive:
  - Use Make an attendee to remove presenter rights immediately
  - Then disable mic/camera again
Remove Any Disruptive Attendees Immediately
- If anyone behaves inappropriately:
  - Select their name
  - Choose Remove from meeting
- Because lobby bypass is restricted, they cannot re-enter without manual approval.

Before the Meeting

Only organizers & co-organizers can present
Attendee mic OFF
Attendee camera OFF
Co-organizers assigned (Moderator / Facilitator)
Lobby bypass = organizers & co-organizers only
Chat OFF, Q&A ON
Meeting link shared securely

During the Meeting

Admit attendees intentionally
Use Raise Hand for testimony/speaking
Enable mic/camera only when necessary
Disable mic/camera after each speaker
Remove disruptive participants
Revert any presenter back to attendee when done

In-Depth Sunshine Law Guides

State and County Boards

Sunshine Law Guide (downloadable PDF)

View Guide

Neighborhood and Community Boards

Sunshine Law Guide (downloadable PDF)

View Guide

State and County Meeting Calendars

Access state and county calendars and calendar guidance.

Access Calendars

Sunshine Law Training Videos

Basic Sunshine Law Training Video Part 1

Part 1 Video Transcript (PDF)

Part 1 Video Powerpoint Slides (PDF)

Part 1 Powerpoint Slide Summary (PDF)

Basic Sunshine Law Training Video Part 2

Part 2 Video Transcript (PDF)

Part 2 Powerpoint Slides (PDF)

Part 2 Powerpoint Slide Summary (PDF)

“Bad Agenda” (PDF)

“Good Agenda” (PDF)

Sunshine Law Quiz

Test your knowledge on the Sunshine Law after completing the video trainings. For board members who need certification of having completed annual training, you can print out your score of 70% or better as your certification.

Take the Quiz

Sunshine Law

Quick Reviews & Resources

Agenda Guidance

Board Packets (August 2025)

What’s Included in a Public Board Packet

Making the Board Packet Available to the Public

Practice Tips

Continuance of a Meeting (August 2024)

Practice Tips

Continuance of a Meeting and Serial Communications: Case Summary of Kanahele (1993)

Executive Meetings Closed to the Public (August 2023)

What is an executive meeting?

Must a board give notice that it intends to convene an executive meeting?

What must the agenda contain when the board anticipates convening an executive meeting?

Can a board convene an executive meeting when it is not anticipated in advance?

How does a board convene an executive meeting?

Is a board required to report to the public what happened in an executive meeting?

What are the eight purposes for which an executive meeting can be convened?

Does “embarrassing” or “highly personal” information allow a board to hold an executive meeting?

Can confidential or proprietary information be considered in an executive meeting?

Does the Sunshine Law require an executive meeting when one of the eight purposes is applicable?

Is a board subject to the Sunshine Law’s criminal penalties for holding an open meeting, even if one of the eight purposes is applicable?

When personnel matters concerning an individual will be discussed, can an open meeting be held only upon the subject employee’s request?

Must all personnel matters be discussed in a closed executive meeting?

How do you determine if there is a legitimate privacy interest under the personnel exception allowing closed executive meetings?

Is the attorney-client exception allowing executive meetings under section 92-5(a)(4), HRS, the same as the attorney-client privilege recognized in Rule 503(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence?

If the board’s attorney is in an executive meeting, will that be sufficient to establish the exception under section 92-5(a)(4), HRS?

Can non-board members participate in an executive meeting?

Are there special requirements for an executive session held during a remote meeting?

May a board vote in an executive meeting?

If a board is challenged for having improperly entered into an executive meeting, must the meeting minutes be disclosed to the public?

If a board is found to have improperly entered into an executive meeting, can the final action taken by the board be voided?

Executive Meetings: Case Summary of Civil Beat Law Center (2019)

In-Person Meetings Held at Multiple Sites (October 2021)

Multi-Site Public Meeting Locations Listed on Notice

Noticed Meeting Sites Compared to “Additional” Locations

Board Members with Disabilities

Legislative Session: Options to Address State Legislative Issues and Measures (August 2022)

1. Delegation to Staff

2. Delegation to Two Board Members

3. Permitted Interaction Group under Section 92-2.5(b)(2), HRS

4. Permitted Interaction for Informational Meeting or Presentation

5. Permitted Interaction for Board to Draft and Approve Testimony

6. Limited Meeting by County Council as Guests of Another Group

7. Emergency Meeting

Minutes for Public Meetings (August 2023)

Contents

Practice Tips

Notice Checklist

Notice Requirements for Meetings (August 2024)

Contents

File/Post/Mail/Email

Practice Tips

Notice: How to File Notice with the Lieutenant Governor’s Office

Permitted Interactions Outside of a Meeting: Who Board Members Can Talk To and When

Topics that are Not Board Business

Staff, Lobbyists, and the General Public

Other Board Members

Selection of Board Officers (HRS § 92-2.5(c))

Members May Continue to Accept Testimony When a Multi-site Meeting Must be Cancelled or Terminated (HRS §§ 92-2.5(d) and 92-3.5(c))

Informational Meetings (HRS § 92-2.5(e))

Circulation of Proposed Legislative Testimony (HRS § 92-2.5(h))

Discussions with the Governor (HRS § 92-2.5(f))

Discussions with Department Head (HRS § 92-2.5(g))

Permitted Interaction Groups (PIGs)

PIGs Established to Investigate

PIGs Established to Negotiate

Roundtable Discussions with Multiple Boards Subject to the Sunshine Law (March 2017)

Remote Meeting Notice Tips (August 2024)

Notice of How to Remotely View and Testify at a Meeting

1. When the public will use the same link to view and to present oral testimony at the meeting

2. When the board will use separate links for the public to view the meeting and to testify

3. Additional Options to Watch or Testify and Additional Online Links

4. Sample Notice Language for Remote Meeting Links

Managing Testimony

Additional Reminders

Remote Meeting Requirements (August 2024)

Access to the Remote Meeting

Physical Location Open to Public