S MEMO 26-03

S MEMO 26-03
April 29, 2026
Proper Notice for Attending Remote Meeting and Agenda Item,  Opportunity to Present Oral Testimony Remotely

Requester asked for an investigation into whether the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) violated the Sunshine Law by failing to provide proper notice of how to attend its meeting on December 7, 2023, remotely; failing to provide a sufficiently detailed agenda item; holding “break out” sessions and taking a lunch break; failing to give members of the public the opportunity to present oral testimony remotely; and making a decision to back date a revocable permit. 

OIP found that BLNR’s agenda provided the public with sufficient detail and specificity to allow a member of the public to understand what the board intended to consider at the meeting for the agenda item at issue, and thus complied with the notice requirement in section 92-7, HRS. 

OIP also found that BLNR complied with section 92-3.7, HRS, by providing the public with sufficient notice of how to contemporaneously remotely view and testify at its remote meeting and listing a meeting location that was open to the public and had an audiovisual connection to the meeting.  Members of the public had the option to sign up to testify before the meeting, and those who did not sign up prior to the meeting still had an opportunity to present oral testimony both in-person and remotely on the relevant agenda item during the meeting.   

OIP found that BLNR recessed the meeting several times, including for a lunch break, and went into a closed executive session at least twice.  Section 92-7(d), HRS, allows a board to continue a meeting to a reasonable day and time, which includes recessing and reconvening a meeting on the same day, and there is no evidence that BLNR’s recesses did not comply with that section.  Sections 92-4 and -5, HRS, allow a board to hold an executive session closed to the public for specified purposes, and there is likewise no evidence that BLNR’s executive sessions did not comply with those sections.  OIP concluded that BLNR did not violate the Sunshine Law by conducting breakout sessions.   

The Sunshine Law does not address whether a board can properly back date documents, so although BLNR’s decision to back date a revocable permit is not a Sunshine Law violation, it is beyond OIP’s authority to determine whether the decision was proper with respect to other laws that may apply.