Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-1 (2026)

  Declaration of policy and intent

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PART I.  MEETINGS

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

  Department of agriculture advisory committee on plants and animals subject to provisions of this part; subcommittees not subject to this part.  Att. Gen. Op. 90-7.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Hawai`i's Sunshine Law Compliance Criteria.  26 UH L. Rev. 21.

  2013 Law and Administrative Rules Governing Appeal Procedures of Hawaii's Office of Information Practices.  36 UH L. Rev. 271 (2014).

 

     §92-1  Declaration of policy and intent.  In a democracy, the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power.  Governmental agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy.  Opening up the governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest.  Therefore, the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy - the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of governmental agencies - shall be conducted as openly as possible.  To implement this policy the legislature declares that:

     (1)  It is the intent of this part to protect the people's right to know;

     (2)  The provisions requiring open meetings shall be liberally construed; and

     (3)  The provisions providing for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings. [L 1975, c 166, pt of §1]

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

  This section and sections 92-7 and 92-9 require commission to specify subject matter of items on public meeting agenda.  Att. Gen. Op. 85-2.

  Interpretation of "board" as excluding county council would be inconsistent with policy and intent of sunshine law.  Att. Gen. Op. 86-5.

 

Case Notes

 

  Based on the office of information practices' construction of the sunshine law as well as the legislative history of §92-7(d), the land use commission and Maui county council did not violate the sunshine law by continuing and reconvening meetings beyond a single continuance without requiring a new agenda and additional public testimony to be accepted at every continued meeting.  However, while the legislature did not expressly limit the number of continuances permissible under §92-7(d), the legislative history and text of the sunshine law demonstrates that boards are constrained at all times by the spirit of and purpose of the sunshine law, as stated in this section.  130 H. 228, 307 P.3d 1174 (2013).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019).
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 19× “This was error, as it overlooked the parties' genuine dispute and did not acknowledge that declaratory relief would prevent future harm to the public interest.”
Right to Know Comm. v. City Council, 175 P.3d 111 (Haw. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “” Ordinarily, statutes require “economic injury” rather than mere concern for the “public interest” as a predicate to standing to sue as a “private attorney general.” But in the case of HRS § 92-12, “any person” is expressly authorized to initiate a lawsuit, upon the allegation…”
Kanahele v. Maui Cnty. Council., 307 P.3d 1174 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 32× “The concurrence concluded that based on a plain reading of the Sunshine Law and “particularly given the broad declaration of policy and intent articulated in HRS § 92-1,” the memoranda distributed among the MCC members “outside of the public meetings do not comport with Hawaii’s…”
Kaapu v. Aloha Tower Dev. Corp., 846 P.2d 882 (Haw. 1993). · cites it 6× “, HRS §§ 92-1 through 92-13, relating to “meetings”] or to determine the applicability of this part to discussions or decisions of the public body.”
E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of Honolulu, 174 P.3d 367 (Haw. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “Public hearings, on the other hand are governed by HRS § 92-1 through § 92-16, also referred to as the State's "Sunshine Laws".”
E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of Honolulu, 189 P.3d 432 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 2× “On appeal to the ICA the Commission argued (1) the hearing in question was a public hearing governed by the State's Sunshine Laws in HRS § 92-1 through § 92-16 and, thus, not subject to the contested case hearing requirements in HRS §§ 91-1 to 91-13, and (2) "[t]he procedures…”
Bremner v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 28 P.3d 350 (Haw. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “]” HRS § 92-1 (1993). In furtherance of this end, the chapter directs governmental entities such as the City Council to afford all interested persons notice and an opportunity to comment orally or in writing on formal topics of discussion at all nonexempt public meetings.”
Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Est., 675 P.2d 784 (Haw. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Construing HRS § 92-6(b) liberally, we hold that the adjudicatory functions include the adoption of conclusions of law, especially in the light of HRS § 91-12 which requires an agency’s decision and order to be “accompanied by separate findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Richard v. Metcalf, 921 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 2× “All that is required is an allegation that " ‘a prohibited act’ has occurred in violation of HRS §§ 92-1 through 92-13[.]” Kaapu, 74 Haw.”
Asato v. Procurement Policy Bd., State of Hawaii., 322 P.3d 228 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 2× “The legislature’s expansive view of standing under HRS § 92-12(e) is further *365 evidenced by the fact that “[t]he court may order payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in a suit brought under this section.”
Chang v. Plan. Com'n of Cnty. of Maui, 643 P.2d 55 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 2× “” HRS § 92-1 (1976). The law’s blanket mandate is contained in HRS § 92-3.”
Wilson v. McNeal, 575 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “1, §§ 401-406 (1975); Md.Ann.Code art. 76A, §§ 1-15 (1977); Mass.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-1(1) — 2 cases
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019). “This was error, as it overlooked the parties' genuine dispute and did not acknowledge that declaratory relief would prevent future harm to the public interest.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-1(2) — 2 cases
Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Est., 675 P.2d 784 (Haw. App. 1983). “Construing HRS § 92-6(b) liberally, we hold that the adjudicatory functions include the adoption of conclusions of law, especially in the light of HRS § 91-12 which requires an agency’s decision and order to be “accompanied by separate findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Kanahele v. Maui Cnty. Council., 307 P.3d 1174 (Haw. 2013). “The concurrence concluded that based on a plain reading of the Sunshine Law and “particularly given the broad declaration of policy and intent articulated in HRS § 92-1,” the memoranda distributed among the MCC members “outside of the public meetings do not comport with Hawaii’s…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-1(3) — 2 cases
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019). “This was error, as it overlooked the parties' genuine dispute and did not acknowledge that declaratory relief would prevent future harm to the public interest.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.