PART II.
BOARDS: QUORUM; GENERAL POWERS
Note
The sections of this part are renumbered to eliminate
duplication of the section numbers in Part I, as enacted by L 1975, c 166.
[§92-15] Boards and commissions; quorum;
number of votes necessary to validate acts. Whenever the number of members
necessary to constitute a quorum to do business, or the number of members
necessary to validate any act, of any board or commission of the State or of
any political subdivision thereof, is not specified in the law or ordinance
creating the same or in any other law or ordinance, a majority of all the
members to which the board or commission is entitled shall constitute a quorum
to do business, and the concurrence of a majority of all the members to which
the board or commission is entitled shall be necessary to make any action of
the board or commission valid; provided that due notice shall have been given
to all members of the board or commission or a bona fide attempt shall have
been made to give the notice to all members to whom it was reasonably
practicable to give the notice. This section shall not invalidate any act of
any board or commission performed prior to April 20, 1937, which, under the
general law then in effect, would otherwise be valid. [L 1937, c 40, §1; RL
1945, §482; RL 1955, §7-26; HRS §92-11; ren §92-15]
Attorney General Opinions
"Concurrence" means affirmative vote, not
abstention. Att. Gen. Op. 85-11.
Case Notes
Where the required majority exists without the vote of the
disqualified member, disqualified member's participation will not invalidate
the result. 63 H. 222, 624 P.2d 1353.
Notes of Decisions
Sierra Club v. Castle & Cooke Homes Hawai'i, Inc., 320 P.3d 849 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 14× “The LUC contended that the subsequent vote to approve the Decision and Order was “an administrative or ministerial act,” which only required five affirmative votes pursuant to HRS § 92-15. Castle & Cooke reiterated many of the same arguments, maintaining that the…”
Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Est., 675 P.2d 784 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 5× “w without either a public meeting or any of the parties being present in violation of HRS §§ 92-3 and -6(b) (1976); (2) it precluded appellants from presenting arguments on all issues in violation of HRS § 91-9(a) and (c) (1976) and HRS § 91-10(3) (1976); (3) it rejected certain…”
Survivors of Cariaga v. Del Monte Corp., 652 P.2d 1143 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 3× “Whenever the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum to do business, or the number of members necessary to validate any act, of any board or commission of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, is not specified in the law or ordinance creating the same or…”
Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Naumu, 150 Haw. 465 (Haw. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Befitel, 104 Hawai#i 412, 429, 91 24 In light of our disposition based on the plain language of the appeal hearing rule, it is not necessary to address DPS's and the MAB's counter-argument that a two-member MAB was permissible because two members constituted a "quorum" under HRS…”
Survivors of Cariaga v. Del Monte Corp., 638 P.2d 1386 (Haw. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “We recognize that HRS §§ 92-15 and 37l-4(c) (1976) authorize the LIRAB to conduct business with only two of its three members present and to make decisions upon the concurrence of only two of its three members.”
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.