§92-3 Open meetings. Every meeting of
all boards shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to
attend any meeting unless otherwise provided in the state constitution or as
closed pursuant to sections 92-4 and 92-5; provided that the removal of any
person or persons who wilfully disrupts a meeting to prevent and compromise the
conduct of the meeting shall not be prohibited. The boards shall afford all
interested persons an opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, in
writing, on any agenda item. The boards shall also afford all interested
persons an opportunity to present oral testimony on any agenda item; provided
that the oral testimonies of interested persons shall not be limited to the
beginning of a board's agenda or meeting. The boards may provide for
reasonable administration of oral testimony by rule. [L 1975, c 166, pt of §1;
am L 1985, c 278, §1; am L 2022, c 264, §4]
Attorney General Opinions
Sunshine law applies to meeting of standing or select
committee of board of regents of University of Hawaii. Att. Gen. Op. 85-27.
Opportunity to present testimony, when it must be afforded;
cannot delegate committee to hear testimony. Att. Gen. Op. 86-5.
Case Notes
Rule regarding confidentiality of development proposals
neither conflicted with nor contradicted “mandate” of either this section or
the Sunshine Law, chapter 92, as a whole; plaintiff not entitled to disclosure
of development proposals under those statutory provisions. 74 H. 365, 846 P.2d
882.
Notes of Decisions
Kaapu v. Aloha Tower Dev. Corp., 846 P.2d 882 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 20× “On December 21,1989, the ATDC conducted an open public meeting (the public meeting), in accordance with HRS § 92-3 (1985 and Supp. 1992), 7 for the purpose of making the final selection of a developer with which to enter into negotiations for a long-term lease of the *376…”
Kanahele v. Maui Cnty. Council., 307 P.3d 1174 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 25× “The concurrence explained that pursuant to HRS § 92-3, all board meetings must be open to the public.”
Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Est., 675 P.2d 784 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Appellants argue that LUC committed the following reversible procedural errors: (1) it adopted conclusions of law 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…”
Chang v. Plan. Com'n of Cnty. of Maui, 643 P.2d 55 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 6× “Finally, appellant seeks the voidance of Makena Surfs SMA use permit for the planning commission’s failure to open its final deliberations on the permit application and on appellant’s motion for reconsideration and petition for declaratory ruling to the public in violation of…”
E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of Honolulu, 189 P.3d 432 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 2× “, contested case hearings, the Maui Planning Commission’s "closed deliberations on [the] permit application and on appellant’s subsequent motion and petition were permissible under HRS § 92—6(a)(2) despite the open-meeting mandate of HRS § 92-3.”) . The ICA maintained that…”
Bremner v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 28 P.3d 350 (Haw. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 92-3 (1993). Persons alleging a violation of this provision must file a complaint within ninety days of the violation.”
In re Attorney's Fees to McLaren v. Paradise Inn Hawaii, Inc., 321 P.3d 671 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 92-3 provides: Every meeting of all boards shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting unless otherwise provided in the constitution or as closed pursuant to sections 92-4 and 92-5; provided that the removal of any person or persons…”
Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n v. Maui Cnty. Council, 948 P.2d 122 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 2× “anting JGL’s and the County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, alleging as points of error: (1) the conditions imposed by the Council in Ordinance 2317 were insufficient to protect the public, from the effects of the rezoning; (2) by law, the Council was required to…”
Cnty. of Kauai v. OIP, 200 P.3d 403 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 14× “" The circuit court found the following: *405 Moreover, [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) ] § 92-12(c) provides that any person may commence a suit in the circuit court to seek enforcement of the open meetings provisions of HRS § 92-3. This Court notes that within the provisions of…”
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.