Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-4 (2026)

Executive meetings

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§92-4 Executive meetings. (a) A board may hold an executive meeting that is closed to the public upon an affirmative vote, taken at an open meeting, of two-thirds of the members present; provided the affirmative vote constitutes a majority of the members to which the board is entitled. A meeting closed to the public shall be limited to matters exempted by section 92-5. The reason for holding such a meeting shall be publicly announced and the vote of each member on the question of holding a meeting that is closed to the public shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the meeting.

(b) Any discussion or final action taken by a board in an executive meeting shall be reported to the public when the board reconvenes in the open meeting at which the executive meeting is held; provided that in describing the discussion or final action taken by the board:

(1) The information reported shall not be inconsistent with the purpose for which the executive meeting was convened pursuant to section 92-5, including matters affecting the privacy of individuals; and

(2) The board may maintain confidentiality for the information described in paragraph (1) for as long as disclosure would defeat the purpose of convening the executive meeting. [L 1975, c 166, pt of §1; am L 1985, c 278, §2; am L 2023, c 19, §1]

Attorney General Opinions

Transcript of agency hearing is a public record. Att. Gen. Op. 64-4.

Executive meeting to develop criteria for superintendent of education position may not be closed. Att. Gen. Op. 75-11.

Case Notes

Certain police records not public records. 42 H. 14, (decided prior to enactment of section).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 21× “The Commission properly entered into executive sessions pursuant to HRS §§ 92-4, 92-5(a)(2), and 92-5(a)(4). As such, Counts [3] and [4] are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Chang v. Plan. Com'n of Cnty. of Maui, 643 P.2d 55 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 2× “” 12 While neither the state constitution nor HRS §§ 92-4 and 92-5 apply to exempt the planning commission’s meetings from the above requirement, HRS § 92-6(a)(2) (1976) renders the statute inapplicable to “adjudicatory functions exercised by a board and governed by sections…”

Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu. (Haw. 2019). · cites it 16× “Rather than addressing whether the Sunshine Law requires closed meetings, the Appellees argued that the “Commission was authorized to conduct a meeting closed to the public under HRS § 92-5(a)(2) and (4) and followed the proper procedures to hold the executive meeting under HRS…”

Cnty. of Kauai v. OIP, 200 P.3d 403 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “Council stated its purpose for convening ES-177 in a public posting of the agenda item as follows: Pursuant to Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 92-4, 92-5(a)(4) and 92-5(a)(6), the purposes of this executive session are (1) to deliberate and decide whether an investigation of the Kaua`i Police…”

Keahi v. Chang (Haw. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “personnel action regarding the deputy occurred where the Commission voted to close the meeting to the public pursuant to HRS §§ 92-4 or 92-5"; and (5) to the extent the Commission's personnel powers can be delegated to one of its members, "no administrative rule has been…”

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.