SHARE
flag
the grid

Upfront News


Why Four Maui County Council Members Hate The Hawaii Sunshine Law And Want To Meet In Secret


Danny_Mateo

March 07, 2012 | 11:42 AM
Let's talk for a moment about HB 2742. It's a very short bill that exempted "legislative bodies of the counties of this State" from the Hawaii Sunshine Law, which mandates certain rules governing open meetings. In other words, if the bill passes, deliberative bodies like the Maui County Council would no longer have to maintain quorums of members before meeting or publish agendas and notices days in advance. Put simply, they would be able to meet with whoever they wanted and discuss whatever they wanted and decide on courses of action entirely in secret.

The bill, introduced by Calvin Say ("by the request of another party," according to the legislative website), immediately spurred furious reaction from citizens across the state. Their comments mostly ranged from straight opposition to revolutionary anger. On Feb. 21, the House Judiciary Committee very shrewdly voted to defer the measure, effectively banishing it to limbo for the rest of the legislative session.

Of course, I said people "mostly" hate the bill. That's because four lonely individuals stood up to say they thought the bill was a right, peachy idea. These individuals are Maui County Councilmembers Danny Mateo, Joseph Pontanilla, Bob Carroll and Mike White.

"Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this important measure," Mateo wrote to the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Gil Keith-Agaran on Feb. 18 (Pontanilla, Carroll and White wrote much shorter letters, basically just referring to Mateo's letter and saying something to the effect of "What he said").

Now the Maui County Council never voted on whether to support HB 2742. Nonetheless, Mateo was sufficiently moved to write his letter of support to Keith-Agaran anyway, noting that "I am providing this testimony in my capacity as an individual member of the Maui County Council."
Mateo started off by contrasting a law-making body like the County Council with an appointed board. His conclusion was that the Sunshine Law needed to govern appointed boards because they "have little accountability to the public once appointed and a narrow scope of responsibilities." But Mateo said an elected body should be treated differently.

"[W]hen applied to an elected board like a county council, who has direct accountability to the electorate and a broad range of responsibilities, these same [Sunshine Law] interpretations unjustifiably interfere with the important legislative work of the County Council," Mateo wrote. For that reason, Mateo added, "the State Legislature was wise to exempt itself from the Sunshine Law, and should give the same consideration to the county councils."

The idea that the state Legislature was "wise" to exempt itself from open meeting requirements is hardly a universally held view. "The city council must not be exempted from sunshine laws," wrote Choon James of Country Talk Story on Feb. 20. "Otherwise, it would disintegrate into what the House and Senate is like today."

But Mateo pushed further with the view that getting elected provided a level of accountability that transcended the need for public meetings. "[E]lected officials are directly accountable to the constituencies that elected them," Mateo wrote. "If an elected official is conducting back-room deals, out of the eye of the public, then the official will not be re-elected."

As to how the public would learn of secret back-room meetings in the absence of Sunshine Law protections, Mateo didn't say. But no matter–Mateo waited until the very end of his letter before giving his real reason for supporting HB 2742.

"With the strict regulations of the Sunshine Law on prohibited interactions, council members have little or no opportunity to communicate outside of meetings to find areas of agreement and avoid misunderstandings," he wrote.

Bingo! Mateo wants council members to be able to meet in secret, without quorums or properly noticed agendas and away from public scrutiny because it's just more convenient for them. Debating issues in front of citizens and television cameras is, to be honest, rather messy. There's great danger that hidden agendas and secret lobbying will be exposed. And we all know how ugly disagreements between council members can get.

You know what? Too bad. Democracy is at its messiest when it's practiced openly and honestly. Secret meetings attract secret kickbacks, bribes and payoffs. More government, not less, needs to fall under the state's open meetings requirements.

Of course, if the potential for public embarrassment and hard work is too much for Mateo, Pontanilla, Carroll and White, they're more than free to find what would undoubtedly be far more lucrative employment in the private sector.

print
Print
email
Email Link
Comment
Feedback
share
Share
  1. print email
    MR
    March 09, 2012 | 02:38 AM

    The idea that the state Legislature was "wise" to exempt itself from open meeting requirements is hardly a universally held view.
    "Otherwise, it would disintegrate into what the House and Senate is today."

    FULL VISIBILITY !!! THE HOUSE AND SENATE NEED TO COMPLY ALSO !!!
    DEMOCRACY IS NOT MESSY IN FULL VISIBILITY ... IT IS HONEST ... IT GETS MESSY WHEN "TRUSTED" LEADERS THINK THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT ... WAIT UNTIL IT IS RE-ELECTION TIME TO GET RID OF HEWA ... WRONG ... IS TOO LATE ...DON'T LET THE HEWA START BY WATCHING ALL ...

    ALAN D. ACKERMAN
    KEALAKEKUA, KONA, MOKU o KEAWE
  2. print email
    Mrs.
    March 09, 2012 | 09:52 AM

    Positions of public election or appointment should maintain an extremely high level of accountability. The importance of their positions warrant it.

    Stephanie Costantino
    Lahaina
  3. print email
    March 09, 2012 | 11:36 PM

    Obviously its amazing how these county council people feel like they should have to meet in secret, in order to do the things they already do, which is badly manage the County. I believe that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Gil Keith-Agaran sat there and quietly listened to testimony while he went ahead with his agenda, just like he did when on the Bureau of Land Management and leased out the annual Kaupo water contracts at $500 per year, or 4 $125 payments from the Ranch.....Its amazing how the clothes of the villain are being worn by the those they have conquered.......and doing their work.....sad.

    Truth be told
    haiku
  4. print email
    October 10, 2012 | 12:13 PM

    Guaranteed they are discussing council business outside of official meetings. Same reason the state legislators exempted themselves, they have no intention of following the rule, they might as well eliminate the liability for breaking it.

    Ahh ca-man
Reader Feedback Submission
Use this form to submit Reader Feedback.
* required value
Your Name*

Town

Email (not shown on website)

Subject

Comment*

Verification*


Calendar Search
Event
calendar icon
Zip Code Proximity
of
Entertainment and lifestyle news for Maui, Hawaii and the surrounding Islands. Maui Time Weekly is Mauis only independent and locally owned newspaper. Mail this link to a friend
Web Analytics