Law Suit Against City Council Secrecy

On October 3, eight open government and journalists organizations filed a lawsuit in circuit court seeking to stop the Honolulu City Council from holding secret one-on-one meetings on council business.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to enforce an August 4th Office of Information Practices ruling that this practice violates the state Sunshine Law. The complaint alleges that the Honolulu City Council conducted a series of secret meetings, limited to two council members each, to discuss and reach preliminary agreement on Resolution No. 05-243 which was adopted on July 13, 2005. The plaintiffs ask the court to rule that this practice is illegal.

Attorneys Jeffrey Portnoy and Elijah Yip of the Cades Schutte law firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in the circuit court of the First Judicial Circuit. Portnoy said, “It is clear that a series of secret one-on-one meetings that reaches a rolling quorum violates the intent and spirit of Hawai’i’s open meetings law.”

The group of plaintiffs includes the Right To Know Committee, League of Women Voters of Hawai’i, Citizen Voice, Hawai’i Pro-Democracy Initiative, Big Island Press Club, Society of Professional Journalists-Hawai’i Chapter, SPJ University of Hawai’i Chapter, and Honolulu Community-Media Council.

Speaking for the plaintiffs group, Stirling Morita, FOI Committee chair for the Hawaii chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, said “We hope this suit will signal to government that this type of backroom vote-gathering will not be tolerated. Our fear is that this will become a widespread practice
shutting out the public from discussions and decisions on issues.

“Too bad this lawsuit is necessary,” according to journalism educator Beverly Keever, Right To Know Chair. “Gov. Linda Lingle, who campaigned on restoring public trust in government, should have instructed her attorney general to enforce the Sunshine Law as the Office of Information Practices correctly interpreted it so that the public’s business would be conducted in meetings open to the public.”

Sue Irvine, president of the League of Women Voters of Hawai’I, said, “When a government board skirts around the sunshine law, the attorney general or OIP should stop it. Citizens shouldn’t have to do government’s job. If it weren’t for Messrs. Portnoy and Yip of Cades Schutte providing their services, we wouldn’t be able to take legal action.”

Peter M. Bower said, “Continued reluctance to be open in its deliberations and decisions in the public’s name is exactly why we became an independent nation. A lack of openness does not lend itself to our community’s experiencing of democracy.”

Chris Loos, president of the Big Island Press Club, said her club joined the lawsuit because the neighbor islands have the same problem. “We want to stop it now,” she said.

Beth-Ann Kozlovich, president of the Honolulu Community-Media Council, said, “Unfortunately, taxpayers may have to pay to force the City Council to follow the law. That‚s because the defendants will pay for the cost of the lawsuit if the court enforces the law.”

Leah Gouker, a senior journalism student and treasurer of SPJ UH Chapter, said, “The Sunshine Law was designed to protect the public by maintaining openness in the government. I feel it is of utmost importance to raise this issue, and that the public stand up against actions that violate the spirit of the Sunshine Law.”

For more information on the plaintiffs, contact Stirling Morita at 529-4755 or 839-5021 or spj@flex.com.

Eminent Domain and Why You Should Care

By Walt Harvey (R), East O’ahu Realty,
ABR, CRS, GRI, SRES, ePRO, QSC

Did you know that local government can exercise their power of eminent domain and take your property, then turn the property over to a private developer? Most of us assumed that eminent domain could only be used to take private property if needed for the public good such as roads, transit right-of-ways, police stations and schools. That assumption is no longer valid.

Thanks to a recent US Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, public good can now be interpreted by your local politicians as any development that will enhance the tax base for the city or county. If a private developer can convince local officials that the highest and best use of your property is a project that brings more tax revenue to the coffers of government, you can be forced to sell your property to that developer. The alternative will be an eminent domain action where the city can take your property and pay you what they determine is just compensation.

In the Kelo v, New London case, Susette Kelo and several residents of New London, Connecticut sued the city after officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. Since the ruling, a number of cities across the US are moving quickly to take advantage before state legislatures enact legislation to rein in this abuse of power.

To read more about this, please visit my website: www.coastalhawaii.com and click on the Private Property link on the left menu. You can review the Kelo case and see what’s happening around the country. You may be amazed! This is an issue that impacts all property owners. If it raises a red flag to you, please let your state legislators know you want them to take action to restore your private property rights.

November 2005 SB News Front Page

Top | Home Page | SBH News Index

Copyright 2005 Small Business Hawaii. Last update: October 31, 2005