Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mauna Kea Governance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee defers bill that would let Mauna Kea authority meet outside Sunshine Law amid transparency concerns

2247935 · February 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House Committee on Water & Land deferred HB 144 after hours of testimony from the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority, cultural and conservation groups, and legal advocates who warned the bill would limit public oversight by suspending Sunshine Law requirements for parts of the authority’s transition period.

The House Committee on Water & Land on Feb. 6 deferred House Bill 144, which would have allowed parts of the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority to meet outside the Sunshine Law during its transition period.

Supporters and opponents offered sharply different accounts of the bill’s purpose and effect. The Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority said the measure was intended to let its members hold candid operational discussions while they stand up the new agency; opponents said it would exclude the public from decisionmaking and set a dangerous transparency precedent.

Noinoi Wong Wilson, first vice chair of the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority, told the committee the authority is effectively a start‑up agency that needs to do intensive operational planning. “We are a startup agency,” Wong Wilson said. “We are in the position right now where . . . we cannot have the three of us have a conversation about strategic planning.” She described constraints created by strict readings of the Sunshine Law and said permitted interaction groups and an executive director help but do not fully address the authority’s needs.

Ben Krebs of the Public First Law Center urged the committee to defer or narrow the bill. “The Sunshine Law requirements exist to ensure that the public can observe and engage in the process of decisionmaking,” Krebs said, warning that the bill as written would “cut the public out of the process entirely” and could allow decisions to be developed in private and later ratified in a public meeting.

Bianca Isaki of Kahea — The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance argued the proposal was not narrowly tailored and would undermine transparency. “You can make all the rules that we want about what their guidelines are,” Isaki said. “But because if sunshine doesn't apply . . . they can really just talk about anything, and we won't know.”

Other testifiers, including Helanie Sonora Pale of Kalahui Hawaii and a community speaker who identified themself as Kimmer Nahonu Course and Big Horse, said the authority should be given more time for transition rather than a statutory exemption from Sunshine Law obligations and that the public must be able to observe deliberations that affect cultural sites and public trust resources.

Committee members pressed the authority’s representatives on alternatives. Representative Shulman and others proposed procedural fixes — longer public meetings, explicit prohibitions on negotiating leases in exempt sessions, recording or posting discussions, or expanding the transition period so deliberations could occur in noticed public meetings. Wong Wilson indicated the authority has tried narrow permitted‑interaction groups and extensive public meetings but that those tools have proven slow and operationally insufficient for day‑to‑day problem solving.

The Office of Information Practices and several community groups filed written comments opposing the bill; Public First Law Center said it had offered narrower language that the authority did not adopt.

Chair Mark Asham and Vice Chair Rochelle Lamasal announced the committee would defer HB 144 for further work; the committee appointed a time certain for continued decision making. The vice chair said the bill was deferred to Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, at 10 a.m.

Why it matters: The bill addresses the tension between the authority’s stated need to organize and the public’s interest in open government where decisions affect a culturally significant site. Opponents argued a statutory Sunshine exemption would create precedent that could be invoked by other bodies; supporters said narrow operational discussions are needed so the authority can function.

The committee deferred the measure for additional drafting and stakeholder consultation; lawmakers and advocates signaled continued engagement ahead of the next hearing.

Ending: The committee did not take a final vote on HB 144; it will revisit the bill on Feb. 11, 2025, at 10 a.m.