Hawaii Elections Commission debates minute corrections, OIP complaint after members dispute record

At a public meeting of the Elections Commission, commissioners spent substantial time debating corrections to previous meeting minutes and whether to respond to an Office of Information Practices complaint alleging omissions from the written record.

The dispute centered on the December 18 draft minutes and earlier meeting minutes. Commissioner Aquino asked that the minutes record that Chief Election Officer Scott Nago had been asked whether he had authority to change the voting method from mail-in to same-day in-person precinct voting and that "he answered no," adding that the answer was visible in the recording but not reflected in the written minutes. Commissioner Aquino said the omission denied the public a "true reflection" of what happened and cited HRS section 92-9, which requires minutes to reflect matters discussed and the views of participants.

Why it matters: minutes are the public summary of official proceedings and are a key record for Sunshine Law compliance. The Office of Information Practices (OIP) has requested agendas, minutes and recordings for past meetings; the commission discussed how to respond and whether to amend minutes before submitting them to OIP.

The commission’s attorney from the Attorney General’s Office summarized OIP’s request as asking whether the commission violated the Sunshine Law by approving minutes that excluded advice from counsel. "OIP requires the elections commission to provide the agendas and minutes and meeting recordings for the August 27 and December 18 meetings," the attorney said.

Discussion and votes followed a string of amendments proposed by commissioners who said the written minutes omitted motions, timing, and counsel’s advice. Commissioners who pushed for additions argued that members of the public should not be required to watch hours of video to learn what occurred.

A motion to add Nago’s on-the-record response about voting method — that he answered that he did not have authority to switch from mail-in to same-day precinct voting — passed on roll call with unanimous support from commissioners present. A separate motion to ask the commission’s staff to correct and resubmit minutes to OIP so the complaint would be closed failed on a roll call vote: Commissioners Adrian, Aquino and Cushni voted yes; Commissioners Kawada, McAdam, Osterkamp, Young and Chair Mike Curtis voted no.

The commission also considered whether to receive and discuss written communications submitted for the public record. The body voted to receive the communications into the public record; a proposed amendment to discuss each letter failed.

The meeting record shows continuing disputes about how minutes are prepared and circulated. Multiple commissioners urged that proposed minute corrections be submitted to the Office of Elections in advance of meetings so staff and other commissioners can review them. Commissioner Osterkamp recommended that corrections be provided ahead of time for efficiency; Commissioner Krishni (who filed the OIP complaint) cited the commission rule that minutes should give a true reflection of proceedings.

The commission did not adopt a single, comprehensive remaking of the minutes in response to the OIP inquiry; the attorney general’s office representative noted that OIP is already reviewing the submitted materials and that a response could take months.

Ending: Commissioners agreed to procedural improvements for handling proposed minute changes in the future, including requests that suggested corrections be submitted to the Office of Elections ahead of meetings. The OIP complaint remains a pending matter for that agency to review.