Deputy Corp. Counsel reviews Sunshine law, ethics, takings and contested‑case duties for commissioners

Deputy Corporation Counsel Adrian Reifsnyder delivered a legal briefing focused on three practical topics: open‑meetings (Sunshine) law (HRS §92), County ethics and recusal obligations, and contested‑case requirements under HRS §91. He summarized the practical implications: board business should generally not be discussed outside noticed public meetings; interactive conference technology is permitted but must provide audio and video to the public and declare who is present with remote members; two members may meet and investigate so long as no quorum is involved and no vote commitment is made (Temporary Investigative Groups); and any executive session requires a two‑thirds vote and a publicly announced subject.

On ethics, Reifsnyder reminded commissioners (who are County agents for ethics purposes) to disclose potential financial or employment conflicts and to obtain an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics when in doubt. He specifically noted the practical sensitivity around commission members employed by major local employers (Pulama/Four Seasons) and recommended early referral to the Board of Ethics if anyone is unsure whether to recuse. On contested cases and permitting, counsel outlined the evidentiary role of the Commission (act as adjudicator when the Commission’s decision affects legal rights), explained burden of proof (preponderance of evidence), and urged members to rely on the record, to avoid outside investigations and to ask staff or parties for additional evidence if needed. He also reviewed takings doctrine (Nollan/Dolan) and how Nexus and rough proportionality must be shown for exactions or conditions tied to approvals.