Chair Karamatsu, Vice Chair Ito, members of the House Judiciary Committee,
The League of Women Voters supports the intent of HB 1148 which authorizes the electronic filing of meeting notices under part 1 of Chapter 92, HRS on the State Calendar. We are all for the proper noticing of all board meetings and applaud the attempt to amend the law to allow for more access.
I am not sure that I understand clearly the provisions of (b) 5 at the top of page 3 of this bill addressing emergency meetings. As one of the provisions which must be met to qualify the board to hold an emergency meeting, it reads, “The board limits its action to only that action which must be taken on or before the date that a meeting would have been held, had the board noticed the meeting pursuant to section 92-7” The clause, “action that must be taken on or before the date.......” If you take out the two words, “or before”, and the provision reads, “The board limits its action to only that action which must be taken on the date that a meeting would have been held, had the board noticed the meeting pursuant to section 92-7 “, it would mean that the chair can have on the agenda any item pending before the board. If the intent is to exclude any items that does not address the “emergency”, then the two words “on or” should be taken out.
Of course, the provision could be simplified by stating that the only items on the agenda shall be those that required an emergency meeting.
With that clarification, we support the proposed amendments in HB 1148.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on HB 1148.