Opinion ID: 6491692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the hawaii department of transportation’s employees acted reasonably in restricting the hgea’s posting of political campaign materials on the bulletin board.

Text: The majority concludes, I believe inaccurately, that “because [the HGEA] is convinced that the bulletin boards constitute, at the very least, a limited public forum, it does not make arguments as to the reasonableness of the prohibition.” Majority opinion at 90, 170 P.3d at 341. In fact, in a footnote in its opening brief, the HGEA argues that the restriction against posting campaign materials on the bulletin board does not “satisfy a ‘reasonable’ basis test, since the restriction and limitation imposed is contrary to the purpose for which union bulletin boards were created.” 1 The purpose of the' bulletin board, according to the HGEA, is for “union representational purposes” allowed for under both article 7.B of the HGEA’s collective bargaining agreement and Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 89-3 (Supp.2006).
The majority contends that “the reference in a footnote of the opening brief to a ‘reasonable basis test’ posed no discernable argument as to why the prohibition itself, ie.[,] HRS § 84-13, was unreasonable” and that the HGEA instead “rests on the breach of Article 7B of the collective bargaining agreement.” Majority opinion at 90-91 n. 20, 170 P.3d at 341-42 n. 20 (emphasis in original). The HGEA, however, does more than just cite a test; it applies the test by arguing that article 7.B of the collective bargaining agreement and HRS § 89-3 inform the puipose of the forum and, thus, the reasonableness of the restriction. Specifically, the HGEA maintains that: The state ban in this present case does not even satisfy a “reasonable” basis test, since the restriction and limitation imposed is contraiy to the purpose for which union bulletin boards were created and in violation of the contractual commitment made to [the] HGEA.... “The State may not exclude speech where its distinction is not ‘reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum[.]’ ” [Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.,] 515 U.S. [819,] 829, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 [ (1995) (quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 809, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985)).] The purpose of a union bulletin board in [article] 7B is for union representational purposes under Section 89-3, HRS. (Some brackets added and some in original.) Moreover, as the language of the HGEA’s argument demonstrates, the HGEA goes further than simply asserting that article 7.B was breached by the state; it also contends that the article speaks to the purpose of the forum. In particular, the HGEA argues that “the restriction and limitation imposed is [ (1) ] contrary to the purpose for which union bulletin boards were created,” as evidenced by article 7.B., “and [ (2) ] in violation of the contractual commitment made to [the] HGEA.” (Emphasis added.) The conjunctive “and” establishes that the HGEA’s argument is not narrowly confined to the issue of breach, as the majority maintains, see majority opinion at 90-91 n. 20, 170 P.3d at 341-42 n. 20, but rather extends to the purpose of the forum. Hence, while I find the HGEA’s reasonableness argument ultimately unpersuasive, I believe that the argument is indeed discernable.
Article 7.B of the collective bargaining agreement states that the HGEA “shall be provided adequate space on bulletin boards for posting of usual and customary Union notices.” And HRS § 89-3 grants employees the right “to engage in lawful, concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, .free from interference, restraint, or coercion.”. Thus, one of the forum’s purposes is to facilitate the HGEA’s lawful communication with its members through bulletin board notices. Nevertheless, as the majority correctly observes, the forum is located in a Hawai'i Department of Transportation (DOT) office building and is, therefore, subject to HRS § 84-13 (1993), 2 which, as interpreted by Hawai'i State Ethics Commission Executive Director Daniel J. Mollway, prohibits state employees from allowing individuals to post political campaign materials in a state office 3 See majority opinion at 91, 170 P.3d at 342; see also id. at 102, 170 P.3d at 353. I therefore agree with the majority that the DOT employees acted reasonably by restricting the HGEA’s posting of campaign materials on the DOT’s bulletin board. Id. at 76, 170 P.3d at 327.