Opinion ID: 1036927
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Circuit court proceedings initiated

Text: On March 5, 2008, Petitioners filed a complaint in the circuit court against the MCC and County of Maui, alleging violations of the Sunshine Law. Petitioners stated that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims for relief pursuant to HRS §§ 603-21.5,8 92-129 and 92-13.10 Petitioners alleged that the LUC “did not accept public 8 HRS § 603-21.5(a)(3) (Supp. 2008) provides that the circuit courts generally have jurisdiction over civil actions and proceedings. 9 HRS § 92-12 (1993) constitutes the enforcement provision of the Sunshine Law and provides: (a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part. (b) The circuit courts of the State shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this part by injunction or other appropriate remedy. (c) Any person may commence a suit in the circuit court of the circuit in which a prohibited act occurs for the purpose of requiring compliance with or preventing violations of this part or to determine the applicability of this part to discussions or decisions of the public body. The court may order payment of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party in a suit brought under this section. (d) The proceedings for review shall not stay the enforcement of any agency decisions; but the reviewing court may order a stay if the following criteria have been met: (1) There is likelihood that the party bringing the action will prevail on the merits; (2) Irreparable damage will result if a stay is not ordered; (3) No irreparable damage to the public will result from the stay order; and (4) Public interest will be served by the stay order. HRS § 92-12 was amended in 2012 to add a provision that “[o]pinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible in an action brought under this part and shall be considered as precedent unless found to be palpably erroneous.” 2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 176, § 3 at 616. 10 HRS § 92-13 (1993) provides that “[a]ny person who willfully violates any provisions of this part shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be summarily removed from the board unless otherwise provided by law.” 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  testimony and did not file and post a notice of the meeting” for the LUC meetings held between October 22, 2007 and November 20, 2007. Additionally, Petitioners stated that during those meetings, the LUC “reviewed, discussed and deliberated information that was not available at the October 18, 2007 meeting[.]” Petitioners called the LUC’s November 20, 2007 decision to pass the proposal out of committee for first reading before the MCC the “First Disputed Action.” Petitioners also alleged that the MCC “did not accept public testimony and did not file and post a notice” for the meetings held on February 11 and 14, 2008. Petitioners asserted that “[o]n or before February 8, 2008, several members of [the MCC] transmitted and circulated to each other proposed amendments to the February 8 Agenda Proposed Action,” and that these written communications were done “before and outside the noticed February 8 meeting.” Petitioners called these written communications the “Second Disputed Action.” Petitioners further alleged that MCC members transmitted and circulated proposed amendments to the February 8 proposed action prior to the meeting on February 14, 2008, and that these written communications were done outside of a noticed meeting. These communications were called the “Third Disputed Action.” The complaint concluded with the following request for 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  a judgment against the MCC: Wherefore Plaintiffs pray and demand judgment against defendants voiding actions taken at the November 20, 2007 meeting and the February 14, 2008 meeting, including the First, Second and Third Disputed Action, inconsistent with Haw. Rev. Stat. 92-3, Haw. Rev. Stat. 92-7 and therefore void and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Emphasis added). On March 11, 2008, Petitioners filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Petitioners moved for an injunction staying any actions by the MCC related to the November 20, 2007 and February 14, 2008 decisions. The hearing on the motion was scheduled for April 8, 2008.11 3. March 18, 2008 MCC meeting On March 11, 2008, the MCC posted an agenda for a meeting scheduled for March 18, 2008. The agenda provided that the MCC would conduct a second and final reading of the Wailea 670 bills. On March 18, 2008, public oral testimony was taken from the start of the meeting at 9:03 a.m. until 4:07 p.m., when all members of the public who came to testify had completed their testimony. Petitioners Conniff, Kanahele, and Buchanan testified during this meeting. In total, approximately forty-eight members of the public testified in regard to the Wailea 670 bills. Each person was given approximately three minutes to speak. 11 Petitioners’ March 11, 2008 Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction was denied by the circuit court. 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  After the close of public testimony and the consideration of several unrelated bills, the MCC considered the Change in Zoning bill. The MCC considered several motions for amendments to the bill, all of which were defeated. Two of the motions considered were brought pursuant to recommendations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The first motion by Chair Hokama moved to amend the conditions of zoning to require Honua#ula to prepare an assessment of the development’s impact on certain native species. During the discussion, Chair Hokama referred to a letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior and stated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifically requested this condition. Member Anderson added that the request was made on February 21, “and it’s only because they were informed by people about what was going on in this area, not by the applicant.” Member Jo Anne Johnson also commented, “I think that it’s unfortunate that members of the public actually have to bring these kinds of situations to the attention of the very agencies that are supposed to be consulted to begin with.” Later in the discussion, Member Anderson noted, “[F]or those Members who feel conditions at this stage of the game would delay the final decision on this for two weeks to a month possibly[,]” “I hope the Members don’t feel that these conditions 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  should not be supported because Mr. Jencks wants a final decision tonight.” The motion was defeated. The second motion, again made on behalf of Chair Hokama, proposed adding a condition to require Honua#ula to complete an additional botanical survey of the project site to assess the potential impact on threatened and endangered plant species and supporting habitats. This motion was also made pursuant to a request by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was subsequently defeated. The MCC then set aside the Change in Zoning bill and considered the Project District bill. After some discussion but without any new proposed amendments, the MCC voted to pass the Project District bill on second and final reading. The MCC then returned to the Change in Zoning bill, and after final concluding remarks, voted to pass the bill on second and final reading. Thus, both bills were passed without any changes being made between the first reading on February 14, 2008 and the second and final reading. The meeting was finally adjourned at 12:49 a.m. on March 19, 2008. The Mayor of Maui County signed the Wailea 670 bills into law on April 8, 2008. 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER