Opinion ID: 1367800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Violation of HRS Chapter 92 (Sunshine Law)

Text: Kaapu contends, inter alia, that ATDC Rule 15-26-44(6) and (7) violates the mandate of HRS § 92-3 and that the circuit court therefore erred in ruling that the ATDC was legally entitled to maintain the confidentiality of the development proposals until after both a long-term lease and development agreement were executed by the ATDC and a successful developer. We disagree. The mandate of HRS § 92-3 is that: (1) meetings of state boards be open to the public; (2) all persons be permitted to attend; and (3) interested persons be afforded an opportunity to submit written and oral testimony and information. In other words, HRS § 92-3 ensures public access to open meetings of state agencies and an opportunity to be heard. Neither HRS § 92-3 in particular nor the Sunshine Law, HRS ch. 92, in general addresses the public's interest in disclosure of or access to government records. That is the distinct, albeit related, subject matter of the UIPA, HRS ch. 92F. [13] And it is precisely the public's interest in disclosure of and access to government records that Kaapu alleges is inhibited by the confidentiality provisions of ATDC Rule 15-26-44. It therefore follows, and we so hold, that ATDC Rule 15-26-44 neither conflicts with nor contradicts the mandate of either HRS § 92-3 or the Sunshine Law as a whole, and Kaapu is not entitled to disclosure of the development proposals under those statutory provisions. [14]