I’d like to invite – no, I’d like to BEG attorneys, law students, and constitutional scholars to tell me I’m wrong about this – or not.

See for yourselves; it’s all on video.

The April 8th public meeting regarding HB1800, the state budget bill, begins at the :24:17 mark.

At :25:01, Senate Ways and Means (WAM) chair Donovan Dela Cruz says, “The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any discussion?”

Six seconds later, a committee member says, “The MACRO issue… the one we’ve been getting emails on…”

Another committee member responds, “Oh, yeah, the MACRO issue!”

The Chair says, “Okay, recess.”

And suddenly everything STOPS.

For 13 seconds, “the MACRO issue” is seemingly on the table for public discussion.

Then? Nothing but silence and a blank screen.

***
Exactly what was discussed during the 55-second private conversation between Chairman Dela Cruz and committee members?

We’ll never know.

At :26:15 Chairman Dela Cruz reconvened the public meeting. The image and sound came back online.

He reviewed the budget, recommended passing HB1800 with amendments, and called for the vote, which was unanimous in support.

There was NO mention of MACRO.

Not one committee member asked any further questions about MACRO or said anything at all about its impact on the budget.

No member said anything, about anything.

At :43:45, the meeting was adjourned.

Incidentally, in the days before this hearing, the public had been calling and emailing WAM committee members incessantly, sharing opposition and concerns about the funding of MACRO operations.

Article III, Section 12, Paragraph 3 of the Hawaii Constitution states: “Every meeting of a committee in either house or of a committee comprised of a member or members from both houses held for the purpose of making decision on matters referred to the committee shall be open to the public.”

The facts are indisputable:

1) On April 8th, the WAM committee held a meeting for the purpose of making decisions on matters referred to it.
2) During that meeting, the committee Chair excluded the public by calling a recess.
3) During that recess, committee members and Chair discussed in private the topic of MACRO (a state office/agency) and potential budget decision-making implications.
4) When the meeting was reconvened, the Chair publicly announced the decisions made. However, all conversations around MACRO, and the actual process of decision-making for the entire budget, were held in discussions that were NOT open to the public.

Incidentally, a previous “public decision-making” meeting was held by WAM on March 3rd for SB3240, a bill that ALSO contains MACRO and potential state budget implications.

Like the decision-making for HB1800, the entire decision-making for SB3240 was conducted in private.

Watch this bill fly through on YouTube (at the :24:52 mark), after the Chair says, “The recommendation is to pass unamended. Any discussion?”

There was NO discussion; there were no questions. The committee members were again, totally silent.

The vote was called with all 12 committee members present voting in support of SB3240.

How is it possible to make a decision without any discussion?

Is the Chair a mindreader? Had every committee member already decided how to vote on this bill before the meeting started – without ever meeting with the Chair or other members to discuss it?

Of course not.

Before the public meeting, the Chair HAD to have discussed various options in private conversations (in-person or virtual) with committee members.

And then, at the public meeting, he announced the decision made in those private discussions — in clear violation of our State Constitution.

Though this matter is similar to that being litigated by eight citizen plaintiffs in Acasio v. House of Representatives, there are important distinctions.

In the Acasio case, the House Advisory Committee on Rules and Procedure met and made decisions without any public meetings whatsoever, not even fake ones.

In both SB3240 and HB1800, however, WAM went through the charade of holding a public meeting — but every single word of the committee’s actual decision-making discussions occurred behind closed doors.

Why must regular citizens be forced to go to court just to make our lawmakers follow the Constitution?

Why are our lawmakers breaking the law???

Please join me in supporting the eight citizen plaintiffs in Acasio v. House of Representatives – and give to their GoFundMe account as a way of saying THANK YOU for representing all of us in our ongoing quest for sunshine and accountability.

Gary Hooser