The nominees, all volunteers, would get to make their case in private for positions on the county's police commission, the liquor commission, the board of ethics and other government panels.

Parx felt that was a blatant violation of the state Sunshine Law and told them so on more than 50 occasions.

"I would say: Where is the interview and why are you doing this in secret?" Parx said.

The reason cited: privacy concerns.

The result is that Kaua'i residents know little more than the names of the appointees, many of whom are now serving on the panels and making decisions that affect how the Police Department is run or whether county workers broke ethics laws.

Although in existence since 1975, the state's Sunshine Law continues to surprise — and frustrate — citizens, government volunteers and elected officials.

The law's intent is to ensure that decisions are made as much as possible in front of the public. But OIP receives hundreds of complaints and questions each year about state and county boards meeting in closed sessions making decisions about public policy and taxpayer money.

Elected officials and volunteer board members alike are often unaware about the extent of the public's right to know. Many have served on nongovernmental panels and need to learn their new requirements for openness.

Parx, a 52-year-old semiretired writer, said the issue for him is one of respect and credibility.

"As soon as you do something in secret everyone thinks you are doing things wrong," he said. "That has become the key issue these days on Kaua'i. Why is the County Council doing things in secret? People just don't understand."

Anyone can ask

The Kaua'i opinion was prompted by an official request from an elected official, but anyone can ask OIP for a ruling on whether a meeting can be legitimately closed.

The issue raised by Parx resonated with JoAnn Yukimura, a Kaua'i County Council member and former mayor. In December, Yukimura asked OIP to rule on the interviews. But the ruling

did not come in time and the council held its closed interviews in January. The council based its position on previous advice from the county attorney's office, she said.

Kaua'i officials felt the questioning of panel and commission nominees would be too embarrassing if held in the open, she said.

"One of the arguments against an open hearing is it is very uncomfortable and no one will want to serve," Yukimura said. "But they are making really critical decisions on the community. If you are going to step into an arena like that you have to be able to take the heat."

Ironically, the state's written opinion came several days after the council adjourned to executive session to interview 18 nominees.

"I think there were questions that were asked that might not have been asked in an open session," Yukimura said, without elaborating. "It brings up your performance and sometimes your weakness and that is always hard to deal with."

The county attorney's office could not say why it had been necessary to keep the interviews private, but promised to follow OIP's new opinion.

Parx is now awaiting another OIP decision that he hopes will force the council to release its minutes on the closed-door interviews so that residents can find out more about the appointees now sitting on key panels.

Secrecy in schools

Closing meetings can also have an impact close to home, such as when parents learn they can't find out what is going on in their child's school. This came up twice at Lanikai Elementary.

As one of the state's first charter schools, Lanikai was given decision-making powers and a board of volunteers to vote on them. In October 2002, Lanikai parent Sarah Casken told OIP that she thought the school board was violating the Sunshine Law by going into executive session for unstated reasons. Casken felt the board was trying to force Principal Donna Estomago to resign and shielding its actions behind closed doors.

Estomago also disagreed with the secrecy.

"I said, 'Excuse me, we have to be open. If you have a problem with me it has to be aired publicly,' " Estomago recalled.

Casken said the Sunshine Law was completely misunderstood by the board when she volunteered to be its recorder that fall. After reading the minutes for the previous year, she thought the board's actions toward Estomago may be illegal.

"You can't just pick and chose what parts of the law you want to follow," Casken said. "And you can't interpret the law if you don't know what you are talking about."

Janet Ishikawa and Ken Pilkenton complained to the Office of Information Practices in April 2003, when they said they were denied full access to missing financial records of an account at Lanikai Elementary School. OIP ruled that charter schools were exempt from normal disclosure laws. Richard Ambo • The Honolulu Advertiser

"I don't know if we were right or not," he said. "In retrospect, I think we should have done it in open session."

As it turns out, the board looked like a government body but it wasn't. OIP ruled that Lanikai — and all other charter schools — were "exempt from state laws" because they were governed by statutes that gave them autonomy from the Department of Education.

'No' on missing records

Pilkenton found himself on the other side of the access issue when he and fellow parent and board member Janet Ishikawa complained to OIP in April 2003. They said they were not given full access to missing financial records of a school account that routinely held $20,000 to $30,000. The money was part of an account funded by fund-raisers, donations and grants.

The missing records troubled Pilkenton and Ishikawa. They didn't know if money had been stolen or receipts simply misplaced, and both felt they had a legitimate right to see an accounting of money used for a public school.

OIP said no. Again, it cited Lanikai's status as a charter school that was exempt from normal disclosure requirements.

The board, however, tried to address each of the open-government issues the three parents had raised.

Ishikawa said the board sent a motion that spring to its finance committee seeking to ensure school spending habits are more accountable to the public. The motion was never acted on, Ishikawa said. The board also voted down a motion to embrace the Sunshine Law.

Other interpretations

Issues of openness and accountability may come back to haunt Lanikai and the state's other charter schools. At the urging of state Auditor Marion Higa, OIP decided last month to reconsider its opinions on charter schools, said OIP Director Les Kondo.

Higa's request was based on two opinions from the state attorney general that the charter schools statute can be interpreted differently from the way OIP did on Lanikai's two cases.

In one of the letters, Attorney General Mark Bennett wrote in January 2004 that charter schools are only exempt from laws that apply to education matters.

That would mean the state's laws on open government still must be followed.

"They apply to everybody whether you are an education board or the City Council or the Department of Land and Natural Resources," Kondo said. "They are clearly laws for government — across the board."

If OIP reverses its position about charter schools, the parents of Lanikai students will probably embrace the openness, said Ishikawa, who has had several children enrolled at the school since 1993.

"I think it is what we all want," she said. "There needs to be some checks and balances. That is what this is all about. Accountability and checks and balances."