HILO, Hawai'i — Open-government advocates praised yesterday's unanimous vote by the Hawai'i County Council to scrap a proposal to exempt the state's county councils from the Sunshine Law, which requires government panels to conduct business in public.

The Hawai'i State Association of Counties, comprising council members from O'ahu, Kaua'i, Maui and the Big Island, had proposed the exemption as part of a package of bills to be submitted to the Legislature when it convenes early next year. The measures needed the approval of all four councils in order to be included in the association's entire package.

The Maui and Kaua'i councils last week failed to take action on the proposed exemption. The Honolulu City Council yesterday filed the matter, essentially deferring action.

The Sunshine Law requires councils, boards and other government panels to hold open meetings with advance notice and prohibits members from privately discussing matters that are before them or likely to come before them for consideration.

Susan Irvine, president of the League of Women Voters of Hawai'i, said she was pleased that the counties association's proposal was voted down. The league is "committed to openness in government so the public knows how they're handling the public's business," she said.

"We pay their salaries and it behooves them to be as open as possible," Irvine said. "This also helps people in general to have more confidence in politicians if they feel they're open in their proceedings."

A written justification to support the exemption said the Sunshine Law "detracts from the effectiveness of the county councils in carrying out their legislative responsibilities." Some council members have complained the law prevents them from engaging in "informal interactions" with the public and from attending workshops, forums and other gatherings where other council members are present.

Supporters of an exemption also pointed out that the Legislature exempted itself from the law and that an exemption would allow the councils to set up their own open-government rules to meet their particular needs.

Hawai'i County Councilman Bob Jacobson called the proposed exemption "garbage" and complained that it was bundled with several good proposals in an effort to get the counties to approve the entire package. Jacobson, who represents Ka'u and Puna, called the strategy "an old political trick" and urged colleagues to express their displeasure by rejecting the entire package.

Instead, the council voted separately on the exemption, sinking it in an 8-0 vote, while supporting resolutions urging legislators to extend three laws that protect the counties from lawsuits by people who use county recreational areas.

Robin Loomis, secretary of the Honolulu League of Women Voters, worried that councils or council members might still lobby the Legislature for a Sunshine Law exemption on their own.

"How can we know what's going on if it doesn't see the light of day?" she asked.

Hawai'i County Councilman Angel Pilago, the Big Island's representative in the counties association, said last week that the push for the exemption came from the Kaua'i and Honolulu councils, which have locked horns with the Office of Information Practices over recent rulings on the sunshine law. The OIP interprets and enforces the state's open-government regulations.

Honolulu City Council Chairman Donovan Dela Cruz said yesterday that the proposed resolution wasn't intended as a way to cut back on open government.

"What it's saying is if we get the state law changed, then the council would institute its own rules," he said. "It could be the same as it is now or it could be stricter."

He said the problem is with OIP director Les Kondo.

"We've been working under the law or with the law ever since we've been in. But since the new director came in, the interpretation has been extreme," he said.

Kondo said yesterday that if the county councils "have issues with particular parts of the statute, they should address them rather than say, 'We're exempt completely.'

"The statute is not perfect; there's room for some adjustment. There may be things that my office might even support."

He said there is a high degree of misunderstanding about the law. It not a violation, for example, for two or more council members to discuss general topics, such as development, over lunch or a golf game, he said. But it's a violation if they discuss specific development projects that might come before the council.

"It's the specific issues that might come before the council that they can't discuss," he said. "The purpose of the statute is to give the public the chance to participate."

Advertiser reporter Will Hoover contributed to this report.

Reach Kevin Dayton at kdayton@honoluluadvertiser.com.