NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

MINUTES FOR SESSION HELD OCTOBER 11, 2005

OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2005

AND

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2005

HONOLULU HALE

CALL TO ORDER: Chair Pam Witty-Oakland called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. with a quorum present.  Chair Witty-Oakland explained that the first part of the evening was to be a continuation of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of September 13, 2005, which was recessed from Kapolei Hale, followed by a separate agenda for a Regular Meeting of October 11, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Roy Wickramaratna, Ed Gall, Sylvia Young, Clara Ching, Jeanette Nekota, Pam Witty-Oakland, Pat Lee.

MEMBERS EXCUSED:  Mike Ellis, Kalene Sakamoto.

GUESTS:  Jennifer Waihee (City Deputy Corporation Counsel), Daisy Murai, Jay Ishibashi (Managing Director's Office), Cynthia Rezentes (Waianae Coast Neighborhood Board No. 24), Tom Heinrich, Linda Ure (Kailua Neighborhood Board No. 31), Georgette "Jo" Jordan (Waianae Coast Neighborhood Board No. 24), Mike Golojuch (Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34), David Lemon (Pearl City Neighborhood Board No.  21), William Woods (Kalihi Valley Neighborhood Board No.  16), L. Gary Bautista (Ewa Neighborhood Board No.  23), Jon Chinen (Kailua Neighborhood Board No.  31), Debbi Glanstein (Kailua Neighborhood Board No.  31), Robert Chung (Chief Monitoring Officer – 2005 Neighborhood Board Elections), Lynne Matusow (Downtown NB No. 13), Linda Wong (Diamond Head/Kapahulu/St. Louis Heights Neighborhood Board No. 5), Michelle Matson (Diamond Head/Kapahulu/St. Louis Heights Neighborhood Board No. 5), Al Furuto (McCully-Moiliili Neighborhood Board No. 8), Bert Narita (Diamond Head/Kapahulu/St. Louis Heights Neighborhood Board No. 5), Bill Wilson (Kailua Neighborhood Board No. 31), Clifton Takamura (McCully-Moillili Neighborhood Board No. 8).

STAFF:  Baybee Hufana-Ablan (Executive Secretary), Michelle Kidani, Elwin Spray.

APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 SESSION MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2005: Chair Witty-Oakland asked for commissioner's corrections on circulated Minutes for the Adjourned Regular Meeting of September 13, 2005.  Ching distributed a written statement, requesting that this statement, and the material she had distributed at the September 13, 2005 meeting, be included with the October 11, 2005 session minutes.  Ching also said that the minutes should be altered to delete statements made by Corcoran (on page 2) where he corrected Chair Witty-Oakland multiple times as she was stating the motion to include summarization.  Woods interrupted to state that the first item of business should not be consideration of minutes from the completed portion of the September 13, 2005 agenda but should be the September agenda items from the point of interruption; Chair Witty-Oakland stated that she was following correct procedure. Nekota pointed to page 6 and said she never said that the "Commission sets policy"; Chair Witty-Oakland said that the last part of the sentence would be stricken.  With no objection, Chair Witty-Oakland declared the September 13, 2005 Session Minutes for the Adjourned Regular Meeting of September 13, 2005 Minutes approved as corrected 7-0-0. 

Nekota said she had a question about the September 13 Minutes and referred to a letter mentioned in September that was sent out by the State of Hawaii Office of Information Practices (OIP), being sent to all Board Chairs, that she had just received a copy of on October 11th and that she felt raised questions that she felt the Commission should seek answers to.  Chair Witty-Oakland referred the subject to the executive secretary; who responded that the Commission Office has talked to the OIP and can provide copies of prior letters and issues. Nekota said she would like to have a follow-up on what was decided by the executive secretary; Chair Witty-Oakland said the Commission could discuss it as an agenda item at a future meeting.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY'S REPORT:  Hufana-Ablan distributed a written report and highlighted:

1. Neighborhood Board System Performance Audit Resolution was passed by Honolulu City Council (Res. 04-387) on September 28, 2005, entitled "Requesting a Performance Audit of the Neighborhood Board System."  One sections reads, in part:  "WHEREAS, the Council has heard concerns from Neighborhood Board Commissioners that the neighborhood board system is not fulfilling its mission, that the neighborhood plan has not been completed in accordance with the time period set by the Charter of the City and County of Honolulu and
2.  that there is little accountability in spending by the Neighborhood Commission Office;"  The resolution presents an opportunity to improve communications from the Office and the Commissioners.

2.  Neighborhood Board Chairs (representatives from 21 boards) gathered at the Mayor's Conference Room on September 26, 2005 with Commission Chair Witty-Oakland, Commissioner Ching and the Executive Secretary.  Oahu Civil Defense made a presentation, State Office of Information Practices opinions were discussed, and training materials for Board Members were reviewed.

3.  The 2-Hour limitation on staff assistance at board meetings was suspended following the Commission's recommendation pending review of the results and any further recommendations from the Commission.  Most boards had previously been able to keep within a two-hour meeting timeframe.

4.  Sunshine (Open Meetings) Law Training:  305 Board members have attended the State of Hawaii sunshine law training session, out of approximately 410 board members (of the total 444 seats, there are about 25 vacant seats at any given time) and 9 trained of 9 commissioners.  Training sessions (conducted May 14, June 28 and August 29, 2005) are required as the result of a City ordinance making it mandatory for Neighborhood Board members to attend 'informational practices' training every two years starting within three months from the date of office [City Ordinances Sec. 3-12.3 (b) Article 12].  The Neighborhood Commission Office has requested additional training sessions be scheduled by the State, as new board members are continually being appointed to fill any vacancy that might be occurring.

5.  Board Member Training:  A parliamentary procedure-training workshop is being planned for Wednesday, October 26, 2005 in Kapolei.  The workshop is to include presentations on order- and-decorum and communication skills, in addition to parliamentary procedure.  The training is being specifically designed to accommodate the members of the Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board as a result of the desire of the Commission that the Board Members have the opportunity for training in the above subjects.  Additional parliamentary procedure training is being planned for other areas. 

6.  Administrative Policy of Reasonable Limits on Oral Public Testimony: Hawaii's Sunshine law [Chapter 92 – Public Agency Meetings and Records] requires (as is quoted on the top of the Commission agenda) … all interested persons … be able to present oral testimony on any agenda item.  Both the Sunshine law and Robert's Rules of Order allow the Commission and Boards to set reasonable limits for oral testimony.  The City Council provides for one (1) minute for public testimony.  The Commission Office recommends a policy be adopted by each of the individual Boards, following public notice – placement on agenda, which allows for discussion at Board meeting and a vote either as Special Rule of Order or as a Standing Rule -- similar to the procedures followed to make the choice of a pre-established meeting date or selection of time for a regular meeting.

Bautista asked what the penalty was for the failure to attend the required sunshine law training; Hufana-Ablan explained that a specific penalty was not in the ordinance and encouraged members to take the training for the learning gained.  Bautista requested that a penalty be established; stating that he felt it was not acceptable that there was no penalty.  Woods noted that a comment at the September meeting on staff flexibility was not correct, that following the September meeting he was told both that the staff would only be available for 2 ½ hours only – no flexibility -- and that Woods would have to accept responsibility for sound system, and second, the report section on Chairs should not say "representation" because boards were not sending representatives, since boards could not take action because there was no agenda to know what the boards were representing, and third, that the recommendation of one minute limit on oral presentation is not sufficient per OIP's Kondo.  Nekota asked what kind of training material was distributed because 'we were not allowed to attend' the gathering; Hufana-Ablan reported that possible modifications of the existing board member guidebook were being considered and discussed that the current version would be available to all new board members, with the availability being discussed with chairs and via the Hoike Lono newsletter.  Gall asked on notes, minutes or materials from the meeting, with Hufana-Ablan explaining that this gathering was a discussion – including comments on staff performance -- rather than a decision-making proceeding and that there were no official notes taken.  Ching asked for a clarification of the guidebook policy on draft minutes, with Hufana-Ablan explaining that minutes are to be available to the public 30 days after the meeting, however internally a draft is intended to be available to the chair or to the chair's representative after seven working days, with that chair or representative not making modifications, but reviewing for geographic and resident names, stressing that corrections are to be made at the actual board meeting.  Hufana-Ablan offered details that the reviewer would have 4 days, with 4 days for final production, and the final mail out a minimum of six days prior to the next meeting.  Hufana-Ablan explained that the Neighborhood Plan states that corrections to the minutes must be done in public at the regular board meeting.  Lemon stated that corrections to the Pearl City Neighborhood Board No. 21 minutes would be handled by his board members without any input from the Executive Secretary as to how the Pearl City Board would do the correcting.  Ure said that often the draft is not available for fourteen days, that its up to the board to decide who does the reviewing, that her board adds things to drafts (such as names of voting members), and stressed that boards try to get minutes out with agendas.  Young asked if the boards are only allowed to correct geographic or street names and asked if this was not censoring; Hufana-Ablan explained that the Neighborhood Plan states corrections are to be made at the regular Board meeting.  Ure said that the board could only correct after the public reviews but that the production of the first draft is solely up to the Board officers. Bautista said that the chair's review is to confirm that the summary in the draft is correct.  Chair Witty-Oakland noted that the Commission should add this discussion to a future agenda for further exploration of the expectations of Commissioners with regard to minutes. 

Chair Witty-Oakland passed the gavel to Commissioner Lee and reported on her attendance at the chairs gathering, where she reported it was discussed that the executive secretary would create an addendum to the existing guidebook.  Nekota asked and recommended that the material would be posted on the website, with Hufana-Ablan responding that it would most likely be posted but that the specifics are under consideration.  Commissioner Lee returned the gavel to Chair Witty-Oakland.

Chair Witty-Oakland noted that the planned October 26, 2005 workshop for the Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34 board members would not be attended by Commissioners due to scheduling conflicts and requested an alternate date.  Hufana-Ablan explained that the training was intended to be Makakilo Board-specific rather than Commissioner-oriented; Chair Witty-Oakland said she would still like to schedule a date to allow for Commissioners to attend similar training.

Matusow reported on the chairs gathering, noting that copies of the current Neighborhood Plan need to be reproduced for distribution to members and that copies of OIP findings that are directed to a single board should be distributed the 31 other boards.  Hufana-Ablan reported that the requesting of copies for a board membership was appropriate by that board chair but that for a board chair to request copies for another board or another board's membership was not appropriate because the individual board should be asking for themselves.  Lee asked Hufana-Ablana if the Neighborhood Plan was on the web; Lemon said it was; Hufana-Ablan answered Lee that the Plan was on the web; Lemon said "but we're talking about the guidebook," with Hufana-Ablan replying to Lee that the guidebook posting is under consideration.  Woods discussed that he feels the minutes production procedure is not in writing and that it should not be changed or distributed without Commission review and approval as official policy; Chair Witty-Oakland pointed out that only the guidebook addendum was being produced.  Lemon stated that at a first chairs meeting a requirement was made that all board chairs receive a copy of any OIP formal correspondence dealing with boards; he stated that the written requirement was made in January.  Gall and Chair Witty-Oakland said that all commissioners should receive OIP decisions.  Bautista said there should be distribution of minutes of the chairs gathering; Hufana-Ablan said there were no minutes, that it was not a meeting.  Bautista asked for a meeting report that he could distribute; Hufana-Ablan said there was no written report.  Lee said he understood the intent to be a talk-story gathering, with Chair Witty-Oakland reporting that it was a sharing of ideas gathering not a formal meeting.  Nekota said that since there were decisions made there should be a report. Lemon said that the group coerced the executive secretary to agree.  Chair Witty-Oakland said that the plan is not to change the guidebook material but to make changes through an addendum.  Nekota said if a decision was made then there should be a report made on the decision; Hufana-Ablan said that the Commission Office is producing the guidebook, that recommendations were being gathered on September 26^th, the guidebook is guidance, and that no decisions were made.  Rezentes noted that the draft guidebook was not being distributed to everyone.  Glanstein reported that if the meeting was a gathering with a decision made then, by definition, it was a meeting and minutes should be available and that more formality should be followed in the future.  Lee said that it is a concern that we start with good intentions but when we start to make decisions we are not following our intentions.  Chair Witty-Oakland asked for the meeting to continue.  Lemon stated that his interpretation was that the guidebook draft was distributed for a draft review not a formal review. Takamura asked for a copy of the guidebook draft and spoke encouraging for the production of copies for all board members, saying that board members need the tools contained in the guidebook.

COMMITTEES

Budget Committee:  Chair Witty-Oakland deferred a report due to Sakamoto's absence.

Election Committee:  Wickramaratna announced he had no report at this time but would under the October 11, 2005 meeting agenda.

Plan Committee:  Gall presented former Commissioner Tom Heinrich to report on the status of the Neighborhood Plan revision process.  Heinrich noted that the Commission at its August meeting had requested an update, including a "clean text" draft (with the notes removed), which was now with the committee and had been available to be reported out at September's Kapolei meeting.  He intends to make available an electronic copy of the draft for the web, will consult with the Corporation Counsel on the draft, and will give a 15-step procedure memo to the committee.  Chair Witty-Oakland asked that discussion be deferred to the October 11, 2005 agenda. Matusow stated that she wanted to recreate minutes of past committee meetings, saying that she has notes for meetings of October 5 and October 19, 2002 but would like to have notes for November 16, 2002 and January 4 and February 22, 2003, as well as Corporation Counsel communications on revision proposals.  Gall offered to work with the Commission Office to discover notes.

COMMISSIONER CONCERNS:  Chair Witty-Oakland asked for comments, noting that the Corporation Counsel had expressed concern about the use of the agenda item; there were no comments. 

PUBLIC INPUT:  Chair Witty-Oakland opened the meeting for public input.  Bautista commented that agenda items should be detailed enough so the public could be expected to know what was to be discussed.  Takamura reported that he has made input to the Charter Commission and will be making a comprehensive proposal; Gall asked for a copy; Takamura said he would get a copy to the executive secretary.  Furuto noted that he had previously submitted complaints that need to be resolved; Chair Witty-Oakland noted that the complaints item was on the October agenda and that they would be pursued at future meetings.  Lee noted that the items being mentioned could be done under the October meeting agenda and suggested adjournment to the October agenda. Lemon said that a spreadsheet distributed by executive secretary is flawed because it did not provide appropriate details, including not noting deferred items.  Woods reported that he has reviewed board minutes of recent meetings, which have many items of deferral with such deferrals as indications that the staff assistance limitation decision was flawed and asked the Commission to turn this around.  Matusow said that an additional problem has occurred with the distribution of staffing to the Kapolei Commission Office, were 2/3s of the boards are in urban Honolulu and 2/7 of the servicing staff are located in urban Honolulu, and including that the experienced service staff are now in Kapolei.  Matusow also noted that the Boards should be helped in accessing the OIP decisions, that future Commission meetings should not plan to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. and that Lee was correct that the Commission should end the Adjourned Regular Meeting of September 13, 2005 and start the new agenda.

ADJOURNMENT:  Lee moved, seconded by Gall to adjourn the Adjourned Regular Meeting of September 13, 2005.  Chair Witty-Oakland announced, without objection, the adjournment of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of September 13, 2005 at 8:15 p.m., 7-0-0.

CALL TO ORDER:  Chair Witty-Oakland called the October 11, 2005 Regular Meeting to Order at 8:15 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AUGUST 9, 2005 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES:  Chair Witty-Oakland said that revisions to the August 9, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes had been prepared, but as they had not been distributed by mail, she was deferring the item until the next meeting.

VERIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULTS BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 3-7.9, REVISED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1986 (1998 EDITION):  Chair Witty-Oakland introduced Robert Chung, the Chief Monitoring Officer (CMO) for the 2003 and 2005 Neighborhood Board Elections. 

Nekota asked about corrections to the August meeting; Chair Witty-Oakland said they would be deferred until the next meeting.

Chung reported he certified the results of the 2005 Neighborhood Board Elections, including the hearing of two formal challenges, and submitted reports on the findings and results to the Commission.  Hufana-Ablan reported that the two formal challenges were from Makakilo and Waianae.  Nekota asked who was present at the counting process; Chung said those involved in the tabulation and himself.  Nekota said people had complained that they had received five ballots or had received no ballots and that they were confused; Chung said that claims of confusion occur at elections, including people claiming that voters on Molokai receive ballots for Abercrombie's downtown Honolulu district, but they do not offer any support for their claims.  Waihee elaborated on the challengers, Kurshals and Ridings, explaining that both had requested recounts, Kurshals because of confusion with ballot profiles, but that no one had brought in a challenge with multiple ballots.  Nekota said that her question was why was a recount done without Kurshals not present nor without notification to the members of the Waianae Coast or the Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood Boards; Chung said he was present.  Lee asked who was required to be present; Hufana-Ablan explained that the recounting of Waianae and Makakilo was done with a representative from the City Clerk's office, staff from the Neighborhood Commission Office, challenger Ridings and CMO Chung.  Young asked when the ballots were counted; Spray responded that ballots were counted approximately April 20, 2005, with all of the procedures for neighborhood board elections in the Neighborhood Plan.   Spray explained that the Commission had appointed Chief Monitoring Officer Chung in November 2004, that Chung had certified the election results, that two challengers had asked about the elections process, that Chung had ruled on those challenges following a recount, and the recount was done the first week in May following the procedures in the Neighborhood Plan.  Young explained that if Chung is not familiar with the details it raises a question to her; Spray explained that the Commissioners received written reports in May 2005 on each of the two challenges, with Chung reporting to the Commission that the challenges were without merit.   Chair Witty-Oakland noted that the 2005 Neighbohrood Board Election results had been certified as valid by CMO Chung.  Wickramaratna moved, seconded by Lee, that the Commission accept the certification of Neighborhood Board election as reported. Woods suggested no action on validation as it has already been certified.  Heinrich suggested no action, pointing out that the Plan's "verification" is not the proper language for the process. Lee asked about the result of the failure of the Commission to verify since the certified candidates have been seated and sworn in.  L. Young said that since there were irregularities the certified results should not be verified.  Chair Witty-Oakland stated the motion to be that the Commission accepts the certification of election as reported by CMO Chung. Aye: Wickramaratna. No: Witty-Oakland.  Abstain: Gall, S. Young, Ching, Nekota, Lee. Chair Witty-Oakland announced the motion failed, 1-1-5. 

POLICY FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY TIME LIMIT:  Chair Witty-Oakland announced that she had researched the issue and recommended that the Commission establish a one-minute limitation for oral testimony, with an additional limit of one minute on any questions that the testimony might elicit from the Commissioners.  Lee reported that the one-minute limit seemed reasonable based on his experience in public testimony.  Young suggested that the two-minute limit would be more reasonable for the Commission.  Matusow stated that the OIP had said in an August 15, 2005 letter that one-minutes was not sufficient, as it did not permit enough detail.  Woods said that more input was needed and that the issue should be deferred; he opposed the one-minute limit, saying that his board operates fine with a 3 minute limit and does not need to be restricted.  Takamura said one-minute was too short and pointed that the Council does sometimes go to 3-miutes and agued for a looser time limit.  Nekota pointed out that the limit has nothing to do with the boards; Chair Witty-Oakland concurred, explaining that the Commission needed to do more than post the notice at the top of the agenda.  Rezsentes said that Matusow was right, that there needs to be a longer time than one-minute.  Young moved, seconded by Ching, to retain two-minute limitation on oral testimony for questions and comments.  Nekota announced that since she had called OIP, she would probably abstain from voting.  Aye: Wickramaratna, Witty-Oakland, Gall, S. Young, Ching, Lee. Abstain: Nekota. Chair Witty-Oakland announced the motion passed, 6-0-1. 

COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Chair Witty-Oakland noted that the Commission had heard suggestions that a different Commission meeting date be considered.  Woods suggested a different day of the week, as well as a temporary different date for the Charter Commission meeting but suggested a different time as well.  Gall suggests the 4^th Monday as there were no neighborhood board conflicts; Young suggest 1^st Monday as she had conflicts for the 4^th Monday.  Wickramaratna noted that there were many boards present over the past few meetings but only one board asking for change.  Chair Witty-Oakland report that Vice Chair Ellis, who was on the mainland, had said he was not concerned about any special date.  Chair Witty-Oakland noted that there was no motion.  Heinrich said rotating sites was good, but stated that 5 p.m. was too early to meet.  L. Wong said meetings should be when there were no board conflicts and said that the Commission should take a vote.  Takamura pointed out there was no motion.  Chair Witty-Oakland said there was no motion. Bautista supported rotating sites and said if the meeting is in town then 5 p.m. is a reasonable time.

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REVISION PROCESS:  Chair Witty-Oakland started to discuss the Neighborhood Plan revision process.  Rezentes asked about the committee organization agenda item, with Chair Witty-Oakland explaining that since Budget Committee Chair Sakamoto was not present she would defer the item.  Chair Witty-Oakland then thanked all those involved in the Plan revision process, noting that she understands that many people had dedicated many hours to drafting revisions to the Plan, especially the members of the Ad Hoc Plan Revision group formed by the Neighborhood Commission's Neighborhood Plan committee.  Heinrich reported that the final version he was working on was 97 to 98% complete, that he can't be held to a completion date but that it would be within the next two months.  He noted that as a timeline, if the completion were on his estimated date, then a public hearing could be held after January 1^st, 2006, allowing for 45-60 days between the first availability for review and the first public hearing; he noted that there should be at least 3 hearings.  Lemon asked if the date of the final would be January 1^st 2006; Heinrich said it would be generally 3 months.  Chair Witty-Oakland asked when the final draft could go to the Corporation Counsel; Heinrich explained that an annotated public review draft needed to be done.  Woods said that the final draft needed to go to the Ad Hoc committee first.  Chair Witty-Oakland said the draft should go to the Corporation Counsel for legal review first, then to the Ad Hoc committee for intent.  Woods said minutes of the Ad Hoc committee should be available and that he is concerned that the executive secretary has control over the process, as he feels there are major problems with the Neighborhood Commission Office exercising control of the final draft.  Takamura noted the Neighborhood Board system is an example of democracy in action.  Glanstein noted that although the process is almost complete that assistance should be given to Heinrich.  Lemmon said that the current 97% draft should be distributed to the Boards now rather than waiting until January.  Young said she thinks the process has been going on for 8 years and wants to move on.  Young moved, seconded by Nekota, to accept the 97% Plan and give it to the Corporation Counsel.  Chair Witty-Oakland ruled the motion out of order as the agenda item was for discussion only, listed under FOR INFORMATION.  Nekota said that the Commission's August 2005 motion was to have the draft in hand after 30 days.  Chair Witty-Oakland said that the Committee had received the draft.  Nekota said that the motion was to retrieve the draft, which is now past the September deadline.   

COMPLAINTS PENDING:  Chair Witty-Oakland noted a packet on the status of pending complaints was received and would be reviewed at future meetings.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:  None.

ADJOURNMENT:  Chair Witty-Oakland thanked the audience for attending the meeting and, at 9:55 p.m., without objection, adjourned the meeting.