NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2026 at 6:00 P.M.
Kapālama Hale – Room 153
925 Dillingham Boulevard, Honolulu, HI 96817
AND VIA WEBEX

This meeting location is open to public participation.
Other available options include participating by computer, phone or by video system.
WebEx and phone-in instructions are as follows:

Meeting Link: https://cchnl.webex.com/cchnl/j.php?MTID=m533b588483fdd248d9d115a0a6ef21b5
Meeting Number / Access Code: 2485 548 7512
Password: NC00 (6200 from phones and video systems)
Join by Phone: +1-408-418-9388 United States Toll

MEETING POLICIES – Adopted July 25, 2023

Recordings of Board meetings can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/@NeighborhoodCommissionOffice

Meeting Materials can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LS8mfBOkIKp5hqr6Fwr5Kn1HCYCURUu0

Rules of Speaking: Anyone wishing to speak is asked to raise his or her hand, and when recognized by the Chair, to address comments to the Chair. Speakers are to keep their comments under two (2) minutes. Public testimony taken on each agenda item. Please silence all electronic devices.

Note: The Commission may take action on any agenda item. As required by the State Sunshine Law (Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 92), specific issues not noted on this agenda cannot be voted on, unless properly added to the agenda.

I. CALL TO ORDER – Committee Chair Larry Veray

A. Time Limit Policy and Procedures

B. All participants are to sign in for in-person or virtually identify yourself on WEBEX

C. Roll Call of Neighborhood Plan Committee Members (All committee members must have their video turned on)

II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES

A. Monday, January 12, 2026 Written Summary for Video Record

III. NEW BUSINESS

A. Neighborhood Commission Office sent out an email to all Neighborhood Boards, by request of the Chair of the Neighborhood Plan Committee, requesting each Neighborhood Board to review their designated boundaries and determine if they have a requirement to make any changes. They were asked to investigate and directly coordinate with the respective Neighborhood Board related to their requested boundary change. The Neighborhood Board requesting the boundary change will be required to initiate a board approved resolution submitted to the Neighborhood Commission for review, potential approval and recommended change to the Neighborhood Plan. All submissions should be submitted to the Neighborhood Commission by Monday, April 27, 2026.

B. Committee to review final recommended changes of the proposed revision of Chapter 18 of the Neighborhood Plan – Complaint Process

C. Committee to review Chapter 13 of the Neighborhood Plan and determine if any changes or updates are required for Powers, Duties, and Functions of Neighborhood Boards
1. §2-13-103 Political Activity – Currently no changes
2. §2-13-104 Standards of Conduct – Currently no changes
3. §2-13-105 Conflicts of Interest – One discussion item for potential change of language
4. §2-13-106 Community Forum limitations
5. §2-13-107 Representative capacity of board members
6. §2-13-108 Membership
7. §2-13-109 Concurrent holding of elective public office prohibition

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS

A. Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 23, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

B. Next Committee Meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 20, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

V. ADJOURNMENT

A mailing list is maintained for interested persons and agencies to receive this board’s agenda and minutes. Additions, corrections, and deletions to the mailing list may be directed to the Neighborhood Commission Office (NCO) at Kapālama Hale, 925 Dillingham Boulevard, Suite 160, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96817, by telephone on (808) 768-3710, fax (808) 768-3711, or e-mailing nco@honolulu.gov. Agenda documents and minutes are also available online at http://www.honolulu.gov/nco/boards.html

All written testimony must be received in the Neighborhood Commission Office 48 hours prior to the meeting. If within 48 hours of the meeting, written and/or oral testimony may be submitted directly to the Board at the meeting. If submitting written testimony, please note the Board and agenda item(s) your testimony concerns. Send to: Neighborhood Commission Office, 925 Dillingham Boulevard, Suite 160, Honolulu, HI 96817, fax (808) 768-3711, or email nbtestimony@honolulu.gov.

If you need an auxiliary aid/service or other accommodation due to a disability or an interpreter for a language other than English, please call the Neighborhood Commission Office at (808) 768-3710 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. or send an email to nco@honolulu.gov as soon as possible, preferably at least three (3) business days before the scheduled meeting. If a request is received with fewer than three (3) business days remaining before the meeting, we will try to obtain the auxiliary aid/service or accommodation, but it may not be possible to fulfill requests received after this date.

DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING WRITTEN SUMMARY FOR VIDEO RECORD
MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2026 – 6:00 P.M.
KAPĀLAMA HALE CONFERENCE ROOM 153 – 925 DILLINGHAM BOULEVARD, HONOLULU, HI 96817
AND VIA WEBEX TELECONFERENCING

Video recording of this meeting can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weKPBb0Q5SM

Meeting materials can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LS8mfBOkIKp5hqr6Fwr5Kn1HCYCURUu0

I. CALL TO ORDER – [0:00:01]: Committee Chair Veray called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

Committee Members Present: Mahealani Bernal, Cross Crabbe, Angie Knight, Patrick Smith, Larry Veray, and Lloyd Yonenaka.

Committee Members Absent: Kathleen Elliott-Pahinui.

Guests: Michelle Matson (Diamond Head Neighborhood Board No.05); Kevin Lye (Downtown-Chinatown Neighborhood Board No.13); Steven Melendrez (Mililani Mauka Neighborhood Board No.35); Tom Heinrich, Greg Misakian (Residents); Lloyd Yonenaka, Dylan Whitsell, Travis Saito, and Dylan Buck (Neighborhood Commission Office). There were 14 total participants. Name not included if not legible on sign-in sheet, not signed in and/or not participated in discussion.

II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES – [0:01:56]

Monday, November 17, 2025 Written Summary for Video Record – [0:01:56]: Chair Veray noted a correction to add Angie Knight to the list of committee members absent. Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved as amended.

III. NEW BUSINESS – [0:02:35]

[0:02:35] – Hearing no objections, Chair Veray added “Discussion of Resolution from McCully-Mōʻiliʻili Neighborhood Board No.08 to the agenda.

Discussion of Resolution from McCully-Mōʻiliʻili Neighborhood Board No.08 – [0:03:22]: Chair Veray acknowledged receipt of a resolution from the McCully-Mōʻiliʻili Neighborhood Board No.08 requesting an amendment to Neighborhood Plan Section 2-14-106 to permit email notification of board member absences. Chair Veray stated this would be reviewed during the appropriate section review at a future meeting and was being acknowledged for the record.

Neighborhood Plan Committee will conduct outreach to all Neighborhood Boards asking them to review their designated boundaries and determine if they have a requirement to make any changes – [0:04:05]: Chair Veray explained that boards will be asked to investigate and directly coordinate with respective Neighborhood Boards related to potential boundary changes. The Neighborhood Board requesting the boundary change will be required to initiate a board-approved resolution submitted to the Neighborhood Commission for review, potential approval, and recommended change to the Neighborhood Plan. All submissions should be submitted by the proposed date of Monday, April 27, 2026. Committee approval was requested for the deadline.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:04:41]
1. Timeline Concerns – [0:04:58]: Knight asked whether affected boards in areas like Ewa would have sufficient time to meet, develop homework, draft a resolution, and have it passed by April 27, 2026. Chair Veray expressed optimism, citing strong collaborative relationships among affected boards.
2. Comprehensive Outreach Approach – [0:05:56]: Bernal suggested visiting all boards to discuss boundary changes but noted this would significantly delay the process. Chair Veray confirmed the focus was on boundaries only, not composition or subdistrict changes, making the timeline more feasible.
3. Historical Context and Deadlines – [0:07:55]: Heinrich asked whether deadlines had been mapped out between now and February 2027 (candidate registration deadline for the 2027 election). Chair Veray responded that no comprehensive schedule existed but that setting an initial deadline was a necessary first step.
4. Requirement for Agreement Between Boards – [0:09:12]: Knight questioned whether boards requesting boundary changes needed agreement from affected neighboring boards. Chair Veray confirmed agreement between boards was required.
5. Communication and Criteria – [0:09:45]: Knight suggested providing boards with brief criteria outlining expectations for boundary change requests, including required agreement from affected boards, to expedite the process.
6. Outreach Plan – [0:10:04]: Chair Veray stated the NCO would send an email blast to all Neighborhood Board Chairs and include the information in monthly chairs meetings and Neighborhood Assistant reports to boards.
7. Extended Timeline Concerns – [0:10:59]: Knight expressed concern that 90 days might feel rushed for communities to provide input on boundary changes affecting their representation. Chair Veray acknowledged the Commission could grant extensions if boards requested them in good faith but emphasized the goal of completing the Neighborhood Plan review.

Hearing no objections, the committee approved the April 27, 2026 deadline for boundary change submissions.

Committee to review changes of the proposed revision of Chapter 18 of the Neighborhood Plan – [0:12:31]: Chair Veray thanked Smith for leading the complaint process revision work and for working closely with Kevin Lye to refine the language. Smith noted the document distributed for the meeting was based on the November 17, 2025 version with updates. He explained that most changes were minor grammatical and clarity improvements.
• Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rze6V6K0aSuutIrO2kPrIj7XvMrH-kEM/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=104896528748335271462&rtpof=true&sd=true

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:14:02]
1. Clarification on Section 2-18-101-E2 – [0:14:11]: Smith questioned whether the language about how respondents should respond was sufficiently clear. He noted Section E1 specifies a 10-day response timeframe and asked whether additional clarification was needed.
2. Removal of Section 2-18-101-B – [0:15:51]: Smith proposed removing Section B, which stated “only violations of the plan shall be held as complaints subject to this chapter.” He explained this provision was problematic because it would prevent the Commission from addressing violations not explicitly stated in the plan, such as email violations addressed by the Office of Information Practices (OIP) or Permitted Interaction Groups (PIGs). He provided an example of an OIP decision directing that email violations potentially go to the Neighborhood Commission for sanctions, but the commission couldn’t act because emailing provisions weren’t in the plan.
3. Scope of Jurisdiction Expansion – [0:18:37]: Knight expressed concern that removing Section B would extend complaint jurisdiction to anything, not just plan violations.
4. Burden on NCO and OIP Authority – [0:22:15]: Knight questioned whether expanding jurisdiction would burden the NCO and potentially encroach on OIP authority. Smith clarified it would not take away OIP authority. Buck (NCO staff) noted many unofficial complaints already come to the office and are addressed informally, and expanding the window would create more formal filing requirements including deadlines and certified mail.
5. OIP Manual Guidance on Commission Authority – [0:23:41]: Smith read from the OIP’s “Open Meeting Guide to the Sunshine Laws for the Neighborhood Boards” (August 2024 version, page 53), which states the Neighborhood Commission has primary jurisdiction over Neighborhood Board issues. He noted this language was amended after previous committee discussions.
6. OIP Opinion Timeline – [0:25:05]: Yonenaka stated that ideally the Commission would receive complaints that already have OIP opinions on whether violations occurred, which would be the best-case scenario. He noted the practical challenge is that OIP often prefers the commission handle matters first. Yonenaka shared that OIP response times vary widely—one complaint filed by his predecessor took more than two years, while complaints filed by others received opinions in a week.
7. Scope of Plan Jurisdiction – [0:26:22]: Knight noted previous discussions clarified the Neighborhood Plan addresses conduct during board meetings, not outside conduct. She referenced a past case where a Chair had an incident outside a board meeting, and the plan provided no grounds for action.
8. Kevin Lye’s Perspective on Commission Authority – [0:27:21]: Lye provided historical context, explaining the Neighborhood Commission was envisioned as a knowledgeable body able to field questions and concerns from the community regarding Neighborhood Plan violations. He compared the commission to a first-level review authority, with OIP serving as an appellate body for dissatisfied parties. He emphasized the Commission should not give up its authority before getting started and urged commissioners to be prepared to render opinions based on their knowledge and research.
9. Double Filing and Trust in OIP – [0:29:04]: Whitsell asked Lye if he would be satisfied with Commission decisions on clear Sunshine Law violations or if he would appeal to OIP. Lye acknowledged he often double-files when necessary. Smith noted that if the Commission makes a decision and OIP rules contrary to it, the Commission doesn’t have to agree with OIP but can stick with its decision since OIP cannot force the Commission to change.
10. Greg Misakian’s Support for Broad Authority – [0:30:40]: Misakian reiterated Lye’s points and urged the committee to recognize that some underlying issues affecting a person’s ability to Chair or represent on a Neighborhood Board may fall within the Commission’s purview even if not explicitly stated in the plan. He emphasized Commissioners should assess whether board members are acting appropriately per the plan and whether actions are disrespectful to the Neighborhood Board system.
11. Decision to Table Discussion – [0:31:57]: Veray suggested tabling the discussion to the next meeting to allow time for further consideration. Smith agreed, noting the importance of the issue.
12. Tom Heinrich’s Support for Removing Section B – [0:33:11]: Heinrich agreed with removing Section B. He explained that Section 2-18-101-A already states “any person, board, etc. may file a complaint against [anyone] for alleged violations of this plan,” which is sufficient. He emphasized the plan should provide for itself as a field manual rather than repeating language from HRS Chapter 92 (Sunshine Law). He noted that while the plan, Sunshine Law, and Robert’s Rules are potential sources of violations, it’s ultimately up to the Neighborhood Commission and NCO to determine whether a complaint can be appropriately addressed.

The committee tabled further discussion of the complaint process revision to the next meeting.

Committee to review Chapter 13 of the Neighborhood Plan and determine if any changes or updates are required for Powers, Duties, and Functions of Neighborhood Boards – [0:39:33]:

§2-13-103 Political Activity – [0:40:01]: Chair Veray recited the section and opened the floor for discussion.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:41:04]
1. Board Member Candidacy Requirements – [0:41:12]: Knight asked whether board members running for office must resign from the board. Veray clarified members resign when elected, not when declaring candidacy. Knight expressed concern that existing as both a board member and candidate could be interpreted as self-endorsement.
2. Common Complaint from NCO Perspective – [0:41:40]: Whitsell noted this is the number one complaint and question the NCO receives, especially regarding the boundary between being a board member and running for office. He explained the constant challenge of separating these roles, particularly during candidate forums when board members are also candidates, potentially creating unfair advantages.
3. Air Time and Platform Concerns – [0:42:46]: Whitsell explained that when one of multiple candidates is a board member, the other candidates often complain that the board member candidate has air time every month.
4. Timing of Resignation Requirement – [0:45:20]: Smith noted that if a resignation requirement were added, the challenge would be that many candidates campaign long before filing official paperwork, making enforcement difficult. Whitsell noted the most common suggestion received is that board members should resign when they officially file candidacy paperwork.
5. Incumbent Reports and Self-Promotion – [0:46:34]: Misakian noted that incumbent elected officials who show up at meetings automatically have a platform and can present what they’re doing. He urged chairs to be cognizant of preventing incumbents from spending too much time on reports or giving reports with self-promoting angles or positive fluff.
6. Unequal Time at Candidate Forums – [0:47:23]: Misakian shared that at a candidate forum two years ago with a five-minute time limit, one candidate was given over 10 minutes while the chair watched, despite being notified by the neighborhood assistant. He suggested including language in the plan requiring equal time limits for all candidates at forums.
7. Section 2-13-109 Clarification – [0:48:39]: Heinrich referenced Section 2-13-109-C, which directly states that board members shall not be required to resign to run as candidates for elective public office. He explained the language distinguishes between elected and appointed offices and that the key distinction relates to public office. Heinrich acknowledged he considered moving this language to Section 2-13-103 but kept it in 2-13-109 due to its connection to public office.
8. Resign-to-Run Rationale – [0:50:05]: Heinrich explained that resign-to-run doesn’t create an equal platform since Hawaii law doesn’t require state or county officials to resign when running for federal office.
9. Guidebook vs. Plan – [0:52:30]: Heinrich stated many recurring issues, including candidate forum conduct, should be addressed in the guidebook rather than the plan to avoid requiring amendments. He offered to draft language possibly reordering the section and incorporating disclosure requirements.
10. Board Member Candidate Experience – [0:57:11]: Crabbe shared that as a former board member, candidate, and elected official, he never had problems. He noted the NCO worked with him throughout and he wasn’t aware of any complaints, suggesting the current process is working adequately.
11. Adding Detail to Candidate Forum Language – [0:57:57]: Chair Veray asked whether the general statement “the boards may conduct candidate forums” should include guidance details. Melendrez shared his board’s successful approach: announcing forums ahead of time, giving all candidates equal time, conducting them during board time, introducing all board members, briefing candidates in advance, having Q&A sessions with the same questions for all candidates, taking questions online, and ensuring no board member endorsed any candidate.
12. NCO Guidance on Forums – [1:00:12]: Buck explained that Chairs and Boards wanting to conduct candidate forums work with Neighborhood Assistants and NCO staff to review examples from posted agendas. He noted some agendas are more detailed than others, and fairness considerations include whether questions should be the same for all candidates and whether candidates should receive questions in advance.
13. Tom Heinrich’s Proposed Language – [1:02:59]: Heinrich suggested adding to subsection B: “The boards may conduct candidate forums in a nonpartisan fair and reasonable manner to promote public awareness.” He recommended not including detailed guidance on conducting forums in the plan, as that would require amendments and is better suited for the guidebook.

The committee agreed to review revised language for Section 2-13-103 at the next meeting, incorporating fairness language for candidate forums and disclosure requirements for board member candidates.

§2-13-104 Standards of Conduct – [1:04:01]: Chair Veray recited the section and opened the floor for discussion.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Background Check and Age Requirements – [1:06:38]: Knight asked whether there’s a background check for Neighborhood Board candidates and confirmed the age requirement is 18. She raised concerns about the vetting process for candidates, citing past embarrassing situations. Yonenaka explained Neighborhood Boards represent the community, which includes all kinds of people, so everyone has a right to serve.
2. Meeting Location Restrictions – [1:07:51]: Knight questioned whether board members with certain backgrounds (like registered sex offenders) who can’t meet at schools have ever been an issue. Veray noted hybrid/virtual meetings help overcome location restrictions.
3. “Highest Standards” Interpretation and Complaints – [1:08:21]: Lye noted Section 2-13-104-A is frequently cited in complaint forms. He raised a philosophical question about what “highest standards” means, noting it’s devoid of faults. He asked to what degree the Commission will hold board members to highest standards, and if not to the highest, what gaps or leeway will be permitted. He emphasized the need for clarification or carveouts to indicate when the Commission will defer consideration of violations, particularly regarding Section 2-14-101 (oath of office) and Section 2-14-126 (parliamentary authority). He suggested that if board members don’t follow documents they attest to in their oath, they’re not following the highest standards of ethical conduct, which provides a pathway to address sunshine law violations.
4. Maintaining Current Language – [1:11:08]: Smith advocated for not changing any language in this provision.
5. Fiduciary Responsibility Proposal – [1:11:30]: Melendrez suggested adding the word “fiduciary” to the language, proposing board members should hold their offices or positions “in the context of fiduciary positions for the benefit of the public.” He explained fiduciary means working for the betterment of clients, like lawyers for clients or financial advisors for investors, emphasizing the duty is not innocuous.
6. Oath of Office Importance – [1:12:45]: Misakian emphasized the oath of office is extremely important. He stated that when someone commits to complying with state laws and the Neighborhood Plan but doesn’t follow through, and complaints are lodged but dismissed or delayed, it’s concerning. He argued that when the oath is violated with clear intent and evidence, that board member should be removed, and Commissioners who don’t act should also face removal through some procedural manner.
7. Fiduciary Term Legal Analysis – [1:14:26]: Heinrich recommended not adding the term “fiduciary,” explaining it represents the absolute highest duty an attorney owes a client or agent owes another. He noted it would be a long road to develop this concept for Neighborhood Board members to the public as a whole.
8. Aspirational Nature of Standards – [1:14:57]: Heinrich explained Section 2-13-104 is “really aspirational guidance at its heart.” He noted constant tension exists regarding whether board members are acting in the best interest, such as owning nearby property or having other connections.
9. Fiduciary Obligation to Constituents – [1:16:31]: Matson argued boards do have a fiduciary obligation to constituents in the highest duty to constituents, not to city administration, developers, or other special interests. She defined fiduciary as involving trust, especially regarding the relationship between boards and constituents. She emphasized board members are elected in trust to represent constituent interests.
10. Highest Standards in Layman’s Terms – [1:18:23]: Chair Veray summarized that in layman’s terms, board members represent the highest standards, which is easy for everyone to understand and is the bottom line.
11. “Offices or Positions” Language Cleanup – [1:18:48]: Knight suggested removing “offices” and keeping only “positions” throughout Section A for consistency, noting sections B and C only reference “positions.” She explained using “positions” conveys the representation and responsibility aspect while avoiding the political connotation of “offices.”
12. Adding Specific Prohibited Conduct – [1:20:42]: Chair Veray noted that over his year with the commission, complaints frequently involved board members attacking other board members, board members attacking legislators, and legislators attacking board members. He expressed desire to include city standards of conduct definitions for bullying and harassment. He noted these specifics allow city leadership to take action and suggested incorporating similar language so chairs can reference specific prohibitions when dealing with disrespectful public behavior.
13. Subsection C Interpretation – [1:22:31]: Knight asked whether subsection C means board members are held to the same standards of conduct as city employees. Yonenaka clarified subsection C refers to the above section (2-13-104) regarding standards of conduct.
14. Personnel Manual Not Applicable – [1:23:19]: Heinrich noted Chair Veray’s reference appeared to be from the personnel manual for the Department of Human Resources. He stated board members are not employees, so including such language creates questions about where to stop. He suggested an anti-bullying statement could be added but recommended the guidebook as a better location, especially as bullying definitions have changed considerably in the last 10 years.
15. Separate Subsection Proposal – [1:25:20]: Knight suggested creating a separate subsection for harassment/bullying language rather than including it in standards of conduct. She noted standards of conduct appears to address general ethics, while conflict of interest (next section) addresses financial benefits. A separate section could address non-financial conduct issues.
16. Sunshine Law Authority to Remove Disruptive Members – [1:27:12]: Heinrich noted the Sunshine Law specifically authorizes removing members of the public who are disruptive from meetings. He referenced prior committee discussions about reducing verbatim Sunshine Law language in the plan to accommodate future changes, relying instead on general references to Chapter 92. He confirmed meeting Chairs have authority to remove disruptive members or public attendees.
17. Section 2-14-118 Reference – [1:27:19]: Buck suggested Section 2-14-118 under discussion might be a better location for addressing profanity, disrespectful, disparaging, or abusive violations, noting it covers removal from meetings. He clarified that section addresses conduct at meetings, so expanding it to cover conduct outside meetings would require different treatment.
18. Kevin Lye’s Concern About Specific Examples – [1:28:08]: Lye stated that while clarification is necessary, he doesn’t believe board members should be able to call another board member a “MAGA-inspired white supremacist,” but also doesn’t believe someone filing a motion to censure such comments should have penalties implied for bullying. He emphasized there’s a lot of nuance and asked for clarification in subsection C about where to find the specific standards of conduct policy.
19. Workplace Violence Context – [1:29:08]: Melendrez explained Section 2-13-104 sets a gold standard for conduct. He suggested that instead of writing new paragraphs, language could be added under subsection C stating board members, like county personnel, are subject to workplace violence laws, which already define prohibited conduct including physical, emotional, and disparaging actions that can result in dismissal.
20. Dictatorial Chair Behavior – [1:30:52]: Matson raised concerns about dictatorial board chairs who control meetings, control boards, and diminish the stature of well-meaning elected board members by calling them disruptive when they speak in the public interest. She stated there’s evidence of this behavior on other boards and emphasized the Neighborhood Plan should require board chairs to be democratic rather than attacking people under false pretenses.
21. Commission Monitoring of Chairs – [1:32:26]: Chair Veray stated the new Commission leadership will monitor Neighborhood Board Chairs, help with facilitation, and ensure chairs properly respect board members while board members respect chairs. He emphasized chairs are held totally accountable for meetings and must be respectful and fair with each individual. He noted that when chairs are unfair, complaints come to the Commission. Veray announced that Chair Smith and he will attend future meetings to monitor and address issues proactively rather than waiting for complaints.
22. Aspirational vs. Enforceable Standards – [1:33:21]: Yonenaka returned to Heinrich’s earlier use of the word “aspirational,” emphasizing this should be kept in mind when working on the Neighborhood Plan document. He explained that addressing bullying and workplace violence triggers specific protocol and automatic procedures. He noted the challenge that board members aren’t subject to ethics laws, creating difficulties when complaints are filed. Yonenaka emphasized he likes the aspirational approach, noting the Commission hopes board members comply and live to certain standards, but acknowledged the difficulty of making everything black-and-white step-by-step because board members don’t fit standard categories.
23. Chair Authority for Disruptive Behavior – [1:34:36]: Veray emphasized chairs should reference certain provisions when dealing with disrespectful or bullying behavior from members of the public. He stated chairs should not let such behavior go and should take action through points of order, asking individuals to correct themselves or removing them from meetings.

Chair Veray requested that anyone who provided comments send him an email recap for his records. He stated the committee would return next meeting to review revised language and determine if changes are needed before moving forward. The committee deferred items 2-13-105 through 2-13-109 to the next meeting.
§2-13-105 Conflicts of Interest: Deferred to the next meeting.

§2-13-106 Community Forum Limitations: Deferred to the next meeting.

§2-13-107 Representative capacity of board members: Deferred to the next meeting.

§2-13-108 Membership: Deferred to the next meeting.

§2-13-109 Concurrent holding of elective public office prohibition: Deferred to the next meeting.

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS – [1:35:20]

Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 26, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

Next Neighborhood Plan Committee Meeting: The next meeting is rescheduled for Monday, February 9, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153 (due to Martin Luther King Jr. Day).

V. ADJOURNMENT – [1:35:53]: The meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.m.

Submitted by: Dylan Buck, Community Relations Specialist, NCO
Reviewed by: Dylan Whitsell, Deputy, NCO
Finalized by: