Events

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2025 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)
D. NCO & Toys for Tots – Toy Drive: The NCO will be collecting donated children’s toys (new and unwrapped) at tonight’s meeting. If you’d like to donate, please bring your toy(s) to this meeting.

II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES
A. Monday, October 20, 2025 Written Summary for Video Record

III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Final review and vote on the Committee’s complaint process proposal
B. Proposal for the Neighborhood Plan Committee to conduct outreach to all Neighborhood Boards asking if they require any boundary changes
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. §2-13-101 Purpose
2. §2-13-102 General Powers, Duties and functions of boards
3. §2-13-103 Political Activity
4. §2-13-104 Standards of Conduct
5. §2-13-105 Conflicts of Interest
6. §2-13-106 Community Forum limitations
7. §2-13-107 Representative capacity of board members
8. §2-13-108 Membership
9. §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, November 24, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.
B. Next Committee Meeting: The Neighborhood Plan Committee will be in recess in December 2025. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 19, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

V. ADJOURNMENT

DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING WRITTEN SUMMARY FOR VIDEO RECORD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2025 – 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=I0gLTuLLWmg

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 6:01 p.m.

Committee Members Present: Cross Crabbe, Kathleen Elliott-Pahinui, Patrick Smith, Larry Veray, and Lloyd Yonenaka.

Committee Members Absent: Mahealani Bernal.

Guests: Commissioners Angie Knight and Harris Nakamoto; Michelle Matson (Diamond Head Neighborhood Board No.05); Kevin Lye (Downtown-Chinatown Neighborhood Board No.13); Ann Freed (Mililani-Waipio Neighborhood Board No. 25); Steven Melendrez (Mililani Mauka Neighborhood Board No.35); Tom Heinrich, Evelyn Cullen, R. Cullen, Claire Santos, Jacob Wiencek, Greg Misakian, Skye (Residents); Lloyd Yonenaka, Dylan Whitsell, Travis Saito, and Dylan Buck (Neighborhood Commission Office). There were 23 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 – [0:02:02]

Monday, July 21, 2025 Written Summary for Video Record – [0:02:13]: Yonenaka MOVED and Knight SECONDED to approve the written summary as written. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED.

Monday, September 15, 2025 Memorandum for the Record – [0:02:31]: Yonenaka MOVED and Knight SECONDED to approve the memorandum as written. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED.

III. NEW BUSINESS – [0:03:01]

Neighborhood Commission Office’s (NCO) proposed complaint process for review and discussion – [0:03:07]: Executive Secretary Yonenaka presented the NCO’s draft proposal for a complaint process, emphasizing that it was developed in response to the Commission’s request at the last meeting. He explained that the proposal focuses on citizen participation and aims to create a simpler, shorter process than the current one. The process allows any member of the public to file a complaint against a board or board member for incidents that impeded the public’s ability to provide input or participate.
• Proposal: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIkMaFA1xup26mPVnmiwYGguFblOfI7q/view?usp=drive_link

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:09:43]
1. Tracking Process [0:09:43]: Committee Chair Veray asked how complaints would be tracked. Executive Secretary Yonenaka confirmed that complaints would come to the NCO via a complaint form, and the NCO would track them, make copies, notify parties involved, and communicate with the board chair to ensure timely action.
2. Scope of Complaints [0:10:22]: Commissioner Smith questioned whether this process covers all complaints or only those related to public participation. Executive Secretary Yonenaka clarified that the proposal focuses specifically on complaints where the public was disenfranchised, not on personal issues between board members. If the public is not involved, it doesn’t qualify under this process. Board member-to-board member conflicts would need to be handled within the board itself.
3. Public vs. Board Member Complaints [0:12:02]: Commissioner Elliott-Pahinui expressed concern that the bulk of historical complaints have been board member against board member, not from the public. She noted that while allowing community input is positive, the proposal doesn’t address the majority of complaints. She questioned whether boards have the capacity to handle member-versus-member complaints, noting some chairs may be uncomfortable or lack skills to deal with such issues. She suggested boards should handle public complaints, but there needs to be a process for board member complaints.
4. Context of Proposal [0:15:35]: Steven Melendrez asked if this was new or if it came after the complaint process was already finished. Executive Secretary Yonenaka clarified he was responding to the Commission’s request at the last meeting to provide their perspective on the complaint process.
5. Application to Real Scenarios [0:16:20]: Kevin Lye expressed concerns about whether the proposal has been tested against actual board complaints. He noted that many times during meetings, issues are already appealed through points of order or objections to the chair’s ruling, so bringing the same matter to a later board meeting with the same voters might not resolve the impasse. He also noted the proposal only addresses a small subset of potential complaints and raised questions about how evidence would be vetted and exchanged.
6. Board Capacity Concerns [0:18:22]: Committee Chair Veray acknowledged that some situations boards won’t be able to handle and will need to forward to the Commission.
7. Public Forum Concerns [0:18:33]: Greg Misakian stated he believes the intent is to take the complaint process and throw it to the boards, providing a venue to adjudicate complaints at public board meetings. He argued that Neighborhood Board meetings are meant for public participation in community issues, not to address complaints. He called the proposal “ludicrous” and stated it demonstrates why the Executive Secretary is not qualified for the position, alleging unfair administration of the complaint procedure in the past.
8. Process Focus [0:20:45]: Tom Heinrich reminded participants not to make derogatory personal statements and to focus on the process. He noted there’s never a final finish line in developing processes. He emphasized the importance of promptness and avoiding the full contested case hearing process as the first step, which the current Neighborhood Plan largely mirrors. He appreciated the proposal’s inclusion of Neighborhood Boards in evaluating their own conduct when appropriate.
9. Two Distinct Categories [0:22:29]: Tom Heinrich proposed viewing complaints in two categories: (1) incidents that impede public participation (classic Sunshine Law issues), and (2) alleged violations of the Neighborhood Plan distinct from public participation. He suggested considering the proposal as a pilot program for a particular period to test it out, and offered to work on reducing the current full process to mirror the Executive Secretary’s proposal for non-public participation complaints.
10. Integration with Existing Work [0:25:30]: Committee Chair Veray suggested incorporating the NCO proposal as an option within the larger proposal the committee has already developed over the past year. He noted the committee’s proposal offers choices for handling different circumstances and this could be an additional optional path.
11. Concerns About Multiple Paths [0:29:09]: Executive Secretary Yonenaka expressed concern about having two different complaint paths, worrying that complainants might try one path and then switch to another if they don’t get desired results.
12. Board-Level Resolution Intent [0:29:39]: Executive Secretary Yonenaka clarified his intent was always to engage boards more in resolving their own issues, making for a better end result when boards try to resolve as much as possible at the board level.
13. Integration Task [0:30:34]: Committee Chair Veray suggested Tom Heinrich could work on integrating the proposals.
14. Anonymous Complaints [0:31:02]: Commissioner Crabbe asked if the complaint process is still non-anonymous. Executive Secretary Yonenaka confirmed it was never anonymous and cannot be anonymous. Commissioner Crabbe raised concerns that the non-anonymous nature creates a barrier, as people fear retaliation and don’t want to put their names out publicly.
15. Building Trust [0:32:17]: Committee Chair Veray responded that it’s the chair’s responsibility to instill trust in the board so community members feel comfortable confiding in board members. He noted sensitive situations can be brought directly to the NCO. The key is for Neighborhood Board Chairs to establish credibility through the board’s conduct and how they respect the public.
16. Complaints Against Chairs [0:26:50]: Commissioner Knight expressed concern about complaints against board chairs being introduced by the chair at the next board meeting, noting this creates a conflict of interest and potential for retaliation. This could impede public participation and cause a cascade of effects.
17. Case Scenarios [0:27:51]: Committee Chair Veray acknowledged different case scenarios exist and complaints against chairs would be difficult, suggesting those might automatically go to the Commission. He noted the need to look at different scenarios and appreciated the creativity in the proposals.
18. Board Disruption Concerns [0:36:29]: Steven Melendrez expressed concern about boards with strong personalities where putting complaints on board agendas could result in constant complaints and cross-complaints. He worried about retaliation and noted that in some boards, everyone thinks they’re right. He was concerned this could impede public participation by taking board time away from board business.
19. Training as Solution [0:39:23]: Kevin Lye suggested that better training for board members, chairs, and officers might resolve many issues about the public’s ability to provide input, as the rules already exist in the Neighborhood Plan and Sunshine Law.
20. Complaint Data [0:40:56]: Commissioner Knight asked if the NCO has data on complaint types. Patrick Smith estimated approximately 90% of complaints are board member to board member (which may include the chair), with public complaints being less common, largely due to lower public participation overall. He noted that most complaints are concentrated in 3-4 boards out of 33, with other boards having zero complaints.
21. Recent Complaint Example [0:45:26]: Evelyn, vice chair of Neighborhood Board 15 (Kalihi-Palama), shared that she recently filed a formal complaint but emphasized she came with solutions, not to bring anyone down. She noted a lack of inclusion in board operations and unilateral decision-making. She expressed concern about addressing complaints at board meetings, stating meetings should address community needs, not personal conflicts. She believes issues could be resolved through better inclusion and communication.

Review of the Committee’s comparison chart regarding their complaint process proposal – [0:50:53]: Committee Chair Veray noted this item would be discussed alongside the NCO proposal. Patrick Smith provided a detailed review of the committee’s complaint process proposal and highlighted the following: (1) the proposal consolidates the current two separate complaint provisions (sections 101 and 102) into one unified track; (2) The filing deadline was shortened from 45 calendar days to 10 business days; and (3) multiple options are available for resolution, including third-party mediation processes.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:59:36]
1. Resolution Process [0:59:36]: Commissioner Knight asked if there’s a Neighborhood Board considering passing a resolution about third absences and certified mail. Patrick Smith confirmed some boards are questioning the certified mail requirement. Dylan Whitsell noted he had not seen documentation requiring certified mail specifically.
2. Contested Case Hearing Origins [1:01:40]: Tom Heinrich confirmed the complaint process was originally based on the contested case hearing process in HRS Chapters 91 and 92. He noted the challenge is exploring alternatives like email while ensuring proper notification methods.
3. Public Announcement of Sanctions [1:05:26]: Claire Santos asked if there is public announcement when someone is sanctioned or if it’s handled privately. Patrick Smith responded that the Commission is discussing how to handle announcements of complaints and their resolution, noting there is currently no public record of complaint dispositions. He stated the Commission wants to create public records but is determining the appropriate level of detail to include.
4. Loss of Institutional Knowledge [1:08:07]: Kevin Lye expressed surprise at the lack of institutional knowledge, noting that for years the NCO website listed findings of fact from every adjudicated complaint. These surprisingly disappeared with the recent website revamp, though some can still be found on the city website by searching “finding of fact.” He advocated for restoring this corpus of knowledge as case law for current board members and the community.
5. Integration Timeline [1:10:32]: Committee Chair Veray asked Tom Heinrich how much time he needs to integrate the NCO’s recommendations into the committee’s proposal. Tom Heinrich estimated he could complete it by the end of the week (less than two weeks) but noted he has library time scheduled.
6. Line-by-Line Questions [1:12:23]: Kevin Lye noted that seeing the proposal in clean, readable format allowed him to identify interactions and interrelations between sections. He has evolved questions and potential inconsistencies that could be problematic when reviewed by corporation counsel. He requested guidance on how to address these key questions. Committee Chair Veray asked Kevin Lye to write down key issues he identified for review before the next meeting. Kevin Lye confirmed he has a Microsoft Word document with sidebar comments that could be circulated to committee members.
7. Moving Forward [1:14:03]: Michelle Matson requested permission to communicate with Kevin Lye and Tom Heinrich to share recently evolved circumstances for their evaluation in developing recommendations. Committee Chair Veray granted permission and noted he routinely includes engaged public participants on informational emails to ensure they have meeting documents.
8. Time to Complete [1:15:02]: Jacob Wiencek appreciated the thorough discussions but urged the committee and Commission to expeditiously complete this work, noting they’ve been focused on complaints for almost all of 2025. He emphasized other parts of the neighborhood plan need attention and encouraged homing in on a resolution, hoping the next committee meeting would be the last discussion before sending recommendations forward for incorporation into the neighborhood plan.
9. Third Party Meeting Clarification [1:19:34]: Commissioner Knight sought clarification about the “third party” meeting process. Patrick Smith explained the third party is a facilitator (could be board chair, NCO member, commissioner, or someone skilled at facilitation) who would meet with the complainant and respondent to try to reach resolution through discussion. If the complainant is satisfied, the complaint ends; if not, it goes to the full Commission for review.
10. Facilitator Questions [1:20:42]: Commissioner Knight asked for clarification about whether the facilitator would be from NCO or the Commission. Patrick Smith explained it could be various people depending on circumstances—the board chair in some instances, a commissioner, or an NCO representative, whoever is designated as facilitator.

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS – [1:22:01]

Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 27, 2025 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 scheduled for Monday, November 17, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

Charter Commission: The Honolulu Charter Commission is accepting Charter amendment proposals until Friday, November 7, 2025. For more information about the Charter Commission, visit: http://www.honolulucitycouncil.org/charter-commission

V. ADJOURNMENT – [1:22:46]: The meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m.

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