NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 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=m4ed0ce4c5871978ea94a35efd24063d1
Meeting Number / Access Code: 2482 418 5050
Password: NC00 (6200 from phones and video systems)
Join by Phone: +1-408-418-9388 United States Toll
Recordings of Commission meetings can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/@NeighborhoodCommissionOffice
Google Drive: 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 (Hawaiʻi 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 BY PRESIDING OFFICER
A. Roll Call of Commissioners, Establishment of Quorum
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Monday, March 23, 2026 Regular Meeting Written Summary for Video Record
III. PUBLIC CONCERNS – Limited to 2 minutes for items not on the agenda
IV. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY’S REPORT
A. HNL 311 System – Use the HNL 311 website (HNL311.com) and mobile app to report city issues. The new mobile app is available on the Apple App Store and Google Play. The HNL 311 mobile app lets users report issues, manage service requests, and receive notifications, all from their smartphone – anytime, anywhere.
B. General updates regarding monthly meetings with Chairs/Vice Chairs
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Response to Commission inquires
1. Past Elections
2. Chair procedural actions
3. Past complaint issues
B. Formation of Permitted Interaction Group to provide recommendations on the Reporting of Adjudicated Complaints
C. Report on City Charter Proposals
D. Advice to Board prior to Chair Elections
E. Discussion of strategies for Disruptive Behavior
F. Approval of proposed Chapter 18 of the Neighborhood Plan (the Complaint Procedures)
G. Update on Board visits
H. Kaimukī Neighborhood Board No.04 – Request to temporarily change one (1) Subdistrict 1 vacant seat to At-Large for the remainder of the 2025-2027 term
I. General discussion on board member term limits
VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Neighborhood Plan Committee – Chair Larry Veray
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Next Meetings: The next Neighborhood Plan Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 11, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. at Kapālama Hale and virtually via WebEx. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 18, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. at Kapālama Hale and virtually via WebEx.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT OF SUNSHINE LAW MEETING
A. 2025-14 Cobian v. Dudley
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 that 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 REGULAR MEETING WRITTEN SUMMARY FOR VIDEO RECORD
MONDAY, MARCH 23, 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=xeF2SNQvick
Meeting materials (Google Drive) can be found at:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LS8mfBOkIKp5hqr6Fwr5Kn1HCYCURUu0
I. CALL TO ORDER – [0:00:03]
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Quorum was established with 5 members present.
Members Present: Naomi Hanohano, Angie Knight, James Logue, Patrick Smith, Larry Veray, and Christian de Quevedo (6:06 p.m.)
Members Absent: Mahealani Bernal, Bill Clark, and Harris Nakamoto.
Guests: Michelle Matson (Diamond Head Neighborhood Board No.05); Kevin Lye (Downtown-Chinatown Neighborhood Board No.13); Steven Melendrez (Mililani Mauka-Launani Valley Neighborhood Board No.35); Tom Heinrich, Jacob Wiencek, Greg Misakian (Residents); Lloyd Yonenaka, Dylan Whitsell, and Travis Saito (Neighborhood Commission Office – NCO). There were approximately 16 total attendees. Name not included if not legible on sign-in sheet, not signed in and/or not participated in discussion.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – [0:00:48]
Monday, February 23, 2026 Regular Meeting Written Summary for Video Record – [0:00:48]: Chair Smith asked if anyone wished to offer amendments to the distributed minutes. Hearing no amendments, the minutes were approved as written; 5-0-0 (Aye: Bernal, Hanohano, Knight, Logue, Nakamoto, Smith, Veray; Nay: None; Abstain: None) – [0:00:56]
III. PUBLIC CONCERNS – [0:01:06]
Waikīkī Neighborhood Board Sunshine Law Concerns – [0:01:16]: Greg Misakian raised concerns about Sunshine Law compliance at recent Waikīkī Neighborhood Board meetings. He described two specific incidents: (1) the board removed all condominium-related measures from a prior agenda without allowing public comment, and (2) at the most recent meeting, he was repeatedly interrupted by the vice chair while he had the floor at the end of the meeting. He asked the Commission to carefully review the last two Waikīkī Neighborhood Board meeting recordings.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Email Information – [0:03:57]: Chair Smith thanked Misakian and requested that he email specific details so the Chair could review the video and bring the matter to the Commission or discuss it with Executive Secretary Yonenaka.
Commissioner de Quevedo joined at 6:05 p.m.; 6 commissioners present.
Flooding and Board Meeting Location Concerns – [0:04:25]: Tom Heinrich raised concerns about midday flooding in Mānoa and other areas, noting that the Mānoa Neighborhood Board’s regular meeting place at Mānoa Lani Elementary School cafeteria was among the locations impacted. He suggested that the NCO consider making arrangements for affected boards – including use of conference rooms, WebEx-only formats, or postponements – to accommodate their upcoming regularly scheduled meetings.
IV. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY’S REPORT – [0:06:11]
HNL 311 System – [0:06:11]: Executive Secretary Yonenaka reminded attendees about the HNL 311 system and app, encouraging all boards to continue promoting its use at every meeting.
General updates regarding monthly meetings with Chairs/Vice Chairs – [0:06:43]: Executive Secretary Yonenaka reported on his meeting with chairs, covering the following topics: (1) conflict of interest guidance, advising chairs to err on the side of caution; (2) reminders about the impropriety of adding major items to the agenda; (3) caution about board members emailing each other about board business; (4) the need for boards holding committee meetings to maintain proper minutes; and (5) a reminder that board members are always perceived as board members in public and should be careful when testifying or speaking in unofficial capacities.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Publish Chairs Meeting Summary & Brochure – [0:09:53]: Lye noted a perceived inconsistency: the topics discussed at chair meetings (such as not amending the agenda and not communicating with multiple board members) were the same issues raised in complaints 2024-32 and 2024-33 that were dismissed. He asked when the content of these meetings would be made available on the NCO website for broader access. He also asked whether the brochure discussed under Item C was being circulated exclusively through board chairs. Executive Secretary Yonenaka clarified that the brochure is brought to physical board meetings and left on the table for attendees, not distributed exclusively through chairs. He also clarified that he holds informal meetings with chairs rather than a formal “conference of chairs,” and that the meetings primarily consist of reminders on important topics.
Update on Neighborhood Board Brochure – [0:09:29]: Executive Secretary Yonenaka reported that the updated Neighborhood Board brochure has been revised and is newly printed. It is available at physical board meetings. Boards may use it at their discretion. The brochure is primarily designed as a physical handout for community outreach rather than an online resource, though the NCO may post it online in the future.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Brochure Request – [0:12:09]: Misakian asked whether the brochure is available online or in the board packet, and requested a brief showing of the revised version. Executive Secretary Yonenaka confirmed the brochure is not currently available online but may be posted in the future. The brochure was placed on the agenda to acknowledge prior complaints about the previous design. He noted strong appreciation from at least one board where a member used the brochure extensively for community outreach. He reiterated that the brochure is primarily intended as a physical handout.
2. Neighborhood Board Network – [0:14:44]: Commissioner Knight asked about using the neighborhood board network to share volunteer and donation opportunities in response to the Kona Low storms, and whether information could be disseminated through existing board channels during chair meetings. Executive Secretary Yonenaka acknowledged that the NCO normally shares news releases with chairs and boards. In this particular case, the storm situation is unusual and the information is not centralized, but the NCO would be happy to share it when chairs pass along relevant information. He noted that board chairs can also reach out to each other directly through existing channels.
V. NEW BUSINESS – [0:17:09]
Review of City Charter “Advanced” Proposals – P039 – Change Board Voting/Election Schedule to Even Years – [0:17:09]: Chair Smith introduced this item, noting that several proposals initially affecting the neighborhood board system were not advanced by the Charter Commission and are no longer under consideration. The remaining five proposals have been advanced for further review. Tom Heinrich, who has been attending Charter Commission meetings, provided an overview. Heinrich summarized that P039 proposes changing the neighborhood board election schedule to even-numbered years. He noted the Charter Commission observed this matter may already be within the purview of the Neighborhood Commission based on how elections are established through the neighborhood plan. No final decision has been made; it has been forwarded to PIG 1 for further research.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Commission/NCO Authority – [0:25:14]: Chair Smith expressed uncertainty about whether the commission or NCO holds authority to set the election schedule. He suggested the Commission should lean toward retaining that authority, noting that if it is placed in the charter, it would be very difficult to change later.
2. Clarification – [0:25:40]: Heinrich referenced Charter Section 14-102 as potentially relevant, though Chair Smith noted that section deals with commission appointments, not elections specifically. Heinrich clarified that the authority to establish the Neighborhood Board system through the Neighborhood Plan is stated in Sections 14-101 and 14-103, but “elections” is not specifically mentioned in those sections.
3. Elections – [0:28:55]: Misakian reviewed the charter language and found that elections are not addressed in the charter, suggesting authority to set the election schedule likely rests with the Commission or NCO. He found it unusual that elections are not specified in the charter but acknowledged it appears to grant the Commission the authority to set them.
4. Retain Authority – [0:30:29]: Commissioner Knight stated her support for retaining election scheduling authority in the Neighborhood Plan. She raised a practical concern that switching to even-numbered years would result in three ballots in one year (Neighborhood Board, primary, and general election), which could confuse voters and reduce turnout.
5. Election Operations – [0:31:40]: Lye asked whether aligning board elections with general elections might also prompt a discussion about moving election administration to a separate office such as the Office of Elections. Chair Smith redirected that discussion as a matter for the Neighborhood Plan Committee, not relevant to the current question of charter authority.
[0:32:14] – Veray MOVED and Smith SECONDED to advise the Charter Commission not to adopt P039, recommending the matter remain within the Neighborhood Commission’s purview under the Neighborhood Plan. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 6-0-0 (Aye: de Quevedo, Hanohano, Knight, Logue, Smith, Veray; Nay: None; Abstain: None) – [0:32:40]
Review of City Charter “Advanced” Proposals – P259 – No Commissioner may serve concurrently on NB – [0:33:32]: Heinrich disclosed that he is the proposer of P259, originally submitted in 2015. The proposal would add one sentence to Charter Section 14-102 prohibiting any neighborhood commissioner from concurrently serving on a Neighborhood Board. If adopted and approved by voters, a commissioner would be required to step down from any board upon becoming a commissioner and could not return to a board until their commission service ends.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Purview of the Commission – [0:34:46]: Chair Smith argued that this matter should remain within the purview of the Commission through the neighborhood plan rather than be placed in the charter, where it would be very difficult to undo if problems arise.
2. Disclosure – [0:35:22]: Commissioner Knight asked that commissioners who are concurrently serving on a board disclose that before discussion. Commissioner Veray disclosed he is a board member and serves as Chair of the Pearl City Neighborhood Board. He noted approximately 50% of current commissioners concurrently serve on neighborhood boards. Commissioner de Quevedo confirmed he is a board Chair. Commissioner Hanohano noted she resigned from the Nānākuli board when she became a commissioner. Chair Smith noted he stepped down as chair of his Neighborhood Board when he became Commission Chair.
3. Historical Information – [0:39:46]: Heinrich provided three key points: (1) Charter Section 14-102 requires five of the nine commissioners to have served at least one full board term; (2) the Neighborhood Commission is unique among city bodies in overseeing an entire system of 33 subordinate boards; and (3) per Corporation Counsel advice established ten years ago when the first proposal was submitted, the prohibition cannot be enacted through a Neighborhood Plan amendment alone – because commissioner qualifications are established in Section 14-102, the only way to address this is by charter amendment presented to the voters.
4. Opposed – [0:43:41]: Melendrez opposed the proposal, arguing that concurrent board service provides commissioners with real-time, relevant information about what is happening at the board level. He viewed it as a benefit rather than a conflict.
5. Other Options – [0:44:36]: Lye acknowledged Heinrich’s legal analysis, noting that if Corporation Counsel’s position is correct, only the voters could make this change. He noted that any information gap concern could be addressed by other means, and reasoned that there would be no benefit for commissioners to give away the ability to hold both roles concurrently.
6. Concerns with Board Chairs – [0:47:26]: Misakian noted the charter language says commissioners “shall have served” (past tense) on a board, not that they are currently serving, which leaves the question of concurrent service open. He raised concerns about a potential “clique” dynamic when too many board chairs sit on the Commission, and suggested a possible 50/50 split between board-experienced and general public members.
7. Opposed – Added Benefit – [0:50:37]: Commissioner de Quevedo argued that removing engaged, caring community members from participation would be a disservice to the system. He stated that filtering who can participate opens the door for disengaged or disruptive individuals to take hold, and expressed strong opposition to the proposal.
[0:53:41] – Veray MOVED and Logue SECONDED to advise the Charter Commission not to adopt P259. A roll call vote was conducted. The motion was ADOPTED; 5-1-0 (Aye: de Quevedo, Hanohano, Logue, Smith, Veray; Nay: Knight; Abstain: None) – [0:54:44]
Review of City Charter “Advanced” Proposals – P263 – Change title of Executive Secretary to Executive Director – [0:56:44]: Heinrich disclosed he is also the proposer of P263, which would change the title of the NCO’s Executive Secretary to Executive Director in the charter. Executive Secretary Yonenaka confirmed he testified in support at the Charter Commission, noting the position is believed to be the only one in the city and county carrying the title “executive secretary.”
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Clarification on Title Change – [0:57:35]: Commissioner Knight asked for clarification about the proposed change and why “Executive Director” was selected rather than simply “Director.” Heinrich explained that “Executive Director” is the first-choice title in the proposal, reflecting the dual role the position serves: as Executive Secretary to the Commission and as the overall director or administrator of the Neighborhood Board system. He noted the title caused confusion among other agency leaders under prior administrations. The title “Administrator” was also discussed in past conversations as an alternative.
2. Administrative Decision – [0:59:35]: Commissioner Veray questioned why this requires a Charter change rather than a simple administrative decision by the Managing Director and Mayor, who routinely update titles on organizational charts.
3. Opposed – [1:00:21]: Matson commented that the NCO exists to serve the Commission and the boards, and raised broader concerns about NCO governance, the recently appointed Deputy Director, what she characterized as arbitrary NCO policies affecting boards, and the need for clearer structural accountability. She viewed this as an opportunity to create clarity through the Neighborhood Commission planning process.
4. In Support – [1:02:46]: Executive Secretary Yonenaka stated his support was based simply on consistency – he believes he is the only Executive Secretary in the City and County, and whoever holds the position in the future should have a title consistent with other similar positions.
5. Opposed to Title Change – [1:03:24]: Misakian argued the title “Executive Secretary” was deliberately chosen to reflect the day-to-day operational support role, and that “Executive Director” better describes someone who oversees a commission or board rather than Neighborhood Boards, which are independent entities. He did not see a compelling need to change the title at this time.
6. Administrator – [1:04:57]: Melendrez suggested the term “Administrator” might be more fitting, noting the state uses that title and it more accurately describes the function. He also noted that “Executive Director” carries a different pay scale.
[1:05:40] – Logue MOVED and Veray SECONDED to advise the Charter Commission to adopt P263. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 6-0-0 (Aye: de Quevedo, Hanohano, Knight, Logue, Smith, Veray; Nay: None; Abstain: None) – [1:06:15]
Review of City Charter “Advanced” Proposals – P194 – Require a percentage of Boards/ Commissions composition to possess certain Hawaiian attributes – [1:06:37]: Heinrich summarized that P194 and several related proposals seek to advance greater Native Hawaiian cultural representation on city boards and commissions by requiring a percentage (approximately 25%) of members to possess Native Hawaiian heritage combined with either a Hawaiian studies degree or appreciable Hawaiian-related community or charity work experience.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Concerns – [1:08:15]: Chair Smith noted the proposal would be very difficult to implement in practice. He stated that neighborhood boards generally want people to serve and rarely turn candidates away. He expressed concern about boards being unable to meet or maintain the required threshold. Heinrich agreed that practically implementing such a requirement would be tremendously difficult, and that not meeting the threshold could have unintended repercussions.
2. Elections Reflect Community – [1:10:40]: Commissioner Veray noted that community elections naturally reflect the demographics of each neighborhood, and that equal opportunity means voters decide who serves. He cited neighborhoods like Wai’anae where Hawaiian representation is already prominent.
3. Various Concerns – [1:11:16]: Commissioner de Quevedo expressed serious concern about the proposal on multiple grounds: it could place an undue burden on the Native Hawaiian community; it could exclude cultural practitioners who lack formal degrees; and it could be used by bad actors to point to unfilled seats as evidence of unwillingness to participate in local governance. He opposed any genetic, cultural, or educational requirements as barriers to board membership.
4. Clarification on Application – [1:13:37]: Commissioner Knight sought clarification that the proposal applies to both Neighborhood Boards and the Neighborhood Commission, not just the Commission. This was confirmed.
5. Opposed – [1:14:43]: Wiencek agreed the proposal is heavy-handed, citing strict formal education requirements, loose experience requirements, and the logistical difficulty of implementing a 25% composition standard across 33 boards. He asked the Commission to oppose the proposal at the Charter Commission level.
6. Non-Governing Body – [1:16:01]: Lye asked whether Neighborhood Boards – as non-governing elected bodies with limited legal authority – would even be subject to this proposal, questioning whether the term “governing” in the proposal’s language would exclude them. Heinrich could not confirm Corporation Counsel’s position on P194. He noted the Sunshine Law applies to Neighborhood Boards because they are specifically established by Article 14 of the charter, and that corporation council and OIP have recently drawn distinctions between Part 1 and Part 7 of HRS Chapter 92 in applying the Sunshine Law.
7. Neighborhood Boards vs. Commission – [1:21:08]: Commissioner Knight noted that the defining difference between neighborhood boards (elected) and the Neighborhood Commission (appointed) is relevant. For elected bodies, meeting a prescribed composition percentage would effectively require engineering election outcomes.
8. Advisory Level – [1:22:18]: Misakian supported the concern about elections, noting that boards only have advisory power and the public is fully welcome to participate and testify regardless of board composition. He suggested any representation concerns may apply more to the appointed Commission than to elected boards.
[1:23:52] – Knight MOVED and Veray SECONDED to submit comments to the Charter Commission opposing the application of P194 to elected Neighborhood Boards, while affirming support for Native Hawaiian participation and representation. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 6-0-0 (Aye: de Quevedo, Hanohano, Knight, Logue, Smith, Veray; Nay: None; Abstain: None) – [1:25:45]
Review of City Charter “Advanced” Proposals – P003 – Modify quorum and other voting requirements (tabled) – [1:26:12]: Heinrich credited Christopher Moylan (Mānoa Neighborhood Board Member) as the originator of P003. The proposal has two elements: (1) exclude vacant seats from the denominator when calculating quorum, so that the quorum threshold decreases as seats become vacant; and (2) once quorum is established, require only a majority of those present (per Robert’s Rules of Order) rather than a majority of all authorized seats. Heinrich noted that Senate Bill 2397 (introduced by Senator Carol Fukunaga, whose district includes the Mānoa Neighborhood Board) contains essentially the same proposal but applies only to Neighborhood Boards. The Senate passed SB 2397 with a floor amendment changing the effective date, and it is now referred to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs pending scheduling for hearing. If the legislature passes the Senate bill, the Charter Commission need not act with respect to Neighborhood Boards. A charter amendment, by contrast, would apply more broadly to all city and county boards and commissions. Note: P003 was listed on the agenda as “Tabled” due to a spreadsheet display error; it was actually advanced by vote on January 26 and remains fully under consideration.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Clarification on Mechanics – [1:36:22]: Commissioner Knight sought clarification on the two-step mechanics of the proposal and expressed concern about the voting threshold shifting based on who attends a given meeting. She noted support for excluding vacancies from the quorum calculation but had reservations about the variable voting threshold. Heinrich clarified the key distinction between a “vacancy” (a seat with no one appointed to it) and an “absence” (a filled seat where the member is not present that evening). The proposal only adjusts the denominator based on vacancies, not absences. He walked through an example: a 15-member board with 2 vacancies would have a denominator of 13, requiring 7 members for quorum. Once quorum of 7 is achieved, a majority of those 7 (4 votes) would be sufficient to pass a motion under Robert’s Rules.
2. Voting Standards – [1:38:25]: Chair Smith asked whether a charter amendment would preclude the Commission from establishing a more stringent voting standard through the neighborhood plan. Heinrich noted this is an open argument under Section 14-103 but remains unclear. He suggested that if the Commission supports the proposal, it could do so with the proviso that this be treated as a minimum standard, allowing the Commission to set stricter requirements in the plan.
3. In Support – [1:45:31]: Commissioner de Quevedo shared personal experience: his first Neighborhood Board meeting was one absent member away from losing quorum entirely, causing severe gridlock. He expressed support for making it easier for boards to conduct business.
4. Strong Support – [1:46:40]: Lye strongly supported the proposal, arguing it creates a positive incentive for board members to attend meetings, knowing their vote matters. He suggested the Neighborhood Plan Committee consider this matter as well and expressed hope the proposal moves forward in some form.
5. Importance of Filling Vacancies – [1:48:20]: Misakian echoed support for the proposal and emphasized the importance of filling vacant seats promptly. He raised a caveat about the two-thirds rule for certain actions, asking whether it would still apply. Chair Smith believed the proposal language would not convert all decisions to simple majority and that two-thirds requirements for certain actions would likely be preserved, though he acknowledged uncertainty.
[1:51:38] – Veray MOVED and Knight SECONDED to advise the Charter Commission to adopt P003. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 6-0-0 (Aye: de Quevedo, Hanohano, Knight, Logue, Smith, Veray; Nay: None; Abstain: None) – [1:52:00]. Chair Smith noted that he would draft written commission testimony on the five proposals to be reviewed by Commissioner Veray and Executive Secretary Yonenaka before the Charter Commission’s next meeting on April 13, 2026. He indicated he may also attend to deliver oral testimony.
Review Policy Regarding Political Candidacies of Board Members – [1:55:05]: Chair Smith summarized the current consensus: a potential candidate may announce their name and the seat they are running for during the public concerns period of a board meeting, and nothing further (no party affiliation, platform, or additional statements).
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:
1. Opposed to Candidacy Announcements – [1:55:37]: Lye opposed allowing candidacy announcements at board meetings, citing a recent incident where a sitting board member was shouted down by the presiding officer before being able to speak during public concerns – the officer had preemptively assumed the announcement would be inappropriate. He argued there are too many variables and urged keeping all candidacy announcements out of board meetings entirely, limiting them to board-sponsored candidate forums. Misakian agreed with Kevin Lye, stating the public forum portion of board meetings is not an appropriate venue for political announcements or campaign speech. He supported the idea of formal candidate forums where all candidates receive equal opportunity to speak. He also raised concern about board members using their positions as legislative liaisons in politically biased ways.
2. Transparency – [1:58:49]: Commissioner Veray argued in favor of transparency: he would prefer board members running for office to announce their candidacy publicly so the community can hold them accountable and so conflicts of interest can be identified and monitored from that point forward. Commissioner de Quevedo agreed with Commissioner Veray, noting Neighborhood Board work is inherently political and that allowing a simple candidacy announcement puts candidates on equal footing with sitting politicians who regularly speak at meetings. He did not support grandstanding but supported a brief announcement.
3. Reiteration of Proposed Policy – [2:00:17]: Chair Smith reiterated that the policy is limited to a candidate stating their name and the office they are running for – nothing more. No party affiliation, no platform discussion.
4. In Support of Brief Announcements – [2:00:44]: Wiencek noted Neighborhood Boards are community forums and that separating politics from the process is difficult. He argued voters naturally observe how candidates conduct themselves and respond accordingly, so formal restrictions may be unnecessary.
5. Recommendation to Disclose Early – [2:03:48]: Heinrich recommended against confining announcements strictly to the public concerns segment. He argued that candidacy disclosures are a matter of transparency and should be made as early as possible at the start of any meeting. He suggested that once the disclosure is made and entered in the minutes, no further announcements are needed.
[2:05:34] – Hearing no objection from Commissioners, the current policy (name and office, during public concerns) was retained without objection; 6-0-0 (Aye: de Quevedo, Hanohano, Knight, Logue, Smith, Veray; Nay: None; Abstain: None).
Response to Commission Inquiries – Past Elections, Chair Procedural Actions, Past Complaint Issues – [2:05:41]: Chair Smith recommended to defer this section to the next meeting due to lack of time. Hearing no objection, the item was deferred to next month.
Update on Board Visits – [2:06:44]: Chair Smith reported he has visited approximately seven or eight boards to date and is working with Executive Secretary Yonenaka and Commissioner Veray to identify best practices. Commissioner Veray shared his upcoming visit schedule: in April he plans to visit ‘Ewa, Mililani Mauka, Mililani, Wai’pahu, and Wai’anae Coast; in May he plans to visit Nānākuli, Salt Lake, and Wai’awa (schedule permitting).
VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS – [2:07:49]
Neighborhood Plan Committee – [2:07:54]: Commissioner Veray reported that the committee completed its review of Chapter 13 (Powers and Duties of Neighborhood Boards) at its last meeting. At the April 20, 2026 meeting, the committee will begin Chapter 14 (Rules of Neighborhood Boards), incorporating key issues raised in the NCO and Neighborhood Commission surveys from approximately one year ago. Commissioner Veray anticipates two to three meetings to work through Chapter 14 and stated he wants to be both thorough and efficient in identifying needed changes. Chair Smith noted that Chapter 18 (complaint process) final approval was inadvertently omitted from the March agenda because it was approved at the last Neighborhood Plan Committee meeting the night before the agenda was due. Commissioners and members of the public are encouraged to review Chapter 18 and submit any questions by email in advance of the next meeting, with the hope that the Commission can approve it at the April 2026 regular meeting.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS – [2:09:33]
Next Meetings – [2:09:41]: The next Neighborhood Plan Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 20, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. at Kapālama Hale and virtually via WebEx. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 27, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. at Kapālama Hale and virtually via WebEx.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT OF SUNSHINE LAW MEETING – [2:10:20]: The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Submitted by: Dylan Buck, Community Relations Specialist, NCO
Reviewed by: Dylan Whitsell, Deputy, NCO
Finalized by:
To view agenda and minutes, visit our board website.
Event shows physical location; however, other options of participation may also include WebEx and phone. If available, instructions for WebEx and phone can be found at the top of the agenda.