NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 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, March 16, 2026 Written Summary for Video Record
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review of Chapter 13, §2-13-105(a)(3) Potential amendment to paragraph
B. Committee to review Chapter 14 Rules of Neighborhood Boards of the Neighborhood Plan and determine if any changes or updates are required. Committee Review:
1. §2-14-101 Oath of Office
2. §2-14-102 Board term
3. §2-14-103 Transition and initial convening
4. §2-14-104 Membership vacancy
5. §2-14-105 Attendance of members
6. §2-14-106 Absences and removal process; resignation
7. §2-14-107 Reporting change of residency
8. §2-14-108 Disqualification by relocation (REPEALED)
9. §2-14-109 Meetings
10. §2-14-110 Executive meetings
11. §2-14-111 Meeting notice and agendas
12. §2-14-112 Priority of business
13. §2-14-113 Meeting minutes
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 27, 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, May 11, 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, MARCH 16, 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=lClLxl8zHsU
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: Kathleen Elliott-Pahinui, Angie Knight, Patrick Smith, Larry Veray, and Lloyd Yonenaka, and Mahealani Bernal (6:10 p.m.).
Committee Members Absent: Cross Crabbe.
Guests: Kevin Lye (Downtown-Chinatown Neighborhood Board No.13); Alexander Gaos (ʻEwa Neighborhood Board No. 23); Steven Melendrez (Mililani Mauka Neighborhood Board No.35); Tom Heinrich, Jacob Wiencek (Residents); Lloyd Yonenaka, Dylan Whitsell, Travis Saito, and Dylan Buck (Neighborhood Commission Office). There were 15 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 – [0:01:26]
Monday, January 12, 2026 Written Summary for Video Record – [0:01:26]: Chair Veray noted a proposed correction from Kevin Lye. Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved as amended; 5-0-0 (Aye: Elliott-Pahinui, Knight, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: none; Abstain: None).
III. NEW BUSINESS – [0:02:04]
Neighborhood Commission Office sent out an email to all Neighborhood Boards requesting each board to review their designated boundaries and determine if they have a requirement to make any changes, with all submissions due to the Neighborhood Commission by Monday, April 27, 2026 – [0:02:04]: Chair Veray reported that in February, an email blast was sent to all Neighborhood Boards asking them to review their boundaries. Chair Veray and Chair Smith have been attending board meetings to emphasize the importance of the review. No boundary changes have been received to date; all boards appear satisfied with their current boundaries.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:02:41]
1. Deadline Extension Consideration – [0:02:41]: Knight raised concern that several Neighborhood Boards had their meetings cancelled this month, including approximately six boards, potentially limiting their opportunity to respond. Chair Veray noted that the deadline of April 27 still allows time for a subsequent meeting and expressed willingness to grant extensions as needed.
2. Potential Boundary Exchange Between Boards – [0:03:34]: Smith reported that the Makiki NB10 and Nu’uanu NB12 are in early discussions about a potential exchange of territory. Smith also reported that Downtown-Chinatown NB13 and Kalihi-Palama NB15 are in early discussions as well about a potential exchange of territory.
3. Manoa Subdistrict Considerations – [0:04:36]: Heinrich noted that Manoa is potentially looking at subdistrict (not district boundary) changes, which could affect background work for the next election. Smith clarified the current review focuses on general board boundary lines, not subdistrict composition.
4. Follow-Up on Boards 13 and 15 – [0:05:20]: Lye asked for clarification that any boundary negotiations not concluded by April will not prevent such changes from happening in the future under the current or amended Neighborhood Plan. Chair Veray confirmed that the April 27 deadline is flexible and can be extended for boards that need more time for negotiations and homework.
Elliott-Pahinui left at 6:08 p.m.; 4 commissioners present.
5. Ewa Development and Population Growth – [0:07:41]: Knight raised the question of whether areas like Ewa, which have experienced dramatic population growth over the past decade, are adequately reflected in the Neighborhood Plan.
6. Commission Initiative vs. Community Initiative – [0:08:39]: Heinrich recalled that a question was directed to Lloyd Yonenaka at the Charter Commission asking what the commission could do versus leaving it to the boards. Heinrich noted that the last overhaul of the Plan gave the commission the ability to take initiative, compared to the original plan where all initiative came from the community. Discussion followed about the differing standards for organizing versus making changes to pre-established boards.
Bernal joined at 6:10 p.m.; 5 commissioners present.
Committee to review final recommended changes of the proposed revision of Chapter 18 of the Neighborhood Plan – Complaint Process – [0:10:03]: Chair Veray returned to Chapter 18 (Complaint Process) review, noting that a few items were still pending from the prior meeting. He asked Tom Heinrich to provide an update on his action item regarding the complaints provision.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:10:39]
1. Proposal to Eliminate §2-18-101-B – [0:10:39]: Smith reported that the committee had previously reviewed all highlighted sections and accepted corrections except for §2-18-101-B. Subsection B states that “only violations of the plan should be held as complaints subject to this chapter” and that non-neighborhood plan related complaints shall be ineligible for review. He noted that Section A already covers the same ground (complaints for alleged violations of the plan), making Subsection B potentially repetitive. His recommendation was to eliminate Subsection B. Heinrich suggested that before eliminating Subsection B, it would be prudent to kick the draft out to boards through public meetings to solicit further comment. Smith expressed concern that it is unclear whether certain aspects of the Sunshine Law come into the plan by inference. For example, if a board made a mistake involving a Permitted Interaction Group (PIG)—which is not specifically mentioned in the current Neighborhood Plan—it could be interpreted as not being a plan violation, leaving the commission without jurisdiction.
2. Retaining HRS 92 References in Plan – [0:14:12]: Heinrich noted there had been prior discussion about removing from the Plan provisions already covered in HRS Chapter 92 (e.g., agenda notice timelines), since most people are more likely to read the Plan than the statute.
3. Discussion on Sunshine Complaint Referrals to OIP – [0:15:04]: Smith indicated that the provision is informative rather than directive—it does not preclude complaints from coming to the commission, but clarifies that concurrent complaints may also be filed with OIP. He noted that the provision does not direct anyone, and a complaint under that provision is unlikely.
4. Data on Sunshine Complaints at NCO – [0:17:30]: Lye asked whether the committee has data on how often Sunshine Law-related complaints were submitted to or through the NCO. He expressed concern that if such complaints are redirected to OIP, there could be long delays, and asked whether the commission could still play a role in expediting resolution given its familiarity with HRS 92. He noted his concern that boards could lose access to timely resolution by a knowledgeable body.
5. Monitoring Process – [0:18:55]: Chair Veray acknowledged Lye’s concern and stated that once new procedures are instituted, the NCO will monitor the flow and timeliness of complaint handling and make necessary adjustments if the process falls short.
Smith MOVED and Knight SECONDED to approve the Chapter 18 draft, with the deletion of 2-18-101 (b), and send it to the full commission for review. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 5-0-0 (Aye: Bernal, Knight, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None).
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 – [0:20:15]: Chair Veray returned to the Chapter 13 review of Powers, Duties, and Functions of Neighborhood Boards, resuming at the point where the committee left off at the last meeting.
§2-13-103 Political Activity – Currently no changes: No discussion was held on this item at this meeting. The committee noted no changes are currently proposed.
§2-13-104 Standards of Conduct – Currently no changes: No discussion was held on this item at this meeting. The committee noted no changes are currently proposed.
§2-13-105 Conflicts of Interest – [0:20:15]: Chair Veray read §2-13-105 aloud.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:22:59]
1. Recusal and Quorum Concerns – [0:22:59]: Smith pointed out that in practice, recusal effectively functions as a “no vote.” He suggested it would be beneficial to modify voting requirements so that recusals do not count against quorum, but was uncertain whether this was permissible under sunshine or meeting laws.
2. Recusal Does Not Change Quorum – [0:23:38]: Heinrich clarified that recusal currently does not change the required quorum. He noted that Senate Bill 2397, as presently written, proposes reducing the denominator for quorum when there is a vacancy, but says nothing about recusal. He acknowledged this creates a practical voting problem for boards with 15 members when eight or nine show up and one or two recuse, making it difficult to pass anything.
Elliott-Pahinui returned at 6:25 p.m.; 6 commissioners present.
3. Frequency of Disclosure Requirement – [0:25:53]: Knight asked whether a disclosure of conflict of interest is a one-time declaration or must be repeated each time the topic arises. The response was that it should be stated every time the topic comes up to maintain clarity for all attendees, including those who may not have been present at earlier meetings.
4. Cross-Reference to §§2-14-115 and 2-14-116 – [0:26:17]: Buck noted that §§2-14-115 and 2-14-116 address voting and the distinction between recusal and mere disclosure of a conflict while still being able to discuss and vote. He flagged these sections as relevant to the current discussion and noted that any decisions here should be reflected in those sections as well.
5. Campaign Contributions; City Employee Conflicts; “Or” vs. “And” Language – [0:26:47]: Lye raised three points. First, regarding §2-13-105-A’s reference to “lawful contributions for election campaigns,” he questioned whether anyone actually monitors campaign contributions for Neighborhood Board elections, whether it matters, and whether the provision should even be mentioned given that Neighborhood Board members are not subject to election or ethics laws. Second, he recommended expanding the language in A-3 beyond financial interests to address conflicts of interest of city employees who serve as board members, noting they may feel pressured to vote in certain ways due to direction from the current administration or supervisors. Third, he proposed changing the language in A-3 from “shall recuse themselves from any discussion or voting” to “any discussion and voting” to close a potential loophole where someone could unduly influence a discussion and then abstain from voting, or vote without having participated in discussion.
6. City Employee Recusals – [0:28:58]: Chair Veray agreed strongly with Lye’s points, particularly regarding city employees. He noted that when a Mayor issues a directive and a Neighborhood Board opposes that directive, city employees on the board should unquestionably recuse themselves. He asked Lye to draft proposed language and submit it for inclusion in the next draft document.
7. Conflicts Beyond City Employment – [0:30:14]: Knight emphasized that conflicts of interest extend beyond city employees to anyone with relevant employment ties—including those working for developers, homeless shelters, nonprofit organizations, and others. She shared a recent personal experience of recusing themselves at a board meeting where a matter directly affected their employer.
Elliott-Pahinui left at 6:34 p.m.; 5 commissioners present.
8. Military Members and Recusal – [0:34:28]: Gaos asked for clarification on recusal for military members on his board. He questioned whether board members who are active-duty military or contractors for the military should recuse themselves whenever a military-related topic arises, noting it can be a fine line. Chair Veray used the Red Hill situation as an example. He indicated that for active-duty military personnel on boards, there is a real fine line—if they were to vote to oppose a commanding officer’s position, they could face issues. For retirees, however, there is more freedom to speak to community interests and lead the board on such matters. He advised that voting on matters related to an active contract within one’s purview would not reflect well.
9. Board Members Using Platform for Political Campaigns – [0:36:35]: Gaos raised a concern about board members who join primarily as a stepping stone to political office. He noted he has observed members using their board position to promote themselves, including links to personal websites in communications. He asked whether there are rules to address this, and how to curtail the behavior. Chair Veray responded that it falls to the chair to manage this, calling a point of order if a board member is using a meeting for personal campaign purposes. Outside of meetings, the board member should work with their chair to contact the NCO. If the chair is the problem, the complaint process is available, or the NCO can be called directly. Buck read from §2-14-116, noting that any board member who knows they have a personal or private interest—direct or indirect—in any proposal before the board shall disclose the interest orally or in writing, which becomes public record. At that point, the member is not disqualified from participation unless they choose to recuse, in which case they cannot discuss or vote.
10. Recurring Disclosure Requirement – [0:40:30]: Heinrich flagged that §2-14-116 does not address the point raised about whether disclosure must be repeated at every meeting when the same topic arises again. He recommended this be considered when the committee returns to §2-14-116, noting the current language could be read as requiring disclosure only once.
11. Technical Clarification – No Subsection B in §2-13-105 – [0:41:24]: Heinrich noted for the record that as published on the website, §2-13-105 contains only Subsection A and no Subsection B. He also reported he had received cooperation from the Office of the City Clerk to review and verify all amendments from 2008 to the present in the master document, in order to ensure the version posted online is accurate. He noted some typos and errors (such as amendment dates appearing before effective dates) and proposed working with the NCO to identify a master revisor to maintain the document going forward.
12. Interpretation of “Or” in Recusal Language – [0:44:30]: Lye asked whether the conjunction “or” in the language “recuse themselves from any discussion or voting” should be interpreted as “and”—meaning a member who has recused can neither discuss nor vote. He asked to ensure there is no loophole allowing someone to participate in discussion but step away from voting, or vice versa. He noted the same language appears in §2-14-116. Chair Veray clarified, without providing legal advice, that the language means a recused member cannot discuss or vote. The provision says “you can’t do this or that,” meaning both are prohibited.
Knight left at 6:44 p.m.; 4 commissioners present.
§2-13-106 Community Forum Limitations – [0:45:48]: Chair Veray read §2-13-106 aloud. No recommended changes were identified. The committee noted the section is straightforward as written.
Bernal left at 6:46 p.m.; 3 commissioners present. Quorum was not achieved.
§2-13-107 Representative Capacity of Board Members – [0:46:38]: Chair Veray read §2-13-107 aloud.
Elliott-Pahinui returned at 6:48 p.m.; 4 commissioners present. Quorum was achieved.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:48:05]
1. Proposed Language Changes – [0:48:05]: Yonenaka presented the following proposed changes: (a) Strike “fax number” from the list of acceptable contact information; (b) Simplify the contact information requirement to one of the following: phone number, email address, or mailing address; (c) Add a specific requirement that chairs (not just all board members) shall authorize the commission to publicly post two forms of personal contact information; (d) Clarify that the NCO’s contact information does not satisfy this requirement, since some boards have been using the NCO office as a proxy.
2. Clarification Needed – [0:49:32]: Elliott-Pahinui expressed no objection to the proposal but noted some confusion in the draft language, which transitions from discussing board members generally to focusing on chairpersons. She suggested the language be clarified to make the distinction explicit before referencing chairs specifically.
3. Gender-Neutral Language – [0:50:19]: Smith suggested replacing “chairpersons” with “chairs” to use gender-neutral language, consistent with current standards.
4. Discussion on Mailing Address Privacy – [0:51:04]: Several committee members discussed the practicality and safety of requiring a mailing address to be posted. Concerns raised included: (a) some board members, particularly those in high-development areas receiving significant correspondence (liquor licenses, zoning requests, DPP), may not want their home address published; (b) vindictive members of the public could misuse a posted home address; (c) in practice, most correspondence is scanned and forwarded by the NCO anyway, and direct contact via email or phone is generally preferred. Members agreed the two-form requirement for chairs (email and phone) is feasible and desirable, and that the mailing address option should remain optional rather than mandatory.
5. §2-13-107-B: Complaint Process and Litigation – [0:55:17]: Lye asked whether discussion of complaint process matters should be characterized as “litigation” under §107-B (which restricts discussion of private matters or matters under litigation), or whether it should be mentioned separately as its own sub-clause to help temper conversations during board meetings. Smith indicated that complaints are not something boards generally need to bring up. Smith did not believe §107-B would preclude discussion if boards chose to raise it. Smith offered his interpretation, not a legal opinion. Heinrich noted the complaint process is largely addressed under Chapter 18 and does not need to be incorporated into Chapter 13. Heinrich proposed adding clarifying language to §107-A’s second sentence about authorizing contact information—specifically, language noting the purpose is to fulfill a representative capacity and facilitate direct communication—rather than adding new complaint-related provisions.
Smith MOVED and Elliott-Pahinui SECONDED to adopt the proposed edits to §2-13-107. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Elliott-Pahinui, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None).
§2-13-108 Membership – [1:00:09]: Chair Veray read §2-13-108 aloud.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [1:01:47]
1. Proposal to Add Term Limits – [1:01:47]: Yonenaka proposed striking §2-13-108-D (“No term limits shall apply to board members”) and replacing it with a provision limiting board members to a maximum of four consecutive terms (eight years). The rationale offered was to increase public engagement, encourage turnover, and allow more people to participate. Yonenaka acknowledged the need for institutional knowledge but emphasized the goal of broadening community participation.
2. Discussion on Consecutive vs. Non-Consecutive Terms – [1:02:06]: The committee discussed whether the proposed limit would apply to consecutive terms only, or any terms served in total. Multiple members noted that the parallel in other governmental bodies (mayor, governor) involves consecutive terms, and the committee tentatively discussed the concept of four consecutive terms followed by a break period, after which a member could run again.
3. Concern About Filling Vacancies – [1:05:34]: Elliott-Pahinui noted support for the concept of term limits in principle but raised practical concern: what happens when a long-term member is termed out and no one else runs for that seat? Smith suggested that a termed-out member could be eligible for appointment (but not re-election) so that boards are not left with unfilled vacancies. Elliott-Pahinui noted the last election in their subdistrict had four open seats with only one candidate, which is now filled but could become a problem.
4. Discussion on Mechanics of Appointment After Term Limit – [1:07:03]: Discussion followed on the complexity of allowing appointment after term expiration. Concerns included: when the clock starts for purposes of the eight-year limit; whether appointment time counts; and whether the presence of a former board member at an appointment meeting creates an unfair advantage.
5. Transparency Announcement Before Filing Period – [1:13:34]: Smith suggested requiring chairs to announce before the filing period which board members are subject to the term limit restriction and cannot run again. This would give the community advance notice and help identify potential new candidates.
6. Opposed to Term Limits for Board Members – [1:14:27]: Melendrez expressed opposition to applying term limits to board members. He described board members as volunteers—not lobbyists—who serve as a conduit between government and the community. He noted the community relies on experienced members, and removing veterans with years of institutional knowledge would be a disservice. He suggested that if limits are to be applied, they should be directed at rotating officers (chairs and vice chairs) rather than general board membership, to allow more people to develop leadership experience.
7. Opposed to Term Limits; Suggests Retirement Age – [1:16:10]: Wiencek expressed opposition to term limits for neighborhood boards. He cited significant year-to-year fluctuation in the number of candidates: some years boards struggle to fill seats, other years they have more candidates than needed (citing Waikiki subdistrict 2 as an example). Given that boards lack formal legal authority and serve only in an advisory capacity, he questioned what problem term limits would solve.
8. Generally Opposed; Recommends Alignment with City/State Limits – [1:18:14]: Heinrich stated general opposition to term limits. He noted that if a time period is to be proposed, the committee should consider what limits already apply in comparable contexts. City council members can serve up to ten years (two full terms plus partial terms). The limit for city and state boards and commissions is generally two five-year terms, equaling ten years.
9. Strongly Opposed; Impact on Volunteer Board Members – [1:20:28]: Gaos expressed strong personal opposition to term limits. Having served seven years on his board while holding a full-time job, he stated that telling dedicated volunteers they can no longer run would feel like a “slap in the face.” He noted that his board consistently struggles to fill seats and already encourages new candidates, but many drop off after a few months. He argued that term limits would cause the loss of the most productive members, disrupt ongoing community initiatives, and be particularly harmful to boards where turnover is already challenging. He concluded that the position is a volunteer, largely thankless role, and there is no monetary incentive to justify a cap on service.
10. Data-Driven Approach; Charter Commission Context – [1:23:26]: Lye suggested that the frequency concern about vacant seats could be easily assessed through a simple analysis of uncontested districts and subdistricts over the last few election cycles, if that data is available. He noted Melendrez’s idea of rotating officers is valuable and could be considered separately. He reported that at the most recent Charter Commission meeting, the term limits proposal for Neighborhood Board members was voted down on the grounds that this is not a charter-level matter and should be left to the commission and the Neighborhood Plan. He suggested that any term limit should not take effect until at least one election cycle after adoption to avoid targeting current members. He also raised the edge case of members who move to a different district or subdistrict and asked whether their term tally would reset.
11. Charter Commission Vote Confirmed – [1:25:28]: Heinrich confirmed that the Charter Commission voted not to advance the term limits proposal, leaving the matter to the commission and the Neighborhood Plan.
12. Difficulty of Rotating Chairs – [1:26:13]: Elliott-Pahinui acknowledged Lye’s point about officer rotation but noted that chairs often serve for extended periods simply because no one else on the board wants the role. She noted that chairs should be actively training board members to eventually take over leadership responsibilities.
13. Public Freedom Without Board Seat – [1:28:01]: Yonenaka asked those opposed to term limits whether they would stop attending board meetings if they were not seated as members. He reflected on Gaos’s persuasive points and acknowledged he was reconsidering his support for term limits. He noted that a member of the public actually has more freedom than a board member—they can speak on anything and cannot be subject to a complaint. He shared an anecdote of a board member who chose not to pursue reappointment, preferring the freedom of attending as a member of the public.
Elliott-Pahinui MOVED and Smith SECONDED to keep §2-13-108 as is (no term limit change) and to canvas all Neighborhood Boards for their input on the question of term limits. A roll call vote was conducted. The motion was NOT ADOPTED; 3-1-0 (Aye: Elliott-Pahinui, Smith, Veray; Nay: Yonenaka; Abstain: None).
§2-13-109 Concurrent Holding of Elective Public Office Prohibition – [1:34:10]: Chair Veray read §2-13-109 aloud.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [1:34:50]
1. Proposed Change to Section C – [1:34:56]: Yonenaka proposed amending §2-13-109-C by striking the word “not” from the provision, so that it would read that a board member “shall be required to resign” from their seat to run as a candidate for elective public office, effective immediately upon filing nomination papers with the applicable office. The rationale is that board members who are also candidates use their board platform for unofficial campaigning, gaining an unfair advantage over other candidates.
2. Agreement with Proposal – [1:35:30]: Chair Veray agreed with the proposal. He noted that board members running for office who continue attending meetings are serving two masters and cannot be disinterested. He referenced concerns raised by another individual about the fairness of the system when board members use their platform while running for office.
3. Nuanced Position on Resign-to-Run – [1:36:03]: Heinrich acknowledged that if a resign-to-run provision is adopted, the point of measurement should be when nomination papers are filed. However, he noted complications: (a) Hawaii does not have a resign-to-run provision for local officials running for federal office, creating inconsistency; (b) candidates often campaign actively for months before filing papers, meaning the formal filing date may not capture the full period of conflict; (c) the committee should consider requiring disclosure by candidates who are board members, rather than or in addition to resignation, so the community can better assess their conduct. He stated he would not support a resign-to-run provision in general but acknowledged the disclosure issue deserves separate attention.
4. Transparency Through Office of Elections – [1:39:17]: Elliott-Pahinui noted it is nearly impossible not to know when someone is running for office, as they personally check the Office of Elections each week. Elliott-Pahinui stressed that using a board as a platform while running for office is incompatible with serving as a disinterested board member and that resignation upon filing should be required.
Smith MOVED and Elliott-Pahinui SECONDED to accept the language as proposed. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Elliott-Pahinui, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: none; Abstain: None).
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS – [1:42:07]
Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission – [1:42:11]: The next meeting of the Neighborhood Commission is scheduled for Monday, March 23, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153, and on Webex. Chair Veray also noted that on Monday, March 23 at 2:30 p.m., the Charter Commission will be continuing its review of various proposals, including several neighborhood board-related items, making it technically a continuation of issues addressed today.
Next Neighborhood Plan Committee Meeting – [1:42:11]: The next Neighborhood Plan Committee 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 – [1:46:15]: The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 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.