On the Honolulu Police Department’s website, you can find detailed maps showing where recent crimes were reported in your Oahu neighborhood.

For any community-minded citizen, the value of such information is self-evident. But it wasn’t always available. It took persistent advocacy by members of Oahu’s neighborhood boards to persuade HPD to begin providing street-by-street mapping of crimes on Oahu, with violent crimes added only last month.

It is but one recent example of how neighborhood boards and their members have been focal points for community involvement in critical decisions affecting their locales. They have brought a ground-view perspective to everything from highway improvements in Waianae, to high-rises in Waikiki, vacation rentals in Kailua, senior housing in Mililani, and homelessness and traffic problems just about everywhere.

Board members represent the interests of the communities they serve in a direct, hands-on way that officials at Honolulu Hale can’t — or won’t — replicate.

But the boards are only as effective as those who serve on them. That’s why the Honolulu Neighborhood Commission Office is looking for candidates to stand for election to fill the 437 seats open on 33 boards across the island. Board members are volunteers who serve two-year terms. The deadline for prospective candidates to register is Feb. 17 (see box for details).

Filling all the seats on every board with active, dedicated members would be a good step in demonstrating the value of neighborhood boards, which has been questioned recently.

Critics say the neighborhood boards, established in 1973, have outlived their usefulness in an electronic age. They cite a decline in attendance at meetings and a lack of candidates, along with the cost — about $931,000 a year — as reasons to replace the boards with expanded opportunities to participate electronically.

This year, a Honolulu Charter Commission group attempted to put before Oahu voters this very proposition through a Charter amendment question:

“Should the City increase citizen participation in the decisions of government through the use of electronic communication, such as television, Internet and email, and eliminate the Neighborhood Board system?”

Fortunately, the question didn’t make the ballot, and for good reason. It entirely missed a crucial point about neighborhood boards.

The boards aren’t simply outdated conduits to hear the concerns of the public, and “citizen participation” can’t be limited to submitting testimony and watching video feeds. The elected board members represent their neighborhoods and their neighbors, and advocate on their behalf, not only at the meetings but through the media and other public forums. Their deep knowledge of their neighborhoods often make them better equipped than a City Council member to address the concerns of their constituents.

Just as important, board members and citizens alike can question, face to face, representatives of the mayor and City Council, city agencies like HPD, and developers interested in gaining community support. Board meetings are informal and not so intimidating, and are held after work and close to home. And unlike testimony via “electronic communication” like emails, their questions can’t easily be ignored or deflected.

Could the neighborhood board system be improved? Of course. A 2006 audit found structural weaknesses that can be addressed, and the commission and boards alike should be continually seeking ways to make this grass-roots government more effective and useful. It would be one good way to ensure that citizens can, indeed, have a voice at City Hall.

That, and becoming a neighborhood board member.