Charter proposal calls for an end to neighborhood boards on Oahu
KRYSTLE MARCELLUS / APRIL 6
Denise Antolini of Malama Pupukea Waimea spoke at a meeting of the North Shore Neighborhood Board last month in Haleiwa.
The Honolulu Charter Commission might ask Oahu voters to consider eliminating neighborhood boards, using the money saved to fund other means of increasing civic participation.
A subcommittee tasked by the commission to look into open-government proposals released a report May 16 that calls for the Neighborhood Commission to develop a strategic plan and timeline for “restructuring the delivery of information to community members through implementation of current communications technologies,” and subsequently to “sunset the neighborhood board system.”
The report calls for the Neighborhood Commission staff to come up with the plan for implementing the directives by March 31.
The proposed Charter amendment calls for continuing the Neighborhood Commission at half its current annual budget to continue as both a resource of public information and to “measure and report citizen participation” in an annual report.
The commission will discuss, and take public testimony, on the proposal at its meeting at 3:30 p.m. Thursday.
Commission member Pam Witty-Oakland, who led the subcommittee, said her group looked at the mission and the history of the neighborhood board system, which began in 1973, along with several audits that had been done on it over the years.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
“Initially, the mission statement, as it reads on both the website and the Charter, is to increase and ensure active citizen participation in the decisions of government,” Witty-Oakland told her colleagues last week. “And so the neighborhood board system was created to facilitate that.”
But some veteran neighborhood board members criticized the proposal.
Robert Finley, chairman of the Waikiki Neighborhood Board, who also serves as vice chairman of the Neighborhood Commission, said the community welcomes the opportunity to interact with elected officials and, where there is a large military presence, military representatives.
“They want to do a one-on-one, face to face,” he said. “Electronically, when you’re looking through a computer screen, the other guy can just click you off if he wants to.”
The Neighborhood Commission oversees 33 boards on Oahu with a staff of 17 and an annual budget of about $931,784, the report said.
Supporters view the boards as a grass-roots level of government that the public can access, while critics say they constitute an unnecessary expense and extra layer of bureaucracy.
The report said the primary mission of the neighborhood board system is “to increase citizen participation in the decisions of government,” and ultimately concludes the idea is obsolete, given the vast growth in electronic media to support citizen participation.
The proposed Charter amendment question lists “television, Internet and email” as the type of electronic communications that should be increased.
The report emphasized that today’s world is vastly different from that of 1972, when neighborhood boards were conceived.
“In 1972, the venues available for citizen participation were limited to physical attendance of City Council meetings,” the report said. “Thus, the support of a system to bring government into one’s neighborhood after the work day provided a practical venue for increasing community participation.”
To testify on a bill or other subject, people had to appear and give oral testimony or submit written testimony either hand-deliv- ered or mailed, the report said.
“In 2016, the venues available for citizen participation include physical attendance, live video broadcast on television and streamed to the Internet,” the report said. “Broadcasts are archived on web sites for citizens to access on computers and smart phones at their own convenience. Re-broadcast of meeting(s) are also aired during prime time.”
Someone wishing to testify today can submit written testimony via fax and email, as well as the more traditional methods of hand-delivery or mail, the report said.
The report also noted that during an initial hearing on the topic of neighborhood boards, there was “commentary on the decreasing attendance and lack of candidates.”
While it’s difficult to chart public attendance at the meetings, evidence points to an uptick in candidates in 2015 from 2013 in the all-electronic elections.
In 2015, 610 people signed up to run for 437 available seats, up from the 468 that vied for seats in 2013. Commission office staff said it was the highest number of candidates in a decade.
The election filled 418 seats because there were no eligible candidates for 19 of the seats. In 2013, 388 seats were filled in the election.
The Neighborhood Commission has, on occasion, needed to seek midterm candidates on a few of the boards in order to fill enough seats to make a quorum.
There were 19,722 ballots cast in 2015, a return rate of 10.1 percent. That was an increase from the 2013 elections when 15,318 ballots were cast, an 8.6 rate of return.
City spokesman Jesse Broder Van Dyke said Mayor Kirk Caldwell appreciates the efforts and commitment of the volunteer neighborhood board members and the staff people who assist them.
“The administration did not propose the Charter proposal and is not taking a position on it,” Broder Van Dyke said. “Although we support the Neighborhood Commission, we welcome a public discussion that can lead to improvements.”
Kathleen Pahinui, chairwoman of the North Shore Neighborhood Board and a board member for more than 15 years, called it a “dumb idea” to propose eliminating neighborhood boards.
Just because access to City Council meetings and the ability to submit testimony have eased does not mean the neighborhood boards should be eliminated, Pahinui said. Many community members who attend neighborhood board meetings wouldn’t go to Council or legislative hearings either because they usually take place during business hours, or are simply reluctant to be part of a formal government proceeding.
“Sometimes people come up and all they want to do is express a concern they have, and that’s it,” Pahinui said. “They don’t know who to go to, they don’t know who to call.”
Often members of the public don’t get satisfactory answers from government agencies or elected officials, and neighborhood board members are in a better position to do that, she said. “If you have a problem with something, there’s no guarantee you’re going to get a hold of the right person. To know that you can go and have somebody representing you and can help you take care of it or point you in the right direction is huge.”
The bureaucratic maze of state and city government might be intimidating to some people, who choose to speak with a neighborhood board member instead about a concern they might have.
“We kind of function like a small-town city hall where everybody knows each other,” she said. There are many hot-button development issues for the North Shore community, and the board provides a forum for people to explain their views, she said.
Long-serving board members, meanwhile, provide crucial institutional memory on issues within their district, and often have a better check on the pulse of their neighborhoods than an area’s elected officials, Finley said.
“Our neighbors have gotten used to having a voice,” he said. “And they’re not all going to march down to City Hall,” he said, noting that it’s a lengthy drive for people in more rural areas.
“I don’t think we’d have the same citizen participation if we got rid of the system,” he said.
To see the report, go to bit.ly/HNLCharterOpenGov16 Opens in a new tab.
The Charter Commission has until Aug. 22 to submit Charter amendment questions for voters to consider in the Nov. 8 general election.
61 responses to “Charter proposal calls for an end to neighborhood boards on Oahu”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About time. Eliminate funding with public money these little mini empires controlled by a handful of developers who make it seem they are “saving” whatever while actually steering things in their own direction.
Agreed!
Mythman, agreed. But, the article says “might ask” where it should be “must ask.”
They are at times, anti-business and aggressive against development. i.e. Waikiki where I do business
if nothing else they should have term limits.
Neighborhood boards are an absolute necessity in a state where a single urban area controls the entire county. Better yet, allow the larger communities such as Kanehoe, Mililani, and Hawaii Kai to incorporate and manage their own very different priorities.
good point..and I may want to serve on the Manoa board! Perhaps a hijra to Laie is in order?
As usual, you are a titillating treasure allie,always welcome.
What happened to our dragstrip? Corrupt politicians and private interests. You know who you are.
Notice they only interview NB members. Of course they would be against elimination, it would take away their perceived power. NB’s are useless, have no authority, and a big waste of time.
exactly
At less than $1 million and over 400 volunteer participants, it’s one of the best uses of taxpayer funds there is. The NBs also provide regular information and opportunities for communities to learn about police, fire and board of water supply activities. We don’t get that in any other forum.
Why can’t “police, fire and board of water supply activities” be disseminated via email on an opt-in list. There has to be an in-person meeting to receive that kind of information?
They can, but the interaction would be lost. There’s actually way more to the meetings than that. In addition, by going to some type of electronic format, all of the people who do not have access to the digital world would be left out.
Yep, the boards are only advisory – much ado about nothing.
Neighborhood Boards were started due to a runaway power drunk unresponsive City Council in order to increase accountability. They have become a great public forum for education, improvements, community connectivity and social change. A public forum is so very different from electronic communications. Plus not every one uses those things. When I look at the way our tax dollars get spent … I feel that the expenses attributed to the Neighborhood Board system give a good return on investment. It increases accountability.
These boards do not function as originally intended – they are supposed to be non-political means of disseminating government information but instead they are the front lines of politics often filled by wanna be politicians which in turn makes for and environment of very hostile discussions, accusatory questioning, and just over all negativity. They do not serve the communities they are supposed to represent in my experience they merely serve some of the individuals on the boards at the community’s expense. All elected officials, departments, and information are already accessible electronically, by phone, in person, etc. The fact that on average less than 10% of the public even pays it enough attention to even vote in the elections of board members demonstrates a massive lack of public support of these boards.
Kriya, well said. The neighborhood boards have become a hive of negativity where those with a personal axe to grind come out to whine and complain, while the rest of us are working a second job or at home helping the kids with homework. The boards have devolved into a gripe session with no decision making power or authority to fix anything. Time to shut the lights off and save some money!
Could say the same about City Council and State Legislature. NB gives people an opportunity to connect with their representatives. Instead of getting rid of the NB, bring them into the 21st Century, FB, Twitter, etc…
True dat Wesrside.
Yeah but unlike legitimate political entities with decision making power and authority, the board are only advisory. Waste time brah!
10 % can make a difference. The amount of participation before neighborhood boards at the City level was nil. Deceit and deception was the rule at the Council level. There is much more accounability now. And all Boards are some what different …. some being quite effective.
Finally, someone is using their brain. Shut them down. Make the City Council members do their jobs!
NBs cover more than just city issues. They provide a forum for updates on issues at the state and sometime federal levels that impact the local community.
Something community associations could do at no cost to the taxpayer and far less drama . . .
But community associations do not represent the public — they represent their owners. Anyone not in an association would have no voice.
If not, decrease the members for each board, try to consolidate the boards, meet quarterly, non-political agenda, etc.
Why do they have a Budget? These are volunteer Board Members and any City Official should be there as a part of their job. Not on OT.
Besides its staff, the Neighborhood Commission budget pays for, among other things, rental of meeting rooms as well as hiring people to record the video that is shown on Olelo. Is this of enough value for your taxpayer money to pay for this … That is the question being asked here.
Yes, it is very good value for the taxpayer dollar.
Really, they pay rent to use a public space? And, I guess if you want to watch it on Olelo that cost should be minimal or paid for thru donations. Frankly, I’ve been to many Board Meetings and its the same old stuff with the same old whiners. Every so often, maybe every other year, there is something relevant that is worth discussion. I go straight to my Council person if I have a question.
My experience with NBs has been very positive. For the relatively few dollars spent by the City, a lot of citizen input is received and information is disseminated via the meetings, published minutes, and olelo. The NB system costs peanuts but is very useful and valuable to ordinary people who can attend meetings and raise issues that concern them.
Yes, let’s make sure that official public discourse is only available during daylight hours and on computer screens.
We’re going back to the old ways and making government less in contact with the people. The tyranny of a one party rule will be even worse.
Over the years I have observed two types of people who attend these meetings – there are always a handful of complainers who have nothing better to do on the meeting night. The other attendees tend to be developers trying to show whey we should all be backing their project. Nothing can ever be done because the boards are powerless. The most common Robert’s rule of order is to “table something for the next meeting”. Regardless, it does create for a good opportunity to provide feedback to your locally elected representative and council person.
“‘The administration did not propose the Charter proposal and is not taking a position on it,’ Broder Van Dyke said.” The administration also did not take a position on whether to decrease the 10% state take of the rail surcharge fee. That was a mistake. It would also likewise be a mistake not to take a position on this.
Of course Caldwell would like to get rid of these then he can slam thru all his scams. Be careful what you wish for. Some boards are controlled by construction interests and we know which ones those are.
Yup. Now that I think about it more, Kirky got lots of abuse over rail at those community meetings, even in his own home district. I guess this is another one of his schemes to rule us so we don’t have to think about anything.
No administration or City Council would care either way about this issue because the boards are irrelevant, without teeth, decision making power or authority. “Advisory” means they give the impression of relevancy to the naive. Much ado about nothing.
It’s a great starting point for people to have their concerns heard.
@bikemom – it is a great starting point, and I hope all of us who really care will send in testimony to say – don’t abolish it (or cut it back to digital) instead, give the boards some teeth. That is long overdue.
And some Boards are not. The depth of expertise on many Boards is remarkable.
How many people really go to these meetings or watch it on Olelo?
The Neighborhood Board should be eliminated. Countless hours spent by city and state personnel (police, firefighters, etc.) waiting for their turns to testify before each board is an incredible waste of precious resources. Further, the $1,000,000 spent each year to staff the NB can be used more effectively in other areas of the City’s needs. Members of the City Council often uses the NB as its cover to avoid making decisions on controversial issues, thus rendering them unresponsive to what they are elected for. I would vote for a proposal that completely abolishes the NB.
If I understand the proposal correctly, half of the annual budget would continue, so we wouldn’t be spending that much less.
If you’d like to see less city spending, then you might want to ask the council to seriously look at tax exemptions and other giveaways to labor unions, social clubs and business groups. That type of policy costs us millions of dollars every year.
What a bad idea. Of all the ways for the City to save money this is the worst I have heard lately. Whose idea is it? As a member of the oldest Neighborhood Board on Oahu, I feel the system works; keeps public servants on their toes, and provides a place for the community to air grievances. The City Council only allows folks three minutes, and it is doubtful the mail and email testimonies ever get read completely. Neighborhood boards are the real grassroots and should not be eliminated.
Please submit testimony, Marilyn.
I served seven two-year terms on a Neighborhood Board. Meetings were sometimes frustrating because certain residents would show up just to complain rather than work toward solutions to problems. Meetings could also be frustrating because certain government officials would show up just to give the appearance of being engaged and would wholly disregard the Board’s advice. Nonetheless I am still a believer in the value of the system. Neighborhood Boards enable face-to-face communication between community members and the public servants who are supposed to be accountable to them, and put a spotlight on issues that are too granular for the City Council to address but are important to people in a particular neighborhood. Their existence makes it difficult for City officials to dodge “inconvenient” problems they often would rather not deal with. The bottom line is that my neighborhood is a better place to live than it would be without the Board system and so are many others. Like anything else, the system could be improved, but it should not be abolished.
Better idea would be to dissolve the City Council. C & C Honolulu would save WAAAYYY more money than getting rid of Neighborhood Boards. The budget for the City Council is much more expensive to taxpayers. The City Council has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHIBG positive for Honolulu in it’s existence. Research the establishing of the City Council and it was never intended to be the bureaucracy it has become !!!
Let internet B&B brokers collect taxes no questions asked so residential zoning is undermined; next take away the NBs so we have no forum to kick up a ruckus about it.
End the Commission. They are a waste of time and money.
Sadly, the neighborhood boards have become a hive of negativity where a few with a personal axe to grind come out to whine and complain month after month, while the majority of our citizens are working a second job or at home helping the kids with homework. The meetings often devolve into a gripe session but the boards are “advisory” which means they lack the power or authority to fix anything. Time to shut the lights off and save some money!
A sad truth is that there is a lot [as in plenty plenty] to gripe about. A public formum is probably the best place to do it. If a wheel does not squeak in this town … nothing happens.
Yeah but squeaking is useless without the power to fix the squeak. The boards have no authority and are only advisory – waste time brah!
The people proposing this shut down should read the business section article ‘Many in US still untouched by digital services’. Older, poorer, and less educated are less digitally connected. Remove the Boards and you disenfranchise these people.
Update digital services and keep the Boards.
Dollar for Dollar the Neighborhood Board is the best investment in the future of Honolulu that we can possibly make. I am not a regular at meetings, and have never been on any NB. But I watch it on Olelo, talk to NB members and have been confident that, for the most part, they have the best interests of Honolulu at the top of their agenda.
Under $ 1 million? are you kidding???? The mayor’s office throws that much away regularly for advice on how to repair a park. Why don’t you ask the Neighborhood Boards mister mayor? The people talk to them.
This is a terrible idea. The NH Boards serve a valuable function that would be lost if left to watching council meetings on Olelo. If anything they should give the boards MORE authority to steer projects in their districts. Then you would see more real participation, competition for seats and legislators actually showing up to local board meetings.
Or better yet, let local cities and towns incorporate and have their own mayors and city councils – the mainland does it, it’s called true democracy! What we have now on Oahu is an incredibly centralized government.
It’s no surprise to see Pam Witty-Oakland name attached to this. After watching her get beaten up by the Downtown NHB over the mayor’s feeble attempts to tackle homelessness she’s probably the person who submitted this. I’m disappointed that the mayor (happens a lot lately) isn’t opposed as he used to tout his being a member of a neighborhood board as a sign that he came from the lowest rung and worked his way up.
Thursday’s Charter Commission was cancelled Tuesday, and the neighborhood board discussion has been tentatively rescheduled for 3:30 p.m. on June 6.
Submit testimony to save NB……..I did.