Did OIP cripple neighborhood boards?

At its May 27 meeting, the Makakilo/Kapolei/ Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board leadership rolled out a new rule regarding the public’s ability to speak at the meetings.

This new rule was endorsed and supported by the Office of Information Practice (OIP), thanks to its interpretation of the Sunshine Law.

The rule requires that people who want to speak on any agenda item must do so at the beginning of the meeting, or as each item is called, then remain silent for the rest of the meeting.

OIP’s interpretation handicaps the public when it comes to participating at the neighborhood boards, which were created with the primary purpose of encouraging public involvement in their communities as well as in the political process.

This interpretation places an almost insurmountable burden on any member of the public who wishes to be an informed participant at these meetings. If there is to be a greater burden, it belongs on the shoulders of the elected members, not the average citizen.

For people to present informed and fact-based testimony, they now would have to get the agenda, then go out and research each topic. Then they would have to hope their research reflects the presentation.

Well-informed testimony has a much better chance of convincing and persuading the board to support or oppose a project. But how can OIP expect the public to persuade anyone if the testimony given at the start of a meeting doesn’t reflect the actual presentation later on?

Citizens should be able to come to their neighborhood board to learn more about what is going on in their communities and have their voices heard.

If they hear something during the reports and/or presentations they did or didn’t like, they should be able to speak out.

That is just not possible given this new restrictive interpretation of the Sunshine Law. The public now has no reason to go to a neighborhood board meeting, if they want to have a meaningful say.

So, maybe the city should do away with the neighborhood board system, given these new speaking restrictions. The latest board elections — costing over $200,000 — had a voter turnout of just over 10 percent, and attendance rates at meetings average fewer than 20 community members.

Then there are the meetings where the elected board members get into physical altercations. In some cases, elected officials have stopped attending or just sent a staffer.

Given that the neighborhood boards are only advisory — they have no power to make laws, levy taxes or fines, or even change or amend rules — perhaps their membership should be determined like every other advisory state board or commissions: by being appointed.

The mayor could appoint four members, the City Councilmember in the neighborhood board boundaries could appoint four, and those members could come together to elect the last one from their community to create an odd number.

The neighborhood board system was created to give a voice to average citizens and provide them access to their elected officials.

Since OIP’s interpretation of the Sunshine Law is an advisory opinion, not law, all neighborhood boards should go back to the original speaking rules for the public.

And if the board wants to impose a time limit on the general public, it must also impose the same limit on themselves.

By making these alterations, the city could breathe new life into the neighborhood board system.