You are here:  Main / Neighborhood Commission Office / com / 07 / NC October Minutes

Printable version (copy and paste into browser):

  www1.honolulu.gov/refs/nco/com/07/NC200710Min.PDF

 

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION

 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

KAPOLEI HALE, CONFERENCE ROOM C

1000 ULU’OHI’A STREET, KAPOLEI

 

I.      CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Sylvia Young called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.

     

      MEMBERS PRESENT: Brendan Bailey, Clara Ching, Ed Gall, Jeanette Nekota, Kalene Sakamoto (7:18pm), Sylvia Young (Vice-Chair).

 

MEMBERS ABSENT: Sheila Apisa, Robin Makapagal and Grant Tanimoto (Chair).

 

GUEST(S): Ron Mobley (Aiea Neighborhood Board No. 20); Rich Hargrave (Ewa Neighborhood Board No. 23); Cynthia Rezentes (Waianae Neighborhood Board No. 24); Kioni Dudley, Carolyn Golojuch, Michael Golojuch, Jr., Michele Golojuch, Mike Golojuch, Keith Timson and Maeda Timson (Makakilo, Kapolei, Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34); Kelii Lopez and Gerry Silva (‘Olelo Community Television); CC Curry (Independent Videographer); Nola Frank, Cameron Heen, Michelle Kidani, Joan Manke and Wendy Matsukado (NCO).

 

II.          ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS: Roll call of Commissioners taken at 7:08 p.m. with a quorum of five (5)

members present.

 

III.        FOR INFORMATION:

A.  Executive Secretary’s Report: Manke reported on the following:

 

1. Staffing: The Neighborhood Commission Office (NCO) is short staffed as one Neighborhood Assistant (NA) is out on extended sick leave, one NA resigned and another NA will be going out on family leave to care for elderly parents. Manke asked for patience and support as the NCO looks for coverage to help with the workload. Manke noted that the Secretary for the NCO had been out on sick leave for a couple of weeks which have delayed the drafting of the minutes.

 

2.   Commissioner Resignation: Manke noted that Commissioner Robin Makapagal who has been absent from a number of meetings has resigned. Since Makapagal is a Council appointee, the NCO will follow-up with City Council to fill the vacancy.

 

3.   NCO Moving to New Location: Manke reported that the NCO will be moving to a new location, in the next 2-4 weeks; however, there is no definitive date. The new location is room 406, an annex room that was occupied by NCO in the past and has since been renovated. The NCO will still be on the 4th floor, however, further out on the rooftop.

 

The public may still use room 400 as a pathway to room 406 after the renovations. Room 400 will be used for City Council staff. Renovations will include a walkway that will lead to room 406 for the Ewa side of City Hall. On the Diamond Head side, there is a staircase on the 3rd floor that leads up to the 4th floor to room 406. Manke noted that she will notify everyone with directions to the new office.

 

B.  Committee Reports:

1. Budget: Commissioner Sakamoto was not present at the time discussion began to give her report. Kidani noted that the topic of ‘Olelo web-casting would be part of the budget report and that Gerry Silva and Kelii Lopez from ‘Olelo were present to address any questions or concerns. Lopez provided responses to questions that were asked at the last Commission meeting as follows:

 

§         ‘Olelo proposed a pilot project which would allow board meetings aired on ‘Olelo to be archived for up to a year via internet and available “on demand” to the public.

§         The pilot would be for a six-month period without any fees attached.

§         If the Commission is interested in using the service there is a fee of approximately $20,000 Lopez and Silva are trying to adjust the cost.

§         ‘Olelo would be willing to extend the pilot through June 30, 2008 to complete the fiscal year.

§         There are 15 boards that air on ‘Olelo. As part of the pilot, ‘Olelo initially intended to use only a few boards but would be willing to cover all 15 boards as NCO is considering having meetings posted online without the indexing feature. Indexing is another service that ‘Olelo offers which is very staff intensive, but is not a requirement to participate in the pilot project.

§         The advantages to indexing include allowing the user to jump to certain sections of the meeting without the need to watch the meeting in its entirety.

§         Adding the indexing feature may be difficult for NCO at this time as it would require additional time from staff.

§         To have the data stored in perpetuity would require the City utilizing a server to store all data from the online service.

§         Another option would be to have data stored on DVD’s from the live streaming video, however, DVDs have a short life span of about 2 years as they are light sensitive.

§         City Council is currently using the service. ‘Olelo is also working with the State Legislature to see if there’s an interest to start a pilot program as well.

§         The $20,000 fee is annual.

§         Servers would be the best way to maintain the data, especially long term.

               

                Discussion re Selective Editing of Video Content:

CC Curry, licensed vdeographer, noted her knowledge of selective editing of board meetings as they are broadcast on ‘Olelo where content of video is edited to reflect the most favorable light.

 

Lopez confirmed that selective editing is not authorized and video should be taken from start to finish and if the meeting runs beyond 3 hours, the end of the meeting will be cut-off. Lopez noted that the boards should follow their policy. She further clarified that the question asked was whether ‘Olelo or individual videographers were conducting the selective editing, from a sunshine perspective meetings should be gavel to gavel. Lopez mentioned that Lillian Hong, licensed videographer, would tape meetings gavel to gavel, however, did not interject anything to the video content other than adding graphics. Hong was permitted some creative latitude at the time she was videotaping boards.

 

Kidani clarified that the NCO has a videographer agreement in place that individuals are required to review and sign. The first rule is that video must be taken from gavel up to 2 hours and 58 minutes or gavel to gavel. Kidani asked that she be notified if Curry is aware of individuals selectively editing video content. Curry stated that she has been trying to inform the NCO. In response, Kidani informed Curry that the NCO has not received any information or complaint regarding selective editing and asked for specific information.

 

Silva stated that their only concern regarding time is that if a client would like to have a pre-determined series slot, meaning if you want to be aired on a particular day and time on a monthly basis, then material would have to consistently be 3 hours to have a block on a 3 hour slot. If you have material that is 6 hours long, the availability of a time slot for that length would need to be confirmed first. Therefore, having a 3 hour time slot has an advantage over 6 hours.

 

Questions were raised as to whether airing meetings on the internet would allow for the meetings to be broadcast in its entirety. In response, Lopez explained that technically the video content would need to be encoded for the internet as its airing and wanted to make clear that it must be aired on ‘Olelo to be part of the pilot program. Therefore, meetings may be shown in its entirety online if encoded.

 

A comment was made that if meeting contents are only recorded up to 2 hours and 58 minutes, it would not be the equivalent of minutes for archival purposes since some board meetings are longer. Also, without an alternate record of meeting events, discussion after the allotted timeframe would be open to debate.

 

Commissioner Nekota noted that in the last meeting there was a question as to the logistics of budgeting for this service for the next fiscal year as more staff may need to be hired with the added time and work involved or, if the indexing would be completed by individuals on staff. Nekota questioned how long it would take to index a 3 hour tape.

 

Lopez stated that it would take about an hour. However, if the indexing were done by staff that attended the meeting it may be done in less time. Time for indexing depends on how much detail is included, i.e. roll-call, speakers listed, etc. If only specific agenda items are indexed, it would also take less time. The pilot would help to decide how much detail is needed. The benefit of indexing is that it’s like transcription for audio. The indexer may fast forward to a specific meeting topic, hear it, and mark it and then move on to the next section of choice. ‘Olelo would not be involved in deciding whether indexing should be done by Commission staff or producers that they hire. It would be up to NCO to decide. One of the requirements for indexing is that internet access is needed.

 

Nekota questioned if NCO would be able to do a trial of indexing during the pilot. Lopez responded in the affirmative and noted that another option for the pilot would be to just use the archiving service and not have indexing. At present, only one staff member, Bryan Mick, has been trained by ‘Olelo. Manke noted that the pilot deserves more discussion as the NA at the meeting would be focused on taking notes and assisting the board chair during meetings and surely would not be able to perform indexing during meetings. Nekota asked for clarification as to whether or not indexing can be done while taping. Lopez clarified that indexing during meetings would be very difficult as you need internet access and you would also have to be following the agenda. City Council may be done during the meeting as it’s aired live. However, board meetings would have to air once on ‘Olelo, get encoded and then staff may go in via internet to do the indexing. If the commission is interested, there is a new product which would allow remote indexing which would mean onsite and added expense. Ching asked how long it would be archived after being available for one year and at what cost. Lopez stated that once the contents airs, if the commission wants to retain the files, Olelo can assist in transferring the files to a server the city maintains. The content would then be accessible to the commission, but not the public. The City would then determine how much longer to archive (store) at their own cost. Commissioner Ching asked if Olelo will do all 15 neighborhood boards in the pilot project. Lopez indicated that Olelo will encode but not index all board meetings currently airing on Olelo. They are willing to train NCO staff to do this if NCO is interested.

 

Sakamoto suggested making a motion to accept this pilot starting November 2007 and ending June 2008. Gall asked if there was a downside to starting the project and not continuing. Lopez noted the content would belong to the City and NCO can decide at any time to stop. The pilot can be discontinued from the internet if NCO says to stop.

 

Nekota requested further clarification that what is seen on ‘Olelo now is what is seen on the internet and it can be accessed anytime on ‘Olelo via the internet or on “Olelo. Lopez replied that this was correct; video on demand via the internet would be what is shown on ‘Olelo and if the pilot project is not continued, ‘Olelo would still be airing at its regular time.

 

Sakamoto moved and Gall seconded a motion to support ‘Olelo Archiving pilot project for six months, starting November 2007 and ending June 30, 2008.

 

Ching asked that ‘Olelo provide the Commission with information as to what it would cost the city to store these on a server, making it available for more than a year. Gall asked and Lopez agreed to provide information after the six months as to how much capacity would be needed to store the videos on servers.

 

A question was asked as to what happens to the portion of the meeting that is not aired.  The response was that only the videotaped portion which is aired is what will be archived. Kidani noted that there is a budget limit for videotaping board meetings and time limits were established to stay within budget and to also assure that ‘Olelo could plan their programming knowing meetings will be less than 3 hours. Curry stated selective editing would allow boards to show highlights of their entire meeting. Kidani noted that it was up to the videographers if they wanted to stay and tape more than the time allowed, however, for airing, video must be cut at 2 hours and 58 minutes.

 

Curry reported that she is aware that some boards are doing selective editing. Kidani asked her to provide specific board name and meeting dates and she would check on it and resolve it. Lopez stated that if the videographer videotapes an entire meeting which is longer than the 3 hours, it can be aired on ‘Olelo but not in your regular time slot. The producer can work with staff to air it in another evening slot.

 

In response to a question related to the quality of the taping and training for the videographer by ‘Olelo, Lopez responded that ‘Olelo did offer training to all interested parties but cannot force anyone to go.  ‘Olelo is purchasing additional audio packages and producers can use this to assist with better coverage. The neighborhood producers can choose to seek and get ‘Olelos help, but ‘Olelo will not force the neighborhood producers into taking or using help.

 

After discussion, Sakamoto made a motion to support the ‘Olelo internet archiving pilot project starting in November 2007 and ending on June 30, 2008. Gall seconded. The motion carried unanimously. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto and Young.)

 

2.     Training:  Nekota reported that at the last Training Committee discussion included looking at a PIGroup to revisit legislation and the City Charter regarding the Sunshine Law and the possibility of online training. The NCO has experienced difficulty with board members attending scheduled meetings. 

 

Questions, comments and concerns followed:

 

a.     A question was raised as to whether the Training Committee discussed order and decorum and anger management issues. There were thoughts of making these types of training a requirement should there be a violation of these sorts. Nekota noted that in an earlier survey of neighborhood board members rated order and decorum issues high. However, majority of the topics will be based on the Neighborhood Plan. Specific topics have yet to be defined at this point. In the new Plan, there is language to address these issues, whereas the current Plan does not have that ability. She encouraged familiarizing those sections before going to public hearing.

 

b.     Mobley commented when the Commission asked for recommendations during the review process, the issue regarding anger management was not addressed and did not come up in discussions. However, it was pointed out that this issue was raised in the past.

 

        C. Permitted Interaction Group (PIGroup):

            1. Neighborhood Board System Audit Update: Reassign members at next meeting.

 

            2. Neighborhood Board Minutes/NA Minute-Taking: Deferred.

 

IV.    FOR ACTION:

A. Adoption of the following Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order complaints. It was noted that all of these complaints were previously heard by the Commission, determinations and/or remedies were made and now Findings of Fact have been prepared by Corporation Counsel to document actions taken by the Commission on each pf the following complaints.

1. Carolyn M. Golojuch against Makakilo / Kapolei / Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34 dated February 13, 2004.

After discussion, Commissioner Sakamoto moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order. Gall seconded. The motion was passed by unanimous consent. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto, and Young.)

2. Michael J. Golojuch against Makakilo / Kapolei / Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34 dated February 3, 2004.

After discussion, Commissioner Sakamoto moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order. Gall seconded. The motion was passed by unanimous consent. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto, and Young.)

3. Michele Marie Golojuch against Makakilo / Kapolei / Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34dated February 10, 2004.

After discussion, Commissioner Sakamoto moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order. Gall seconded. The motion was passed by unanimous consent. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto, and Young.)

4. Martha Makaiwi against Makakilo / Kapolei / Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34 dated

February 13, 2004.

After discussion, Commissioner Sakamoto moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order. Gall seconded. The motion was passed by unanimous consent. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto, and Young.)

5. Jane A. Ross against Makakilo / Kapolei / Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34 dated

February 13, 2004.

After discussion, Commissioner Sakamoto moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order. Gall seconded. The motion was passed by unanimous consent. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto, and Young.)

6. Maeda Timson against Makakilo / Kapolei / Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34A dated

February 17, 2004.

After discussion, Commissioner Sakamoto moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order. Gall seconded. The motion was passed by unanimous consent. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto, and Young.)

7. Maeda Timson against Makakilo / Kapolei / Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34B dated

February 17, 2004.

After discussion, Commissioner Sakamoto moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order. Gall seconded. The motion was passed by unanimous consent. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto, and Young.)

8. Linda Y.N. Young against Makakilo / Kapolei / Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34 dated February 12, 2004.

After discussion, Commissioner Sakamoto moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order. Gall seconded. The motion was passed by unanimous consent. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto, and Young.)

 

B. Dismissal/Rejection of Complaint filed by Les Among against Ala Moana Neighborhood Board

No. 11 on September 27, 2007 – Manke explained that according to the current Neighborhood Plan, the Executive Secretary may recommend to the Commission complaints that did not meet timely submission. In this case, no date was noted in the complaint, therefore, is unknown if it was filed within 45 days. It appeared that the contents and description of the complaint were about remarks being made by board members; however, it did not occur at a board meeting. Therefore, the complaint was outside the authority of the Commission. Commissioner Gall moved to dismiss/reject the complaint and Sakamoto seconded. The complaint was dismissed/rejected by unanimous consent. (Aye: Bailey, Ching, Gall, Nekota, Sakamoto, and Young.)

 

C. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2007 – deferred.

 

V.     PUBLIC CONCERNS:

1. R. Mobley, Aiea NB No. 20, expressed concern over the new Plan and the way it is sent to the public and changes made by Corporation Counsel. There are two specific areas of concern. The first is the change to use Robert’s Rules as a guide instead of a standard parliamentary rule which was in the old Plan. The term “guide” specifically means that you can follow it or not. Mobley expressed that there are enough issues without having a document that governs how meetings will run and that decorum will not work at all if boards will be allowed to do what they want. Robert’s Rules states that if a law overrides the issue(s) at hand, the law will prevail. Second, the recommendation that Committees can only be composed by Commission members is detrimental as the expertise and education that is brought to the Committee would be lost. Non-members would not have an official say in that Committee and could only listen and give input if authorized by the Chair. It does not make sense to throw away all the expertise in the boards and within the community and to limit the Committee’s power.

 

2. Dudley expressed that there are problems with the Neighborhood Plan’s complaint process. When a complaint comes before the board – the board should be allowed to go into Executive Session for discussion and decision.

 

VI.    ADJOURNMENT:

 

Without any objections, the meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m.

 

        Submitted by:

        Wendy Matsukado, Secretary

        Neighborhood Commission Office

Friday, July 18, 2008

© Copyright 2002-2008 City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii
Privacy Statement | Technical Support | Customer Service | Policy | Accessibility | Diversity Statement