The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0564.003 1996-1998 MEETING NOTICE ' HAWAII COUNTY POLICE COMMISSION DATE: Friday, November 14, 1997 TIME: 10:00 a.m. PLACE: The Hilo Lagoon Centre, Conference Room #145, 101 Aupuni Street, Hilo AGENDA " ~ ~cavr-u ~ CALL TO ORDER n'^a. fat•-.-~..~~~7.By-----~--....,,, ROLL CALL CO"nb Council-~~~! APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 17, 1997, regular and executive sessions PERSONNEL ORDERS: Nos. 97-78 to 97-82 COMMUNICATIONS • Police Commission Minutes: Kauai, August 21, 1997 Honolulu, October 1, 1997 Maui, October 8; 1997 Correspondence No. Date To/From Subject 509 10-13-97 P.C./Maui P.C. Police Commission Conference, 11-21-97 . 510 10-17-97 P.C./A. Kimura Request fob Legal Counsel, Civil No. 97-452 511 10-17-97 P.C./J. Lally Request for Legal Counsel, Civil No. 97-452 512 10-22-97 P.C./J.,Kealoha Request for Legal Counsel, Civil No. 97-452 513 10-24-97 P.C./H. Hickman Request for Legal Counsel, Civil No. 97-452 514 11-05-97 P.C./W. Carvalho Request for Legal Counsel, Civil No. 97-452 COMMITTEE REPORTS • Budget and Finance (Commissioner Souza) • Office Management and Staffing (Commissioner Yee) • Rules and Policies (Commissioner Baker) • Contractual Services (Vice Chair Smith) Public Relations (Chair Scheele) CHIEF'S REPORT • Crime ~ 43 • Traffic • Personnel Ftts :t.. 0012 Finance Ret ~ Presented Coc~.x.~ • Commendations lest. - Police Commission Meeting Page 2 November 14, 1997 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Report NACOLE Conference NEW BUSINESS Consideration of Complaint HPC 97-37 EXECUTIVE SESSION The Commission shall meet in executive session to review charges filed against members of the Hawaii County Police Department where matters affecting privacy will be considered and a closed meeting is requested by the parties involved. • Requests for Legal Counsel in Civil 97-452 • Consideration of Complaint HPC 97-47 ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS ANNOUNCEMENTS The next meeting is scheduled for December 19, 1997, in County Council Room, Hilo. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: If you require an accommodation or auxiliary aid and/or services to participate in this meeting (i.e., sign language interpreter, large print, etc.) please call 961-8412. • , o~~tr or RECD (1('T 2 21997 r ~ ~/7 Wayne G. Carvalho Stephen [G Yamashiro TYf,( P°l"`C~"`f M"y°r James S. Correa ~+>:•o~•wi:M~ Deputy Police Chid ~GJ.IIliTIf~I II~ ~tT~1T2iTt POLICE DEPARTMENT 399 Kapiolani Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.3998 (88819353311 Fax (8081961-2702 October 17, 1997 CONFIDENTIAL TO HARON K. S POLICE COMMISSION CHAIR FROM J CORREA, DEPUTY. POLICE CFIIEF, ACTI POLICE CHIEF SUBJE(:T: REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION HY CORPORATION COUNSEL HENRY A. ROSS VS. COUNTY OF HAWAII; STEPHEN K. YAMASHIRO; WAYNE G. CARVALHO; STEVEN S. CLARK; JOSEPH T. LALLY; HENRY W. HICKMAN; J. REALOHA; ALAN M. KIMURA; JAY KIMURA; WILLIAM SMITH; JANET GARCIA; DOE LEGAL ENTITIES 1-25 CIVIL NO. 97-452 Pursuant to Chapters 52D-•8 and 52D-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Officer Allan M. Kimura is requesting representation by counsel for acts done in the performance of his duties as a police officer. Officer Kimura, who is being sued and named as a defendant in this matter, was served with the complaint on October 1S, 1997. His memorandum is enclosed. Copies of other relevant documents are attached with Sergeant Joseph Lally's request for representation. i ~~!'C TJH:lk Enclosure cc: Officer Allan Id. Kimura ~ L ~6=e~~ ~~{~~~~a TO WAYNE G. CARVALHO POLICE CHIEF ' ~ ~ VIA PROPER CHANNELS FROM ALLAN M. KIMURA, POLICE OFFICER II, HAMAKUA DISTRICT SUBJECT REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION BY CORPORATION COUNSEL HENRY A. ROSS, PLAINTIFF, CIVIL NO. 97-452 (HII.O) On October 16, 1997, I was served with a corrected amended summons, regarding Civil Complaint Num~er 97-452 (H~1o). Refer to attached copy of amended summons for additional information. As I am being named as a defendant in this case, I am requesting to have as attorney be appointed to represent me. I was on duty at the time and am being sued as a police officer. Memorandum submitted for your perusal ~G/ ~ G~~ M. I{IMURA POLICE OFFICER II OCTOBER 17, 1997 ' Attach. - (1 Lt-[.^.s~n~~~ .1...::t.... ~~C.;~-b ~'C~"~`.o.+ oo w-w K-1 ~1 c~ RECD OCT 2 21997 J~ 4~JN`.J«M~o Wa eG.C alho Yn Stephen K Yamashiro Polire Clue) Mayor James S. Correa ?~h'er'w~'~~ Deputy Potiu O:ief l~trunfg of ~ttfuttii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720.3998 (80819353371 Fax (8081961d7o2 October 17, 1997 CONFIDENTIAL TO ~~SCHEE POLICE COMMISSION CHAIR FROM J CORR~ DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF, ACT OLICE CHIEF SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION BY CORPORATION COUNSEL HENRY A. ROSS VS. COUNTY OF HAWAII; STEPHEN K. YAMASHIRO; WAYNE G. CARVALHO; STEVEN S. CLARK; JOSEPH T. LALLY; HENRY W. HICKMAN; J. KEALOHA; ALAN M. RIMURA; JAY RIMURA; WILLIAM SMITH; JANET GARCIA; DOE LEGAL ENTITIES 1-25 CIVIL NO. 97-452 Pursuant to Chapters 52D-8 and 52D-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Sergeant Joseph. T. Lally, III, is requesting representation by counsel for acts done in the performance of his duties as a police officer. Sergeant Lally, who is being sued and named as a defendant in this matter, was served with the complaint on October 16, 1997. Copies of relevant documents are attached. The information contained in these reports is confidential and may be attorney privileged. It is intended only for use by the Commission in the above-reference4 investigations. Any dissemination, copying or distribution is prohibited by law. •TJH•lk Enclosures cc: Pergeant Joseph T. Lally, III - ~~U~P-~ 5t?~5~~•~~ Q~~~~~ t e ~~OG°~~ TO WAYNE G. CARVALHO, POLICE CHIEF VIA PROPER CHANNELS FROM JOSEPH T. LALLY, III., SERGEANT, HAMAKUA DISTRICT SUBJECT REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION BY CORPORATION COUNSEL HENRY A. ROSS, PLAINTIFF, CIVIL NO. 97-452 (RICO) On October 16, 1997, I was served with a corrected amended summons, regarding Civil Complaint Number 97-452 (HIo). Refer to attached copy of amended summons for additional information. As I am being named as a defendant in this case, I am requesting to have an attorney be appointed to represent me. I was on duty at the time and am being saed as a police officer. Memorandum submitted for your perusal. JOSEP~Ii-~ L~AI.If~,'TS POLICE SERGEANT OCTOBER 17, 1997 Attach. ` 1 ~ ~y ~ RECD OCT 2 31997/" Mir w ~4 Wayne G. Carvalho Stephen K Yamashiro ~ ~ Police Chiej Mayor , James S. Correa ~'~rie 'N''Ne Deputy Polio Chief gLIIlil'If~J II~ ~titl2?iTi POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Streef Hilo, Hawaii %728-3998 (808) 9353371 Fax (8881 961-2702 October 22, 1997 CONFIDENTIAL TO ON R. S EELE, POLICE COMMISSION CHAIR FROM J S. RREA, DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF, ACTING POLICE CHIEF SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION HY CORPORATION COUNSEL HENRY A. ROSS VS. COUNTY OF HAWAII; STEPHEN K. YAMASHIRO; WAYNE G. CARVALHO; STEVEN S. CLARR; JOSEPH T. LALLY; HENRY W. HICKMAN; J. KEALOHA; ALAN M. RIMURA; JAY KIMURA; WILLIAM SMITH; JANET GARCIA; DOE LEGAL ENTITIES 1-25 CIVIL NO. 97-452 Pursuant to Chapters 52D-8 and 52D-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Officer Joseph Realoha is requesting representation by counsel for acts done in the performance of his duties as a police officer. Officer Realoha, who is being sued and named as a defendant in this matter, was served with the complaint on October 15, 1997. His memorandum is enclosed. Copies of other relevant documents are attached with Sergeant Joseph Lally's request for representation under the same subject.. title. TJH:lk . Enclosure _ I cc: Officer Joseph Realoha xa1/ f?+1i:"l 7 • _ TO WAYNE G. CARVALHO, POLICE CHIEF VIA PROPER CHANNELS FROM JOSEPH K. KEALOHA, POLICE OFFICER, WEST HAWAII HI-PAL SUBJECT COMPLAINT RECEIVED (RE: HENRY ROSS, 97-452) 10-15-97 I was served, via SHERIFF, a complaint filed by Henry ROSS of Kapaau, Hawaii. A copy of his complaint• is being forward to you for review. Morning of 10-16-97 I contacted Mr. Joseph KAMELAMELA of the Hawaii County Corporation Counsel Office and he instructed that I submit this memorandum to you. . I am requesting your approval or assistance in having this matter routed perhaps to the Police Commission for their review and approval in having me represented by Counsel. I am not familiar with the proper proceedures in this kind of matter therefore requesting your assistance. Thank You. e. ~ L~ ~s~Qh K. K ALOHA ~st Hawaii HI-PAL ~ctober 16 1997 (0-blsj~ J 5)Z 0 ,._~'D OCT 2 71997 ~1Y d M~ ,p:'•'` Wayne G. Carvalho Polir<Chief Stephen K Yamashiro ~yo, James S. Correa D Police U:~ y'~~ oi'wi'rr Nutt ~c1,IIliI~f~1 II~ ~tI~1T2ITI POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street • Hilo, Hawaii %72fF3998 (80819353313 Fax 1808) 967-2702 October 24, 1997 CONFIDENTIAL TO SS~SC ELE, POLICE COMMISSION CHAIR FROM EWTON S.E~ACTZNG ASSISTANT CHIEF, ACTING PO ICE CHIEF SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION BY CORPORATION COUNSEL HENRY A. ROSS VS. COUNTY OF HAWAII; STEPHEN K. YAMASHIRO; WAYNE G. CARVALHO; STEVEN S. CLARK; JOSEPH T. LALLY; HENRY W. HICRMAN; J. KEALOHA; ALAN M. KIMURA; JAY RIMURA; WILLIAM SMITH; JANET GARCIA; DOE LEGAL ENTITIES 1-25 CIVIL NO. 97-452 Pursuant to Chapters 52D-8 and 52D-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Lieutenant Henry W. Hickman is requesting representation by counsel for acts done in the performance of his duties as a police officer. Lieutenant Hickman, who is being sued and named as a defendant in this matter, was served with the complaint on October 15, 1997. His memorandum is enclosed. Copies of other relevant documents are attached with Sergeant Joseph Lally's request for representation under the same subject title. TJH:lk . .Enclosure -~'4S ~~r, r~`y~ cc: Lieutenant Henry j9. Hickman ~ , 000513 0 TO WAYNE G. CARVALHO; POLIGE;,~. { ' - •Y!a. . VIA PROPER CHANNELS FROM HENRY W. HICKMAN, LIEUTENANT, KONA DISTRICT, FIELD OPERATIONS AREA II SUBJECT CIVIL COMPLAINT 97-452, HENRY A. ROSS/REQUEST FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION On October 15, 1997, I was served a Civil Complaint made by Henry ROSS regarding an arrest that was made on September 14, 1995. Refer to report number E-76105/SK/ASSAULT. ROSS was. charged with Assault in third degree and Disorderly Conduct. Henry ROSS's charge was amended to Harassment by the Prosecutor to avoid having a jury trial. ROSS was convicted for the Harassment. sometime during August 1997. Henry ROSS made Police Commission Complaint on this same incident and it was investigated by the Police Commission. I have not been informed of the disposition. I am requesting that the County of Hawaii Corporation Counsel or appoint an attorney to defend me in this civil complaint, since the incident occurred while working for the County of Hawaii Police Department. A copy of the complaint, Civil No. 97-452, is attached. W HI KMAN . EUTENANT OCT~Oj~JB~~ER 20, 1997 ,lrr~' ~a-~~ s7 X13 JOVr 06 97 16:13 FRDM: HCPD CHIEFS FICE 898-%1-2389 TD:' ICE PRGE: 91 RECD NOV 0 619 t~!• ' _ W~yu C. CilYaulO Ail.or Chief Stephen K. Yamashiro 'a 'ti°!'Of James S. Goya ..w~j~• } Dgvty PoG're Cla'ge ~IIII2I~l ~ ~$~~It POLICE DEFA$TMENT J~9 Kapinioni Sfreel Hiln. Hawaii 963639% 16661936J3I1 • Fes 16661 967-2~O1 Novembez 6, 1997 S~ID~I~6 TO SHARON R. SCHEELE, POLICE CO1~MI38ION CHAIR PROM ~ G. CARVALHO, POLICE CHIEF SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATZOlQ SY CO&PO&ATIOli COUNSES. HENRY A. ROSS VS. COUNTY OF HAWAII; STEPHEN R. YAMASHIRO; WAYFE G. CARVALHO; STEVEN b. CLARK; JOSEPH T. LALLY; HENRY W. HZCRMAS; J. REALOHA; ALAN K. RIMUItA; JAY RIM[JRA; WILLIAM SMITH; JANET GABCIA; DOE LEGAL EIiTITIES 1-25 CIVIL 240. 9T-4S2 i a3n named as oae of the a defendants in the above matter. Subsequent to my telephone conversation of October 5, 1997 With Deputy Coryoration Counsel Joseph Ram~lamola, and pursuant to Chapters 5ZD-8 and SZD-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, I request representation by counsel for acts dons in the pezformance of my duties as police chief related to this matter. WGC:sk ooo5ia a RECD NOV 131997 oJMtr w x~'4 v; Wayne G. Carvalho Polirz Chief Stephen K Yamashiro Mayo. James 5. Correa Deputy Police Chief I '~ylfl"IZ fi~uuufg u#' ~.ttiz~trii yy ~C , POLICE DEPARTMENT L 349 Kapiolani Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720.3998 ~ ' ~ i (808) 9353311 Fax (8081 961-2702 ~Y"f ~ ~ 4' ~ ~ r Y 1 L L/` tc- November 13, 1997 CONFIDENTI TO SHARON K. SCHEELE, POLICE COMMISSION CHAIR ~j~L~ / FROM l~fA~1VE G. CARVALHO, POLICE CHIEF SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION HY CORPORATION COUNSEL HENRY A. ROSS VS. COUNTY OF HAWAII; STEPHEN K. YAMASHIRO; WAYNE G. CARVALHO; STEVEN S. CLARK; JOSEPH T. LALLY; HENRY W. HICKMAN; J. KEALOHA; ALAN M. KIMURA; JAY KIMURA; WILLIAM SMITH; JANET GARCIA; DOE LEGAL ENTITIES 1-25 CIVIL NO. 97-952 Pursuant to Chapters 52D-S and 52D-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Officer Steven S. Clark is requesting representation by counsel for acts done in the performance of his duties as a police officer. Officer Clark is being sued and named as a defendant in this matter. His memorandum is enclosed. Copies of other relevant documents are attached with Sergeant Joseph Lally's request for representation under the same subject title. TJH:lk Enclosure •cc: Officer Steven S. Clark , ~51~ j7~07:25 FROM:HCPD WRIMEA STRTION 808-885-7018 T0:808 %1 2294 PRGE:02 TO WAYNE G. CARVALHO, POLICE CHIEF VIA PROPER CHANNELS FROM STEVEN S. CLARK, POLICE OFFICER, SOUTH KOHALA SUBJECT: COMPLAINT RECEIVED (RE: HENRY ROSS, 97-452) I was served a complaint filed by Henry ROSS via sheriff . Eddie AKANA. - : I c~---ontacted the corporation council and they advised myselft to type this memo requesting representation. I am requesting your assistance and approval in having the X corporation council represent myself in this matter. I am unfamiliar with these procedures so any assistance would be greatly appreciatAd. . -i-- Thank you. ven ~ ARK #313 ' South Kohala ' November 13, 1997 i I r 1 i ~M1Y 0I y,~ 4:'.. '!y Stephen K. Yamashiro ~ - • Richard Wurdeman Mayor - Corporation Counacl ~i'•. w •'i.`` ~IIlITCf~1 II~ ~tlfll'2ltt OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL IOI Aupani Streer, Suite 325 • Hilo, Haw+i'i 96720A262 • (808) %t-8251 • Faz (808) 961-8622 October 31, 1997 n ~ C7 0 C.^i c -l G. = - i i - w C- Honorable James Arakaki 1--~ Chairman, County Council ~ • c.: ~ t County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki: Re: Henry A. Ross v. County ofHawaii- et al.. Civ. No. 97-452 We request attorney-client confidential discussion in executive session regarding the above-entitled matter. We ask that this case be placed on the council's agenda at its earliest convenience. Thank you very much. Sincerely, RICHARD D. WURDEMAN Corporation Counsel JOSEPH K. KAMELAMELA Deputy Corporation Counsel JKK:mo arakakijkk (:c:mta. Dl4 eu. x.. CORDS llnl• 70: Ret. Date_NOV ~ 1991 Re HAWAII COUNTY POLICE COMMISSION meeting of 14 November 1997, at 10:07 AM (Partial transript on determining if legal counsel for police indicated in Civil 97-452) Secretary: Roll Call: Chair Sharon Scheele (here), Vice Chair Francis Smith (here), Commissioner Donald Abdul (here), Commissioner Deborah Baker (yes), Commisioner Clarence Mills (yes), Commissioner Charles Sakamoto (yes), Commissioner Bumalyn Yee (yes), Madam Chair -Commissioners Clyde Williams and Clarence Souza are unable to make today's meeting. Chair Scheele: The next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. The chair wants to hear a motion to add correspondence 515 to the agenda for a request of legal counsel and also to amend the agenda (different item) Members: So move. Second. Chair: Any discussion?, all in favor signify by saying aye (ayes by members), opposed say nay. Motion is carried. At this time we have public statements on the agen- da. Do we have any public statements? I would like to remind anyone that is go- ing to testify during this public statement time that we have a limitation of 5 mi- nutes and the testifier will be timed and you will get a one minute warning when 4 minutes is up and then you must stop speaking when the 5 minutes are up. Secretary: We have one public statement from Henry Ross. Chair: Okay Mr Ross, would you like to please move up here for your statement? Henry Ross: I will make this as brief as possible. Chair: You have 5 minutes. Ross: Now, actually I have a number of items, when you multiply that by 5 minutes Chair: I am not multiplying by 5 mintes. You have 5 mintes to make your public state- ment. Ross: I feel I have to tell you something. This, Madam Chair, is a public forum and I appear to be the only speaker. If you find it necessary to limit me to 5 minutes, I won't be able to make my presentation in full. I object to that. You are here to serve the public and as such, if there is time available, I think you should give me more time. Be that as it may, I would like to inform the Commission that I am against the request for legal counsel for the police officers who sent in their correspondence, 5 items and apparently there is one more to come. I have good reasons for doing so and want to inform you about that. I don't think that public funds should be used for actions of the police, that they have performed in this particular matter. - I filed a swom declaration in Circuit Court today, and I will quote some sections of that. I was brutalized by the Hawaii county police on 14 September 1995 and arrested without probable cause. -Reference is made to my swom complaint to the Police Commission of November 1995, exactly 2 years ago, of which copies were distributed to all County Council members at the time. A copy of my amended civil complaint that we are talking about here is presently in the possession of the Commission. Another copy will be deposited with the County Council shortly. - With the exception of the Defendant Hickman all police at the time were in uniform and Plaintiff assumes in his action in court, the Plaintiff is me, that all the averred actions by police took place in the perfor- mance of their duty as is clearly expressed in paragraph 10 of the amended complaint. -Admittedly all the Defendants are mentioned in their official and private capacities but it's merely because of a recent case in Honolulu where a policeman Rogelio Mata stole from and helped burglarize George and Mae Wil- liams while on duty, under the color of authority, which our corporation counsel took to pointing out possible conflicts of interest in the defense of this case be- tween the County and/or other defendants. Therefore corporation counsel insis- ted that I make personal service on everybody individually instead of on Corpo- ration Counsel who 1 thought would represent all defendants, as is stipulated, by the way, and is mandated in the County Charter. -Requests for individual repre- sentation are now coming to the Police Commission, because corporation coun- sel has obviously been in contact with them and some of these are on today's agenda, with more on the way. Concurrently corporation counsel had a request pending on yesterday's council agenda under Communication No.564 to discuss funds necessary from the county for this law suit. That is public money from county residents, including myself, to defend and pay for police brutality, etc. perpetrated on myself. - I was maliciously accused, tried and convicted for hitting a female cashier bigger than me and 50 years younger, in a supermarket. - Half the island population knows me and no one believes a thing like that. Chair: Henry, excuse me, but we got all of this in the report that you submitted before. [NOTE from Ross: the "report" was given, shortly before the meeting, to the secretary and there were many items in my presentation that are not in the report; it is my contention that the commission simply did not want to listen] Ross: You don't Chair. 1 haven't heard anything different in what I heard, that I haven't been able to read in the report that you have submitted or law suit that you filed. What we're here for is Ross: What report are you talking about, Madam Chair? Chair. Well, you submitted a letter before, we've seen that, There is not any new infor- mation sofar z Ross: Are you talking about the law suit years ago? Chair: We haven't got any new information that you've given us thus far. What we are here to do is to find out if there is any new information that you want us to know about. Ross: yes, I'm coming to that. Chair: Well, I don"t want you to read that whole thing to us. Ross: I am not going to read all of it. Chair: You gave copies to us and we can read it. We are as capable of reading as you are. So, I don't want it all read to us. Tell us what you want else. Ross: Madam Chair, I want to say something. This is a public forum. Chair: You are right. Ross: Whatever you have, the public here does not necessarily have. Maybe some do. Consequently I have the right to tell the public, that is here, what has happened, what is necessary for the public to know. I am not talking to the poFce commis- sion per se. I am talking to a forum, a public forum that you represent. You are the (unintelligible). You do not represent the police, do not forget that please. Chair: I am very honored at that, but if you are addressing the police commission, if you do want to do a public forum, then you go rent a hall and do a public forum. We want information that is new, anything that you want to add, tut we don't have to hear everything that we have already read that we already know about.Tell us Ross: Madam Chair, I don't need to rent a hall or something. If you would kindly tell me what law tells me to rent a hall if I want to address the public in a public meeting. This is a public meeting. [NOTE: Ross wants to refer to the preamble of the Sunshine Law HRS 92-1, where it says "the public has a right to know'; not the police commission.] Chair. This is a meeting of the Police Commission and you are here to speak to the Po- lice Commission, and therefore we ask for anything new. That's what we want to hear. Anything new that you have that you want us to know? Ross: Madam Chair, you are talking for yourself, I would like to know if all the members agree with ,you. If there is nothing new here and nobody wants to hear anything more. Maybe you can put it to a vote. Chair: Okay. 3 Member Abdul: Mr Ross, Madam Chair if I may. Mr Ross, 1 know that you are here today because you object to the community giving counsel to the police officers, who you say arrested you illegally and did these other things to you. May I advise you that under Chapter 52-D of the statute (unintelligible), where we are in- structed that we have to provide that if they acted under the color of law, if they are on duty and performing their duties under the law, and if we feet they were pertorming their duties under the law, then we are obligated to provide them with counsel. You made comments, sir, that this is the taxpayers' money, it is your money, it is our money, it is their money too. They pay taxes. They are human beings the same as we are. I am not perfect, I don't think anybody is perfect in this room. I think you know, if you feel that a mistake was made, they were being malicious, they should be given counsel and let it come out in court. Prove it in court, you know, you will have your chance to proof it if they have counsel (unintelligible). Ithink it is my obligation as a police commissioner to provide them with legal counsel if I see fit and nobody is going to tell me that 1 cannot do it, because I know what the law says. Ross: Madam Chair, Mr Abdul, if I may give a brief answer. I have here item 16, that was one of the items Chair: Wait a minute. We are going to see, first off, I want to see if we have a motion from any of the commissioners to allow you to continue because your 5 minutes are up. Ross: I wanted to answer in 3 lines. Chair: Three lines, okay. Ross: The statute, Mr Abdul, Madam Chair, where it states in 52-D that the determina- tion of the police commission shall be conclusive for the purpose of this section and section 52-D(8) is clearly unconstitutional on its face. I wanted to elaborate on that but I (unintelligible) Abdul: May I say something to that? Ross: Yes. Abdull: Take it up with the legislature because they make the laws. Ross: No, you check it out with corporation counsel. Abdul: Okay, let me check it out with corporation counsel, but this is a law. As long as it is law and it instructs me to do things a certain way [NOTE by Ross: Abdul does not seem to feel about the Sunshine law like that] Ross: This commission, Mr Abdul, has the right to say that something in a particular law is not constitutional and bring it to the authorities that be. This is the way it always happens in commissions, in meetings, etc. Abdul: Mr Ross, you sat with us Ross: Not like that. Abdul: You pass? Ross: Yes. Abdul: Okay, we don't want want to answer any more questions, I pass too, I vote along with the chairperson. Chair: There is a motion to allow Mr Ross to continue speaking? Do I hear a motion? Thank you. If there is any new thing that you wanted to say, that was the oppor- tunity you had. Ross: Okay, thank you. Under protest, I am leaving it. Chair: You are welcome to stay, Mr Ross. Ross: I'm not leaving the room, only this chair. Chair: Are there any other public statements? secretary: There are no more public statements. AT THIS POINT OTHER MATTERS WERE BEING DISCUSSED, THEN: Chair: Correspondence items 510 to 515 will be handled in executive session. OTHER MATTERS WERE DISCUSSED AGAIN, AND THEN FOLLOWED BY: Chair: Okay, this time I want to hear a motion for the Commission to meet in executive session to review charges filed against members of the the Hawaii County Police Department, where matters affecting privacy will be considered and a closed meeting as requested by the parties involved. Members: So move. Second. Corp. Counsel O'Toole: Madam Chairman, could you also add that as far as the request for legal counsel that you will be consulting with the attorney (unintelligible)? Chair: Oh -okay - so: matters affecting privacy and consultation requiring legal counsel, is that it? Somebody: (Inaudible) Chair: Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Members: Aye. Chair: Opposed nay. Thank you, the motion is carried. Ross: Madam Chair, I would rather object on the record that you cannot go into execu- tive session for the request for legal counsel as stated on your agenda because it is not one of the six items that are mentioned in Chapter 92-5 of the statute for which an executive session can be held. Consequently the request for legal counsel must be held public. I also want to object, and I missed that this morning because I am slightly deaf, against the way you have added an agenda item, that should not be added, with a request for legal counsel by officer Clark because it was not on the agenda. It should not be, it should be on the next agenda. You cannot make any deliberation or dis- cussion of officer Clark's request. Chair: Thank you, Mr Ross. Okay, we are closing the meeting now, so if you would all step outside, until we call you back to make a statement......... Thank you. Ross: Madam Chair, I also object to the way in which you go into executive session, it's illegal. POL?CE COMMISSNON THEN WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER EVERYBODY ELSE LEFT THE ROOM, EXCEPT THE SECRETARY AND CORP.000NSEL O'TOOLE Chair. Okay, we are going to meet back into regular session and executive session re- quest for legal counsel in Civil 97-452. The request for legal counsel. Were you able to make a decision on that one? Member: Civil Case 97.452 I move that we grant legal counsel to all officers who have requested it because their actions were within the scope of duty. Other member: I will second that motion. Chair: Okay, any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Members: Aye. Chair: Oppose, nay? Thank you The motion is carried. The next item on the agenda / OTHER MATTERS WERE DISCUSSED UNTIL ADJOURNMENT AT NOON § 92-5 PUBLIC AGELJCY MEETINGS AND RECORDS § 92-5 OPIMONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Executive meeting moat comply with this thirds of the majority of the board present af- section. - If the board determines under tirmatively vote for the dewed meeting. Fur- 4 92-5(a)(2) that there is some matter affecting ther, at the open meeting, the board must am the trustee's privacy and an executive meeting neunce its reasons for holding the executive is necessary, the board must also comply with meeting, and the vote of each board member on the other requirements in this section, which the issue moat be recorded. Op. Att'y Gen. No. requires that at a prior open meeting two- 86-19 (1986). § 92-5. Exceptions. (a) A board may hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to section 92-4 for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To consider and evaluate personal information relating to individuals applying for professional or vocational licenses cited in section 26-9 or both; - (2) To consider the hire, evaluation, dismissal, or discipline of an officer or employee or of chazges brought against the ofTcer or employee, where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved; provided that if the individual concerned requests an open meeting, an open meeting shall be held; (3) To deliberate concerning the authority of persons designated by the board to conduct labor negotiations or to negotiate the acquisition of public property, or during the conduct of such negotiations; (4) To consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertain- ing to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities; (5) To investigate proceedings regarding criminal misconduct; and (6) To consider sensitive matters related to public safety or security. (b) In no instance shall the boazd make a decision or deliberate towazd a decision in an executive meeting on matters not directly related to the pur- poses specified in subsection (a). This part shall not apply to any chance meeting at which matters relating to official business aze not discussed. No _ chance meeting or electronic communication shall be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of this part to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the boazd has supervision, control, jurisdic- tion, or advisory power. [L 1975, c 166, pt of § 1; am imp L 1984, c 90, § 1; am L 1985, c 278, § 3] CASE NOTES ~ Cited in Chang v. Planning Camm'n, 64 Haw. 431, 643 P.2d 55 (19821. i OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ~ - In order to conduct an executive meeting does not request that an open meeting be held. ~ y'~='=~ ' under subsection (a)(2) and discuss a Further, in order for a matter to affect the trustee's discipline, board would need to de- trustee's "privacy;' it must be a matter that _ termine whether [he closed meeting is neces- has not previously been made puhlic or pub- ~ sary, because "matters affecting [the trustee'sl lished. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 86-19 (1986). privacy will be involved," where the trustee Method for holding closed executive ~ II 561 j ,:~,.g b,:~..s. rte. - § 92-6 PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS AND RECORDS § 92-6 § 92-7 meeting affecting trustee's privacy. - [C the notice requirements of the Sunshine Law the board determines under subsection ia)f21 have been met. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-27 that there is some matter aRecting the (19851. Special manager tn~stee's privacy and an executive meeting is Specific exceptions to open meetings ecotone. -Hawaii' necessary, the board must also comply with the must be strictly construed. -!f an executive apply to deliberation: other requirements in § 92-4, which requires meeting is to be closed to the public, specific Sion on special man: that at a prior open meeting two-thirds of the exceptions to the open meeting requirement applications, as they majority of the board present affirmatively must be found, and in reading any exception lion of the statute as , vote for the closed meeting. Furthrr, at the roviso, it must be strict) construed. y open meeting, the board must announce its p y Op. Att' ercised by a board reasons for holding the executive meeting, and Gen. No. 75-11 (19751. and 91-9. Chang v. Pt the vote of each board member on the issue Board of educaton cannot hold closed 431, 643 P.2d 55 111 must be recorded. Op. Att'y Gen. lVo. 86-19 meeting to develop general employment Atijudicatory fum (1986). criteria. - An executive meeting of a commit- mission include ado Committees that discuss board business tee of [he whole of the boazd of education, law. Outdoor Circle may be required to meet notice require- closed to the public, cannot be held where the meats. -Although the definition of the term sole purpose of the meeting is to develop gen- "meeting" for purposes of § 92-3 requires "the era) employment criteria to be used in review- convening of a board Cor which a quorum is ing applicants for the job of superintendent of required," even if a quorum of the board is not education and an evaluation system to apply to University of Hai - present at a committee meeting, when board future superintendents, even though there Note, Outdoor Circ members deliberately meet to discuss official maybe discussions of past superintendents board business, subsection fb) of this section during the course of the meeting. Op. Att'y § 92-7. Notice. may prohibit such a committee meeting unless Gen. No. 75-11 (1975). (a) The board § 92-6. Judicial branch, quasi-judicial boazds and investigatory font- rescheduled meet: lions; applicability. The notice shall it (a) This part shall not apply: at the forthcomin the case of an e~ (ll To the judicial branch. (b) The board s; (2) To adjudicatory functions exercised by a board and governed by sec- the appropriate cc lions 91-8 and 91-9, or authorized by other sections of the Hawaii Revised lion, at least six Statutes. In the application of this subsection, boards exercising adjudica- posted at the site tory functions include, but are not limited to, the fallowing: agenda, once filed (A) Hawaii labor relations board, chapters 89 and 377; of all members to (B) Labor and industrial relations appeals board, chapter 371; added to the agent (C) Hawaii paroling authority, chapter 353; (D) Civil service commission, cha ter 26; by the board will p major importance (E) Board of trustees, employees' retirement system of the State of at a meeting con'. Hawaii, chapter 88; (c) The board s} (F) Criminal injuries almpensation commission, chapter 351; and request noti£catic (G) State ethics commission, chapter 84. persons at their I, (b) Notwithstanding provisions in this section to the contrary, this part filed under subset shall apply to require open deliberation of the adjudicatory functions of the L 1984, c 271, § land use commission. [L 1975. c 166, pt of § 1; am L 1976, c 92, § 8; am L , 1985, c 251, § 11] Notice of reschedu they this section nor t} rules require that noti, uled for a later date be and 25 day limits imp. cite. Chang v. Planning 643 P.2d 56 (1982). 562 ,w;.e