2024-08-08 Police Commission Regular Minutes

Home

Hawai'i Police Commission Regular Session Minutes Special Meeting August 8, 2024 Page 5 Vice Chair Bertsch read Police Commission Rule 2(g), which mandates reviewing the department's operations to recommend improvements to the chief and managing director. He noted that this is reinforced by the Charter. He added that the commission deals with external complaints, but internal complaints, as well as grievances, appeals, ARB, and promotions, are within their purview. When complaints are referred to the chief for investigation, the chief needs to report back to the commission on the findings. There was further discussion about the annual chief evaluation required by the commission, noting that while it is mandated, there are no specific rules governing the process—it remains a practice rather than a formal rule. Additionally, there was discussion about the need for the commission to be briefed on the department's internal and external workings, including complaints, grievances, appeals, and promotions. Vice Chair Bertsch reported that from around 2001 to 2010 when the commission used private investigators hired by the county. These investigators handled sustained complaints by interviewing witnesses and producing reports, with each case costing between $3,000 and $5,000. However, police officers were not required to speak with these investigators, who lacked jurisdiction over the department. Consequently, investigations often resulted in merely restating the complaints and took nearly 11 months to complete, which was problematic given the 12-month window for filing complaints. Due to delays and the resulting inefficacy of the commission, a policy change was implemented allowing the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to attend commission meetings, conduct investigations, and report findings to the commission. The commission retains the option to hire an investigator, covered by the Police Department's budget. There was a discussion about handling public testimony on items not listed on the agenda. DCC Salas-Ferguson suggested adding an agenda item titled "Agenda Items for the Next Meeting" to address this. Additionally, there was a discussion on whether the commission should consider complaints from department employees. Vice Chair Bertsch proposed establishing a rule allowing the commission to self-sanction, noting that while commissioners are appointed, there is currently no process for their removal. DCC Salas-Ferguson clarified that there is a removal mechanism outlined in the Charter, which states that members are appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council, and can be removed based on the mayor's recommendation and council's approval. The commission discussed the best way to track all commissioners' suggestions for rule amendments. It was suggested that the commission form a PIG at the next meeting. This group could draft the rule amendments, submit them to the commission for review, and then the commission could finalize the proposed amendments and proceed through the Chapter 91 process.