2024-08-08 Police Commission Regular Minutes

Home

Hawai'i Police Commission Regular Session Minutes Special Meeting August 8, 2024 Page 8 stated he sends the commission a report indicating whether the complaint was sustained or not. Commissioners Lacerte and Bertsch mentioned they haven't been receiving those updates. Chief Moszkowicz responded that he's been signing the letters, but Commissioner Lacerte reiterated that they haven't been getting them and are unaware of what happens after a case is referred. Vice Chair Bertsch emphasized that for the commission to fulfill its responsibilities and be well-informed, it's essential to hear from the chief not just about the final outcomes, but also how those outcomes were reached. This knowledge would help the commission handle future complaints more effectively. Chief Moszkowicz explained that when they charge an employee with an administrative violation, they are very specific about the facts. However, when reviewing the commission's rules, he notices a broad approach. The commission's focus appears to be on whether there is misconduct, such as malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, which is much less specific. He highlighted that they are dealing with two different standards and systems. Another key difference is the burden of proof. For the commission to determine misconduct, a preponderance of evidence is required, after which the case is referred to OPS, triggering Garrity rights and a full investigation that may lead to disciplinary action. In contrast, they require clear and convincing evidence as opposed to a preponderance. A higher standard of clear and convincing evidence is necessary to impose discipline. Chief Moszkowicz cautioned against using the end result of the process to guide the intake process and raised concerns about the privacy rights of employees. The terms of their contract restrict what can be revealed regarding discipline—such as termination or suspension—until a certain time after the last step of administrative grievance procedures. He said he would need to consult with counsel on what can be shared, ensuring that he does not unintentionally violate any rules or agreements by disclosing information to the commission. Commissioner Lacerte asked hypothetically what happens if an officer provides false information during a complaint investigation, as evidenced by reports and BWC footage. She noted that sometimes they never hear about the outcome. Chief Moszkowicz responded that if someone lies to the commission, it could potentially be considered a crime, regardless of whether they are sworn in or not, due to the existence of laws against falsifying unsworn statements. In such cases, both the original conduct and the false testimony would be investigated if referred as such. Once the investigation, including a compelled statement, witness interviews, and ARB review, is completed, the outcomes should be shared with the commission. He mentioned that he signs letters indicating these outcomes.