2003-09-12 Police Commission Minutes

Home

Hawaii County Police Commission Regular Session Minutes September 12, 2003 Page 5 Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that they needed to discuss numbers 3 and 5 of the motion further. On number 5, requesting complete personnel files, this may present some problems because not everything in the personnel files may be necessary for the commission to do its job. On number 3, requesting IA investigative reports for each and every case of misconduct referred to the department by the commission, they will need further discussion. The commission needs to decide what their role and function is in the entire process of reviewing complaints. Commissioner de Silva stated that from the statistics they received, he has concerns about the system but would like to suspend judgment until they hear from the Administrative Review Board. In looking at the statutes, it clearly entitles them to get information from the police department which would help them in their oversight functions. The charter has a provision saying that they shouldn't interfere with the administrative affairs of the police department, but if they read that provision a little more carefully, it starts with an exception, and the exception says, "except for the purposes of inquiry." In the statistics they received, last year only about 18% of the cases they sent to the department resulted in a finding of misconduct. He wondered whether the time they spend might not be useful. The charter says that they should submit their findings to the department, and the effectiveness of this policy of submitting their findings to the department depends on what they do about it. Chair Hara stated that when they refer a case to the chief, they want to know the disposition or outcome of the IA or the ARB findings. Chief Mahuna stated that he believes that police commission's duties and responsibilities, based on the charter, are confusing in certain respects. He feels that the actual discipline of a police officer is an administrative affair and connected reports that result in that discipline are an administrative function. Commissioner de Silva stated that unless they are given information on how the disciplinary system works, there's no way they can perform any oversight function. It is their business to examine the department's policy, and the only way they can examine it is to see how it works. It's not a formula for some uranium bomb. He can't see how getting the IA report or knowing what happens in the ARB interferes in the administration of the department. Chief Mahuna stated that if the reports were made available to the police commission, then there is no separateness of the police commission and the police department. He does not see the relevance of the Internal Affairs report or an officer's personnel file in the commission's determination of findings of fact. The basis of how one comes to determine whether or not a specific violation of the General Orders or a specific violation has occurred, is independent of the material that the commission is asking for. Commissioner de Silva stated that that is why he qualified the motion by saying that it would be for specific requests.