2003-09-12 Police Commission Minutes

Home

Hawaii County Police Commission Regular Session Minutes September 12, 2003 Page 6 Chief Mahuna stated that the personnel file does not come into play in the ARB's determination of whether or not they are going to sustain or not sustain a complaint. It is considered when progressive discipline is employed. They could talk to him about how he arrived at a discipline. Investigations are done like any investigation. They are done by an administrative inquiry or an administrative investigation. He utilizes the ARB and their recommendation because they look at the whole picture, the evidence, and if the charge or allegation is sustainable. Commissioner de Silva questioned why they threw out 65% of the referred cases. They have an oversight function to find out what happens in the department, to see whether it's good, and if not, to make suggestions. He doesn't agree with the chief's point of view, but reasonable people can differ. Chief Mahuna stated that the separateness of the commission and the police department and its administrative function is essential in the department in their goals and objectives. They should leave it up to corporation counsel to see if the documents are necessary for the commission's inquiry. Commissioner de Silva stated that he would certainly listen to their attorney's advice, but it doesn't mean they have to agree with it because they can always go to court and find out. Chair Hara stated that he is concerned about sustained complaints that the commission refers to the chief, and would like to get an explanation for the IA or ARB's findings. Commissioner de Silva asked for responses to each of the things in the motion so that they would have the chief's position on record. Chair Hara stated that he would like to give the chief and corporation counsel more time to consider this and that they provide the commission with the requested information at the next meeting. There were no objections by the commissioners, and Chief Mahuna felt that he could provide a written response by the next meeting. Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that he appreciated the additional time because if they could not agree of if there were disagreement in the position that the commission took with the department, he might be in conflict because he cannot represent both. He might be required to assign two staff attorneys, one to the commission and one to the police department to look at the issues independent of whatever opinions he may have rendered previously. Vice Chair Manago motioned to defer this matter to October. Commissioner Frazier seconded the motion. Discussion: On inquiry by Commissioner Frazier, Chair Hara stated that the police department receives the complaints after the commission refers it to them. He also stated that they are deferring this matter to the October meeting in order for the chief and corporation counsel to provide their written responses.