2004-08-26 Police Commission Minutes

Home

Hawaii County Police Commission Minutes of August 26, 2004 Page 8 21. The following recommendations apply to the ARB: 13. The complainant should be allowed to testify before the ARB. 14. The burden of proof at the ARB should be more clearly specified as that of a preponderance of the evidence. 15. A majority decision of the board should be sufficient to conclude guilt. 16. General Orders should specifically require consideration of the PC's findings and conclusions. 17. Upon completion of its proceedings, the ARB should provide with (sic) PC with a statement identifying members, the witnesses who testified, its decision and recommendations, if any, and a brief statement of its rationale. Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that No. 12 is attempting to dictate to the chief how he should run his ARB. Commissioner Bertsch motioned to delete No. 12. Commissioner Muller seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Bertsch stated that this gets into the administrative actions of the police department which is not within the commission's purview. The motion carried unanimously. 13. The chief of police should then inform the PC of his decision including the discipline imposed, if any. Deputy Chief Kubojiri stated that this mirrors what they discussed earlier. Now they have the officer identified and now they want to know the exact discipline. At Vice Chair Manago's request for an opinion, Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that they need to define what they want. Disposition could be that charges were sustained, although some of them might want to know the punishment. Commissioner Muller stated that they should only know that something was done. Ms. Pelayo stated that the reports they receive states only that appropriate discipline was taken. Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that state law is very picky about confidentiality with respect to personnel matters. SHOPO is strong. They lobbied the legislature