2006-07-18 Request for Executive Session Minutes from the Hawaii Police Commission

Home

Mr. Stirling Morita July 18, 2006 Page 2 records. With respect to records of employee misconduct, subsection (b)(4) provides as follows (emphasis supplied): The following are examples of information in which the individual has a significant privacy interest: (4) Information in an agency's personnel file, or applications, nominations, recommendations, or proposals for public employment or appointment to a governmental position, except: (A) Information disclosed under section 9217-12(a)(14); and (B) The following information related to employment misconduct that results in an employee's suspension or discharge: (i) The name of the employee; (ii) The nature of the employment related misconduct; (iii) The agency's summary of the allegations of misconduct; (iv) Findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (v) The disciplinary action taken by the agency; when the following has occurred: the highest non judicial grievance adjustment procedure timely invoked by the employee or the employee's representative has concluded; a written decision sustaining the suspension or discharge has been issued after this procedure; and thirty calendar days have elapsed following the issuance of the decision;provided that this subparagraph shall not apply to a county police department officer except in a case which results in the discharge of the officer. Assuming this was a case involving a non-police officer, the County would disclose to you (1) the name of the employee, (2) the nature of the employment- related misconduct, (3) the agency's summary of the allegations of misconduct, (4) the findings of fact and conclusions of law (if any exist), and (5) the disciplinary action taken by the agency, assuming the misconduct resulted in the suspension or discharge of the employee. However, in the present case, since it involves police officers, the above- cited HRS provision allows the County to withhold any information since none of the allegations of misconduct resulted in the discharge of any of the police officers involved, so long as on balance, the right to privacy outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Enclosed are redacted copies of the meeting minutes you seek. The following is an explanation of the redactions made: