2008-04-07_Bill_270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Brenda Ford April 7, 2008 Page 11 the complainant. In other words, "all ties go to the police officer." This standard of proof is well recognized in public sector employment law, and is a necessary part of appropriate administrative review. To address this problem, the Commission has worked with the police administration in obtaining the employment history of accused officers to determine whether a "pattern" is present. Although an individual case may not have the necessary facts to sustain a finding of misconduct, the recognition of a "pattern" of allegations may prompt the Commission to recommend the Chief counsel the accused officer. This verbal counseling (and recall training, if necessary) does not constitute discipline as defined by the collective bargaining agreement, and is a prompt and direct form of behavior modification. Another area where improvement is necessary is the timeliness of bringing complaints made to the Police Commission before Internal Affairs. At present, a complainant must wait until the Commission's monthly meeting to have his or her complaint heard, and ultimately referred to Internal Affairs. A pending recommendation with the Commission is a task force of the Commission be utilized to promptly review all incoming complaints, and make the necessary prompt referral to Informal Affairs. During the public testimony of Thomas Whittemore, Councilman Jacobson asked Mr. Whittemore if he was aware of the "agreement with SHOPO that our mayor had signed." Further inquiry with Mr. Jacobson's office reveal Mr. Jacobson referenced the settlement agreement in SHOPO v. Harry Kim, et. al., Case No. CE-12-555, a complaint filed with the Hawaii Labor Relations Board, based on two former police commissioners attending an Administrative Review Board hearing without the consent of the full commission. As part of the settlement of that case, the administration agreed that "The employer shall cease and desist from providing, granting access to or sharing personnel records, and/or internal investigations regarding police officers with the Hawaii County Police Commission." Our office takes the position that this settlement was made within the spirit of acknowledging that the Police Commission should not have access to these records gathered by Internal Affairs while the Police Commission is conducting its own investigation independent of Internal Affairs. Thus, it is the position of our office that once an investigation is completed by Internal Affairs, pursuant to the Commission's oversight authority contained in our Charter, access to these records should not be restricted by the agreement. No doubt this is an area where the County and SHOPO may not agree, and further discussion with the union may be warranted.' We thank Mr.Jacobson for raising this very important issue.