Laserfiche WebLink
Honorable Brenda Ford <br /> April 7, 2008 <br /> Page 3 <br /> spoke against the bill. Mr. Whittemore maintained that the present system of <br /> civilian oversight, although imperfect and a work in progress, achieves a <br /> satisfactory level of governance over incidences of misconduct by police officers. <br /> John Stewart, the local chapter chair of the State of Hawai'i Organization <br /> of Police Officers union (SHOPO), testified against the bill. SHOPO was most <br /> concerned with the maintenance of confidentiality of records with respect to <br /> police officer misconduct cases. <br /> Gabriel Malani, the local business agent for SHOPO, testified against the <br /> bill. Mr. Malani (a retired police officer) stated there was not a need for this newly <br /> proposed position. <br /> Louis Kaoiwi, a police commissioner from Council District 4 (Hilo), offered <br /> testimony as both a police commissioner and private citizen. Mr. Kaoiwi spoke <br /> against the bill. Mr. Kaoiwi expressed concern the bill created an additional layer <br /> of unneeded bureaucracy, and that the new proposed position would essentially <br /> create a "Super-Chief' within the County, and he doubted the wisdom of such <br /> action. <br /> Tim Rees, a private citizen, offered testimony in support of the bill. Mr. <br /> Rees said he has been following and studying the Police Commission for <br /> approximately 1 and '/2 years. Mr. Rees said three years ago, he provided the <br /> Commission a 30-page document concerning police issues that was ignored by <br /> the Commission. Mr. Rees summarized that there are two principal problems <br /> with the current Police Commission system; (1) the questioning of witnesses and <br /> offering of testimony is repugnant to Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") Chapter <br /> 91 provisions regarding contested case hearings, and (2) the burden of proof <br /> utilized by the Commission is not appropriate, to wit: "Insufficient evidence to <br /> support/sustain a criminal complaint." <br /> Prior to addressing the questions and concerns of Council members, we <br /> address the concerns raised by Mr. Rees during his public testimony. <br /> With respect to Mr. Rees' concern regarding the manner of questioning of <br /> witnesses by police commissioners not being consistent with HRS Chapter 91, <br /> there is no such need for formal questioning. This is because the investigation <br /> and review of police officer misconduct case is not subject to HRS Chapter 91. <br /> In fact, the only provision in the Rules of the Police Commission that provide for a <br /> contested case hearing is the denial by the commission of government counsel <br /> for police officers in cases where they are sued. For this reason, Mr. Rees' <br /> contentions are unfortunately misplaced. <br /> With respect to Mr. Rees' concern that the burden of proof utilized by the <br /> Commission is not appropriate ("insufficient evidence to support/sustain a <br />