2004-01-AU Hawai‘i County Police Department Vehicles

Home

Summary Findings and Recommendations A. Extent of Policy Direction and Union Contract Several I egal concerns rel ated to the SH OPO contract emerged duri ng the course of prepari ng thi s study A memorandum dated July 15, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie Ki ri u to Corporation Counsel Lincoln A shi da posed questions relating to A rti d e 18 (" Subsi di zed A utomobi I es") of the State of H aNai ` i Organization of Police Officers (SH OPO) contract and the pol i cy- making authority of the County Council as i t rel ates to county pol i ce vehi cl es. The responses to these queries from Deputy Corporati on Counsel Pat O'Toole (Corp. Counsel Wrk. No. 03 -5909) dated A ugust 26, 2003 provi de gui dance for conversi on to a county -owned pol i ce f I eet, shout d such action be initiated by the Police Department in the future. Key findings in the Corporation Counsel opi ni on i ncl ude the fol I owi ng: (1) The County may change i is pol i ci es respecti ve to subsi di zed automobi I es duri ng the I i f of the SH OPO contract, upon consul ti ng the U ni on; (2) The County i s not obl i gated to pay for the cost of subsi di zed pri vale vehi cl es i f i t converts to a county -owned fl eet system; (3) Provisions in the present SH OPO contract (Section M) specific to Maui and Kauai do not apply to the H aNai ` i County Police Department. For Maui and Kauai, these provisions in the SH OPO contract requi re that, upon termi nati on of a pol i cy requi ri ng off i cers to use pri vate automobi I es for off ci al duty, any subsi di zed vehi d e i n sati sfactory operati ng condi ti on must be retai ned as a subsi di zed vehi d e unti I sai d vehi d e has aged si x years from the date of sal e. Prudentl y, the Corporati on Counsel notes that " shoul d the pol i cy on subsi di zed vehi cl es change, we expect that SH OPO, the empl oyer [County of H awai ` i ] , woul d meet to negoti ate i tems rel ati ng to the effects of change i n pol i cy si nce they woul d I i kel y fal I under the category of 'terms and conditions' which must be recognized. A similar provision [like M aui and Kauai ] mi ght resul t." Whi I e the outcome of any f uture negoti ati on i s unknown, shoul d the negoti ati on repl i cate the provi si ons of fl eet conversi on for M aui and Kauai, the County of H aNai ` i (and i is ta(payers) coul d end up payi ng the cost of new pol i ce package f I eet vehi d es pl us conti nui ng al I owances for subsi di zed cars for, i n some cases, up to si x years. (4) Re. County Council policy - making authority over the matter of police cars, Corporation Counsel notes that "to the extent that the subsidy for a police vehicle is a cost item, the Council has the authority under the I acv to reject it if desired." However, the Council is advised to take note of the H awai ` i Supreme Court decision i n the case of City Cound I of the City and County of Honolulu v. Fasi 52 Haw. 3 (1970). In that case, the HaNai`i Supreme Court sai d that 'pol i cy' ref ers to deci si ons of broad and general appl i cabi I i ty and not an ad hoc command to take speci f c acti on. Copi es of the A udi tor' s Off i ce i nqui ry wi th attachments and Corporati on Counsel response referenced above are appended to thi s report [A ppendix D] .