Laserfiche WebLink
minutes 03-18-00Page 5 of 27 <br />the Redevelopment Agency,’and so on, ‘and we’ll put it under the table.’ <br />RAY: I apologize for that confusion. The intent was to make them as thoroughly distributed as possible. We mailed out 280 <br />copies to community groups around the island. <br />ROSS: Yes, the big question is going to be how many that really get picked up because of all of this, because the people in <br />Kamuela probably didn’t have this. I don’t know. Maybe you had a stack in Kamuela, of those. I wasn’t there. But I was here <br />in Hilo and I wanted to get whatever I could to go to the Kamuela meeting because, on that day, somebody drove me over to <br />Kohala. I cannot drive distances, myself, any more, and then I run into this in the morning. Then I went to the County Clerk’s <br />Office. They had one copy under the counter and I could look at it. Now, my eyes are so bad I cannot read a document like <br />this while other people may be behind me, so on and so on. So, fortunately Mr. Arakaki came by and he said, what’s wrong. I <br />said I would like to have a copy of this document so I can read it with the proper light, which they don’t have, and so on, at <br />my ease, at my pace. And he immediately had another copy made from his copy and that was it, except that I went back to <br />the Room 217 later in the day and they said, ‘oh, after all, you can have a copy because I made a call to Ms.’, I forget names <br />easily so, the secretary and she had clued them in that, yes indeed, that was for the public. Now, these are misunderstandings <br />that shouldn’t happen. These people have nothing to do except have that basket there, and - <br />RAY: Mr. Ross, I already apologized for that, okay? We’re doing the best we can to get this information out, okay? <br />ROSS: Yes, I’ll leave it to you how to handle that. So, these are just some technical things that I wanted to call to your <br />attention, that you otherwise may not have heard. I want to say something about the Police Commission and the Police in <br />Chapter 7. I think it’s item 16 on your list, and by the way, what I don’t understand is in the mail, I got this agenda which <br />differs from the agenda in the paper. I don’t know what we are going to do here. I’m not going to stay after my speech. I <br />can’t sit that long, but there is a whole list of things here on this, which may be comprised in the four items that were in the <br />paper. I don’t know. But there are two agendas right now in circulation. And this, by the way, is not on the table here, I think. <br />The agenda is out. What is on the table is this stuff. <br />RAY: Summary, yes. <br />ROSS: So this is to, sort of, (indiscernible) confusion, I clue you in on what is there. Now, about the Police Commission. In <br />1985, we had a Statute that was something like 30 pages long. I have it with me in case you want to see it, about the Police <br />and Police Commission. And that Statute was not perfect. Very few are. But it was demolished. It was HRS 52. It was <br />demolished by the Legislature, and it became 52(d) which is four pages. The only advice that our naive Legislators took was <br />from a Commission of six people; the four Chiefs of Police, one Specialist Major of the Honolulu Police Department, and a <br />Union man, a representative of the Union. Now that is not exactly a cross section of the population. What do you expect from <br />such a one-sided advice. That was just gobbled up and swallowed and it disappeared, and so on, and anyway, we got this. <br />The four Chiefs, who had the majority in this Commission, wrote that Article 52(d) in such a way that it pleased their <br />intentions and so on, so they got things out that they didn’t like, and they gave themselves more power. That is not the idea, <br />of course, but that’s our Legislators’ mistake. I think the Charter needs, therefore, some elaboration on that point, and I will <br />give you, in a moment, a short list to pick from, of things that I think you might want to put a few of into the Charter. And <br />please ask for the details if you find it necessary for understanding it because I’m going to do it in a very brief fashion. I have <br />to tell you that many of these things come forth out of the fact that I was arrested four and a half years ago, and without <br />resistance. On transport from the police of 20 miles, my neck was broken, and still is broken because the Neurologist claims <br />it cannot be repaired, and my shoulder ligaments were torn in both shoulders. I was 75 years old. It was the transportation, <br />mainly, that did it in police cars. Too small, and so on. I was hanging in it diagonally, hit my head on the seat rest of the <br />driver, and things like that. The Kamuela Station Chief told the Police Commission investigator that the arrest, that was <br />without a warrant or probable cause, was not really necessary. They did it for their convenience. Now, I don’t understand that <br />we have situations where people can be arrested for the convenience of the police. I don’t see that. <br />RAY: Are you suggesting we put that in the Charter? <br />ROSS: I think that this is of such vital interest and it should enter into the Charter. <br />RAY: That the Police cannot arrest someone for convenience? <br />ROSS: Pardon? <br />RAY: What’s the suggestion, Henry, in regard to the Charter? <br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-18-00.html7/1/2011 <br /> <br />