Laserfiche WebLink
commission apparently wanted to make this abundantly clear. The <br /> chief, on the other hand, proposed a provision similar to that of <br /> the Charter of the City and County of Honolulu and the Maui <br /> County Charter which states that the chief cannot be removed <br /> unless given a "written statement of the charges against him" and <br /> "a hearing before the Commission. " <br /> Your Committee was in general agreement that the chief ought <br /> to be removed only for serious reasons, after due deliberation, <br /> and that the Charter should attempt to foster relative immunity <br /> from political pressure. The chief's job tenure should be based <br /> on performance, not personalities. One positive effect of having <br /> the police chief appointed by the commission, rather than by the <br /> Mayor, is that this shields the position from the electoral <br /> cycle. <br /> The Honolulu and Maui Charters' "statement of charges" <br /> language suggests that the chief must be found guilty of some <br /> kind of illegal conduct before removal is warranted. Your <br /> Committee felt, however, that the commission's justifications for <br /> removing a chief should not be limited to official misfeasance or <br /> malfeasance. The chief of police, even if a model of honesty and <br /> integrity, should be removed if he or she cannot effectively <br /> administer the department. This is the same as the job tenure <br /> situation of other department heads. <br /> Your Committee differed on whether the Charter should <br /> include some formal requirements prior to the removal of the <br /> chief. All agreed that the chief should not have actual job <br /> 763 <br />