HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0272.008 1998-2000
December 27, 1999 ~ ~ ~ - ~ L ii F~ ~ 3
~~~i
Chairman and Members of the Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hdo, Hawaii 96720
Subject: Civil Trial - Hawau County Police Department
Gentlemen & Ladies:
As citizens and voting taxpayers, we are wncemed about the settlement and judgment of the jury in this
trial and feel that the Flawaii County Council needs to appeal this verdict.
We are concerned about some of the following items in the verdict.
This case was thrown out of the Federal Court after being found frivolous.
2 These claims of rigged promotions happened prior to Chief Carvalho's term
3 The claims for rigging tests and promotions happened during former Chief Guy Paul and Chief
Victor Vierra's terms.
4. Chief Carvalho was Deputy Police Chief and it was his job to carry out orders issued by the
Chief of Police Guy Paul.
5. We feel that Guy Paul and Vic[or Viers should be the ones to answer for these claims and they
should be the ones to pay punitive damages.
6. We also feel that the Chief of Police should have the right to select the people that are up for
promotion. Some people are no[ qualified to be leaders or supervisors even if they pass all
tests.
7. It is a big concern of ours that "FFigh Powered" attorneys can call people names, Gars, twist
facts and get away with it. We believe in our legal system, but feel this whole trial was a
sham and the wrong people are being accused. The jury was given confusing instructions and
led by false accusations.
8. We are also enclosing a article from the Hawaii Tribune Herald `Letters to the Editor' dated
12/26/99 which we agree with completely.
Therefore we feel that the Hawaii County Council needs to appeal this verdict.
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. 8c Mrs. James L. Jawbs
Enc.
J James L Jacobs
PO Boz 11188
Vo~ano, HI 967851088
Comm. No. 7a' . 0 ~8'
File No. p COIZ
Ref. To: r ~~OU~~t'
Ref. Date DEC 2 8 1999
logic because in these instances the chief had the ulti-
mate authority to chose who he wanted. The mere fact
that the chief voiced a preference beforehand is not
illegal as is being suggested. It is the chief's right and it
was a decision that he would ultimately make anyway.
Chief Carvalho's and DeMorales' actions, as a result,
did not affect the outcome of the selection process. The
oral interview was not part of the testing process; it was
just another variable in the selection process of which the
chief would make the ultimate determination.
DeMorales' actions whether misguided or ill-advised,
in the final analysis, had no bearing on the outcome of
the promotions because he was not the person making
• the tildmate decision nbr was he influencing the process
in an unintended•direction.
' I don't believe'that Chief Carvalho needs to defend
his position or does he need to resign. If he was acting
at the direction of the chief and the chief had the author-
ity to make selections as he saw fit then there is nothing
to explain.
It is certainly irresponsible to advocate the things you
are suggesting in your editorial without the benefit of an
`Irresponsible journalism' appeal process. Your rush tojudgmentdcesn'tspeakwell
I read with some interest our editorial of December for your objectivity or as a voice of reason in the Hilo
y Community.
'_2, 1999 regarding your call for the chief of police to resign. please do your reader a favor and allow them the oppor-
I must tell you that is the most irresponsible piece of tunny to look beyond the spin and media hype and
journalism that 1 have ever seen and brings discredit to understand the true facts in this case.
your paper for your clear lack of fair, unbiased and Warren ,I. Ferreira
accurate reporting. N ~ lcnb~w Deputy Chief of Police (Ret.)
Your use of inflammatory rhetoric and the call for the I{lr~u t t~ Honolulu Police Department
chief's resignation is an indication of you and the jury ; ,1 . ;t b -4 5
falling prey to the hype and spin that the plaintiff's
legal counsel was able to put on the case indicating
that it involved corruption and promotion rigging.
You and the jury have lost sight of the fact that a pro-
motion is not a right. The right existed to be considered
for promotion and that was achieved by a written test admin-
istered by Civil Service. Beyond [hat, ultimate selection,
based on [he rule of five, is left up to the discretion of the
chief. This is not something that the chief devised, but
it is provided for in Civil Service Law.
Civil Service Law, in its wisdom, allows department
heads the discretionary latitude to make selections for
promotion from a list of eligibles. Inferred in [his process
is management's right to exercise i[s authority. The
unions and others would like nothing better than to
usurp that right for their own ends. The bottom line is that
the appointing authority, and in this case, the ctuef of ponce
has [he right by law to promote anyone he sees fit,
within the rule of five.
There is a heavy burden placed on [he chief to pro-
mote people into positions of authority that he feels can
work together to accomplish the goals of the police
department. Merely passing a written test doesn't guar-
antee that a candidate can fulfill those expectations. It
is imperative that the chief selects a round peg for a round
hole.
To characterize the non-selection of certain officers
in [his case an abuse of power is absurd. Furthermore,
to insinuate that the officers were treated unfairly defies