Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0272.011 1998-2000 d'.~tr ~ M~k~o Wayne G. Carvalho nu,~, Police Chief Stephen K. Yamashiro Mayor _ - . James S. Correa ~i C ~'i•`` Deputy Pa1ice Chief L..~ ~,~J ~'I ~ (~uixt~fg n~ ~tt£utr~~`. _ ~ POLICE DEPARTMENT 399 Kapiolani Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998 (808)935-3371 Fax (8081961-2702 December 30, 1999 TO :JAMES ARAKAKI, CHAIR, COUNTY COUNCIL AND MyEMBERS OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL FROM CARVALHO, POLICE CHIEF SUBJECT: SILVA, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF HAWAII, ET AL. CIVIL NO. 97-622 Enclosed for your information are copies of articles relating to the above matter: December 26, 1999 issue of the Hawaii Tribune Herald; December 29, 1999 issue of The Honolulu Advertiser; and, December 30, 1999 issue of the West Hawaii Today written by Warren J. Ferreira, retired Deputy Chief of Police, Honolulu Police Department. Also enclosed is a copy of Mr. Ferreira's letter of December 30, 1999 to Mr. Jim Wilson. WGCak Enclosures Comm. No. 272 ~ ~ ~I File N<,. ~p~ Ref. To: _p~L ltt . UaLs JAN 0 3 O~J~-- logic because in these instances [he 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, I[ is the chief's right and it - was a decision i}rat he would ultimately make anyway. Chief t'~tvalho's and DeMorales' actions, as a result, , did nc~t affect [he outcome of the selection process. The ~ C:91 interview was not part of the testing process; it was just another variable in the selection process of which the ~r~ chief would make [he ultimate determination. DeMorales' actions whether misguided orill-advised, ~ in the final analysis, had no bearing on the outcome of the promotions because he was not the person making ` _ ~ <\C~ the ultimate decision nor was he influencing the process `Cy 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 [o make selections as he saw fit then there is nothing [o explain. It is certainly irresponsible to advocate the things you are suggesting in your editorial without the benefit of an `Irresponsible journalism' appealprtxess.Yourrushtojudgmentdoesn'tspeakwell I read with some interest your editorial of December for your objectivity or as a voice of reason in the Hilo 2, 1999 reganiing your call for the chief of police to resign. Community. I must tell you [hat is [he most irresponsible piece of Please do your readers a favor and allow them the oppor- journalism that I have ever seen and brings discredit [o tunny to look beyond the spin and media hype and your paper for your clear lack of fair, unbiased and understand the true facts in this case. Warren J. Ferreira accurate reporting. Deputy Chief of Police (Ret.) Your use of inflammatory rhetoric and the call for the Honolulu Police Department chief's resignation is an indication of you and the jury _ falling prey to the hype and spin that the plaintiff's - ` legal counsel was able to put on the case indicating [hat it involved corruption and promotion rigging. You and thejury have lost sight of the fact that apro- motion is not a right. The tight existed to be considered ; for promotion and that was achieved by a written test admin- , ' istered by Civil Service. Beyond that, ultimate selection, based on the rule of 5ve, is left up to the discretion of the chief This is not something that the chief devised, but i[ is provided for in Civil Service Law. Civil Service Law, in its wisdom, allows depaRment heads [he discretionary latitude to make selections for promotion from a list of eligibles. Inferred in this process is management's right to exercise its authority. The unions and others would like nothing better than to usurp thaz right for their own ends. The bottom line is that the appointing authority, and in this case, the chief of police has the right by law to promote anyone he sees fi within the rule of five. ~ ; There is a heavy burden placed on the chief to pro- I mote people into positions of authority that he feels can work together to accomplish We goals of the nplire deparmten[. Merely passing a written test c~c~st't guar- antee that a catidida[e can fulfill [hire expectations. It is imperative that the chief selects a round peg for a round hole. r' To characterize the non-sel `eletion of certain officers in this case an abuse of powerts absurd. Furthermore, ~ to insinuate tha[.the officers we}e treated unfairly defies • 1UeHosoltdaAdvertiser Wednesday, December 29, 1999 • A9 t31G ISLE GLSE exercised their right of law in se- 'views are wnduded mainly to de- le~ting whom they thought was terrnine a candidate's poise, speak- Selection process ; best suited for a particular position ing ability and though[-process. It atanygiventime. has little or nottilng to do with not flawed, Ilot CO~TUpt To intimate that a process was whether a person has a correct an- rigged when the police chief al- saver. ~ ` I feel compelled to respond to a ready possessed the disaetiorrary Based on this, knowing what a ridiculous editorial by Yom' PaP~ authority to exerdse his preioga- particular question might or might regarding what is tieing ieferred to live to select someone on the writ- not be has little bearing and pro- as the'Big Lsland police wmrption ten eligibility list is atuurd. The call vides no advantage when weighed cese•" for the present chiefs resignation agoutis[ the factors mentioned. Apparently, your editors and the is equally absurd From all that I've read and all jury in this case do not recogrrize ' The process for promotion is that I know about this case, the inflammatory rtiddric on The part based on a written test admirtis- of the- laintiffs and their ]e al process is not flawed and there P B tered by Civil Service. No one was defuutely is no corruption or rig- wurtiseL' What is being referied to questioning the validity or appro- ~rrg of the prornotiona! exams in as corruption acid promotion. rig- priateness of this process. Once the estion. Burg is no mote than an exerdse of ~ test is given, Civil Service certifies ~T'tre only fault, if arty, of the vari- "management's ~ a list of eligrbles to the chief of po- ous chiefs of police of Hawaii It is provided for by CivIl Service i lice. For every available position, County, was for them to attempt to law despite the fact that the police five names are submitted and the ~ broaden the input process for what union and others don't wish to rec• ~ chief has the discretion to select was ultimately their derision any- ognize it The various police chiefs I someone from that list for the va- way. ~cY• Please do the residents of this - Whether an oral in3etview exist- state and the wanly of Hawaii a fa- ed has no bearing on the chiefs ul- wr and Iwk beyond the spin pro- timate authority to select aayone •rided try the plau>tiff's in this case whom he chooses from that list To and determine what are the true is- insinuate that the chief rigged his sues. own selection process is absolutely Warren J. Perrelra -ebstnd~ . ~ ~ _ peputy Chieto/Police, Retired From my,experience, oral inter Flonolmu aotice Deparnnent You -and the jury -were all wrong a'cx~:~~waux,M~yrTnuts~'tne~ytbes.3vt~wt: Editor: - ~ I read with some interest and ~ - - consternation your editorial in the - Wednesday edition of your paper Leers your call for Chief.Carvalho's res-~ - rgnation. - I must tell•`you'; rthat given the= ` _ facts in this case, what you suggest - - - is not only preanatuic. butimspon- sible, azwell. I You and thejury in this case have t fallen prey to the hype and spin that the plaintiff's' legal counsel waz t actions, as a result, did not affect , able to put on-the case indicating i the outcome of the selection that i[ involved corruption and pro- E• process-The oral interview was not f I motion rigging. part of;the,testing process; it was You and the jury have lost sight ;just another, variable in the selec- of the fact that a promotion is not a -Lion process of which the chief right. The right existed to be con- - would make the ultimate determi- sidered for promotion and that was nation..! ~ ~ ~ . achieved by a written test adminis- Francis ''DeMorales' actions tered by Civil Service. Beyond - whether misguided or ill advised, that, ultimate selection, based on ~ in the final analysis, had no bearing the rule of five, is left up to the dis- ~ on the outcome of the promotions cretion of the chief. This is not ~ _ because he ~ was not the person something that the chief devised, ~ .making the ultimate dccision or but is i[ provided for in Civil was he influencing the process in Service law. an unintended dircction. Civil Service law, in its wisdom, ~ 1 don't believe Carvalho needs to allows department heads the dis- defend his position nor does he . cretionary latitude to make selec- need to resign. if he was acting a[. lions for promotion from a list of the. direction 'of the chief and the. eligibles. Inferted in this process is management's right to exercise its ~ chief. had • the ~ authority to. make authority. The unions and others • selections as he saw fit then there is would like nothing better than to ~ nothing to explain. usurp [hat right for their own ends. ~ BAs you articulate in the editorial The bottom line is that the appoint- ~ there is more legal work pending ing authority, and in this case, the including a possible appeal. To chief of police has the right bylaw rush to judgmenl•before all of the to promote anyone he sees fit, legal maneuvering is completed is within the rule of five. irresponsible at worst and biased at There is a heavy burden placed best.:: ~ ; . on the chicf to promote people into - Please ~do.,your readers a favor positions of authority that he feels and allow them the opportunity to can work together [o accomplish look beyond the spin.andmedia . the goals of [he police department hype, and understand the truewfacts Merely pazsing a written test does- in this case. . ~t - n't guarantee that a candidate can 'Warren J. Ferreira fulfill those expectations. It is _ _Y,~ _5 Honolulu imperative that the chief selects a - - ' round peg for a round hole. ~ ~ - ~ , - To characterize the nomselection - of certain officers in this caze as corruption is absurd Furthermore, to insrnua[e that [he officers were - - treated -unfairly defies logic , because in these instances the chief had the ultimate authority to chose ' who he wanted. The mere fact that the chief voiced a preference ~ - beforehand in no[ illegal az is being suggested. I[ is [he chief's right and it was a decision that he would ulti- ' mately make anyway. Carvalhb's--and DgMorales' f0001 December 30, 1999 - Ivir. Jim Wilson Publisher Hawaii Tribune-Herald P.O. Box 767 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Wilson: First of all, I warrt to wish you a "Happy New Rear" and also thank you for publishing my letter to the Editor concerning the Big Island Promotion Case. Your comment in the article of December 27, 1999 however, regarding my letter leads me to believe that either you didn't understand the letter or I failed to explain the issues clearly. At the risl• of being redundant, let me explain the process again to bring some clarity to the issues at hand and to address your question, "Why put everyone through the promotion exam process?"" The promotion process involves two phases, the first is the written exam administered by Civil Service and the second is the selection of someone to be promoted by the Chief of Police. Periodically, Civil Service will conduct promotional exams for various positions in the Police Department. All candidates that meet the minimum quali5cations for the position are eligible to take the exam. Once the exam is completed, candidates are ranked on an eligible list based on the written score and a computation of their training and experience. Training and experience involve consideration for seniority, education and training. As far as I can determine, no one is/has questioned the fairness, validity or appropriateness of this process. When a vacancy occurs, the Chief will notify Civil Service that he wishes to fill the vacancy. Civil Service then provides the Chief of Police with a list of 5ve names for each vacancy for the Chief to select the best candidate. The selection process by the Chief by Civil Service Law, is discretionary as long as he follows the requirement to select someone from the list provided by Civil Setice. In every case that I'm aware oi; the people selected were from the eligible list and not picked out ofthe sky somewhere, as is implied. The Chief s responsibility in selecting someone for promotion, is to take a number of factors imo consideration that are not measwed or accounted for in the written test process administered by Civil Service. These factors include work, attendance and disciplinary record, attitude, command capability and finally ability to be a team player. It is imperative that the Chief select for promotion people that subscribe to his philosophy, his programs and his policies. Not everyone that appears on an eligible list meets these criteria. This is where managemem's rights are exercised. The union and others would like to strip the chief of this capability and force him fo promote everyone appearing on an eligible list. ..i. ~t~anaVVLA JL1.1~K111 ~~a2 Page two........ Let me get next to the oral interview itself The oral imerview is just another variable in the decision making process that the Chief needs to take into consideration if and when he decides to promote someone. It is important to understand that the oral interview never changed the names on the eligible list either by adding some or deleting others. If anything, all it did was change the rank order ofthe candidates. Since the Chief had the discretion to select any name on that list, the final rank order is a moot issue. The oral interview is just one factor and, from my experience, is utilized mainly to measure a candidate's poise, speaking ability and thought process. It has little to do with whether a person has a correct answer or not. Trying to infer then that doing well or poorly on an interview was the final or only determinant to promotion is ludicrous and absurd. The bottom line in this case was the plaintiffs and their legal counsel's ability to muddlc the true issue and that was the Chief s ability to exercise his discretionary authority. The Chief has the right to determine whom he wants to promote which is provided for by Civil Service Law. People were never denied the opportunity to compete for promotion. Whether they got promoted or not was determined by other factors other than just a written test, training aad experience. So, in answer to you question, if a person took the test, scored well, was rated high on training and experience and met the other criteria determined by the Chief, that person was promoted. To characterize this process as criminal, corrupt or fraudulent is patently false and absolutely ridiculous. Sjncerely, ~/j,%/ i Warren erreira Deputy 'ef of Police (Ret.) Honolulu Police Department (808) 926-4330