HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0272.012 1998-2000 \f
~._r. i
January 2, zooo ' 0~ J; i~ ~ 3 a~ 9 3 4
.
Council Chairman CC's"" ~ I ',-~'~r'~;!'~II
James Arakaki
and Members of The Hawau County Council
We were somewhat surprised by the jury's awazd to current and former police officers of
the Hawaii County Police Department in regard to a "Rigged promotional process."
Our surprise is centered azound the fact that the bulk of damages were allocated to two
individuals, Chief Wayne Carvalho and Deputy Chief Francis DeMorales, who at the time
of the complaints were not Chiefs. In fact for a good portion of the complaint period,
1989 to 1994, Wayne Carvalho was not even a member of the Department.
We were further surprised that damages to former Chief Guy Paul were minuscule, yet the
alleged rigged process was instituted during his term as Chief.
We are encouraged by reading a letter to the Honolulu Advertiser by a former Deputy
Chief of the Honolulu Police Department, Warren J. Perreira. (Copy enclosed). This
appraisal by an experienced law enforcement officer, seems to put this entire melodrazna
that we have endured into proper perspective.
It is our hope that, given the opportunity, you will see fit to appeal the decision rendered
by the jurors in Judge Riki May Amano's Circuit Court on Monday, December 20, 1999.
Respectfully,
Concerned Citizens
f.a
~~Mildred C. Mosher
Volcano, Hawaii
Comm. No. ~ ~ 2 • ~ ~ 2
File No. WtQ.
Ref. To:~ ~~N1~C1~-
Kef. llate JAN 0 3 2000
i>
71-61761toirde 99 0
BIG ISLE CASE . T_
views are conducted mainly to de-
Selection process • termine a candidate's poise, speak -
not flawed, not corrupt ing ability and thought- process. It
has little or nothing to do with
I feel compelled to respond to a whether a person has a correct an-
ridiculous editorial by your paper swer.
regarding what is being referred to Based on this, knowing what a
as the "Big Island police conuption particular question might or might
not be has little bearing and pro-
Apparently, your editors and the vides no advantage when weighed
jury in this case do not recognize against the factors mentioned.
inflammatory rhetoric'on the part From all that I've read and all
of the plaintiffs and 'their 'legal that I know about this case, the
counsel. What is being referred to Process is not flawed and there
as corruption and promotion rig- definitely is no corruption or rig-
ging is no more than an exercise of ging of the promotional exams in
is
"management's rights." only fault, if an
It is provided for by Civil Service onY any, of the vari-
law despite the fad that the police ous chiefs of police of Hawaii
union and others don't wish to rec- Count was for them to attempt to
ognize it. The various police chiefs broaden the input process for what
exercised their righfof law'i i se- w as ultimately their decision any -
lecting whom they thought was Pleasedo the residents of this
best suited fora particular position state and the county of Hawaii a fa-
at any given time. vor and look beyond the spin pro-
To intimate that a process was vided by the plaintiffs in this case
rigged when the police chief al- and determine what are the true is-
ready possessed the discretionary sues.
authority to exercise his preroga
tive to select someone on the writ- Warren J. Perrelra
ten eligibility list is absurd The call Deputy Chief of Police, Retired
Honolulu Police Department
for the present chiefe resignation
is equally absurd
. The process for, promotion is
based on a writteir?test adminis-
tered.by Civil'eivice. No one was
quest ionirig4lici lidity or appro-
priateness of ttiisproeess. Once the
test is given, Civil.Service certifies
• a list of eligibles to the ebief of po-
lice. For every available;position,
five frames are .sutimiftedraiitithe
chief has the discretion to select
someone from thattli`stfor the va-
cancy. :t; ..
Whether an- ora1'ir t&:ieiv eidst-
ed has no bearing-Sate-Thiefs ul-
timate authority,'to select- anyone tbat
whom he chooses'tmlist. To
irisumate.thet�thel't�refl leg Phis
wn. sele pmoeSe ifaheoh teiy
From my inter- '
•
•
•