Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0272.023 1998-2000 01.0$ 2000 !10\ 08:58 FAS 922 OOiB OUTRIGGER SECURITY ~ 002 January 3, 2000 Mr. James Y. Arakaki Chairman Hawaii County Council 23 Aupuni St. RECEIVED Hilo, HI 96720 Tlme..__._°--- B oate~------ 7`-~`_= - Re: Comm. 272.005 Counr~ Gauncil William Silva et sl v County of Hawaii et al Civil No. 97-622 Dear Mr. James Y. Arakaki and Members of the Hawaii County Council: I would have liked to attend your Council Meeting in person to testify on this important matter, but my schedule precludes me from doing so. This matter is of grave importance, however, and I find it necessary to lend an additional perspective to your deliberation on this request. I feel that the jury's findings were a travesty and the Chief and the County can only rectify this matter through an appeal of this verdict. My concern about this unjust jury verdict and the media coverage of it compelled me to write letters to the Editor and Publisher of the Hawaii Tribune-Herald- The letters that are attached explain the issues, as I see them, and why I feel that the jury erred in its decision. There is a clear misunderstanding of the important issues in this case and as a result, the Chief and County were found guilty of chazges that defy logic and basically have no justification. I would hope that you see fit to allow an appeal to go forward on this case because there is a fundamental fact of ma.nagement's rights that need to be reaffirmed. The Chief and the County have been unfairly impugned and require vindication. I don't believe that this is a case of throwing good money aRer bad because I feel strongly that this decision can and should get overturned on appeal. Thank your for allowing me the opportunity to express my opinion on this matter and I urge your favorable consideration of an appeal. rely, . .G...*~, Warren J. a eir Deputy C ~ o Police (Ret-) Honolulu Police Department (808) 925-4330 Comm. No. 212 ' 02~ Pile No. I 0012. Ref. To: P t<:F~UA)rt~t. Ref. Date JAN 0 3 2000 01.07'2000 ?IOS 08:59 F~.S 922 OOiB OLTRIGGER SECURITY ~ 005 December 23, 1999 Mr. fiugene Tao, Editor Hawaii Tribune-Herald P.O. Box 767 Hilo, Hi 96720 Dear Mr. Tao: I read with some interest your editorial of December 22, 1999 regazding your call for the Chief of Police to resign. I must tell you that is the ntost irresponsible piece of journalism that I have ever seen and brings discredit to your paper for your clear lack of fair, unbiased and accurate reporting. Your use of inflammatory rhetoric and the call for the 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 that it involved corruption and promotion rigging You and the jury have lost sight of the fact that a promotion is not a right. The right existed to be considered for promotion and that was achieved by a written test administered by Civil Service. Beyond that, ultimate selection, based on the 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 this process is management's right to exercise its authority. The unions and others would like nothing better than to usurp that right for- their owlt 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 fit, within the rule of five. There is a heavy burden placed on the Chief to promote 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 guarantee that a candidate can fulfill those expectations. it is imperative that the Chief selects a round peg for a round hole. To chazacterize the non-Selection of certain officers in this case an abuse of power is absurd. Furthermore, to insinuate that the oftcers were treated unfairly defres 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 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 parr of the testing process; it was just another variable in the selection process of which the chief would make the ultimate determination. 01.09.2000 ?!OS 09:00 F:11 922 OOiB OUTRIGGER SECURITY X00-1 Page two....... DeMorales' actions whether misguided or ill ad~rised, in the final analysis, had no bearing on the outcome of the promotions because he was not the person making the ultimate decision nor 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 authority to make selections as he saw Ct 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 appeal process. Yow rush to judgment doesn't speak well for your objectivity or as a voice ofreason in the Hilo Community. Please do your readers a favor and allow them the opportunity to look beyond the spin and media hype and understand the true facts in this case. Sin erely, F Warren J ei Deputy f o Police(Ret.) Honolulu Police Department (808) 926-4330 01.00.2000 )10\ 09:00 FdS 922 OOiB OUTRIGGER SECURITY 0 005 December 30, ] 999 ?vL~- Jim Wilson Publisher Hawaii Tribune-Herald P.O. Box 767 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Wilson: First of all, I want to wish you a "Happy New Year" 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 risk of being redundant, Ict 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 qualifications 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 experiencc involve consideration for seniority, education and training. As far as 1 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 till the vacancy. Civil Service then provides the Chief of Police with a list of five 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 Service. In every case that I'm aware of, the people selected were from the eligible list and not picked out of the sky somewhere, as is implied. The ChieFs responsibility in selecting someone for promotion, is to take a number of factors irno consideration that are not measured 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 management's rights are exercised. The union and others would like to strip the chief of this capability and force him to promote everyone appearing on an eligible list. 01.09.2000 )10\ 09:01 F.~1S 922 OOi6 OUTRIGGER SECL-RIT1~ ~j 008 Page two........ i.et me get next w the oral interview itself. The oral interview 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 of the candidates. Sinee 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 muddle 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 and experience. So, in answer to you question, if a person took the test, scored wall, 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. Sincerely, ~p i Warcen erceira Deputy ief of Police (Ret.) Honolulu Police Department (808) 926-4330