HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-10 Board of Ethics Public Inspection PacketFrom:Dr. Paul Yang
To:Board of Ethics
Subject:Ethics Complaint
Date:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 10:07:33 PM
Attachments:Critique copy.pdf
Aloha,I am submitting a complaint about the Police Chief's Hiring Process, specifically the Police
Commissioners' selection practice. Please see the attached PDF.
P.M. Yang, PhD.
Feedback on the Police Commissioner's Chief Selection Process
Executive Summary
This feedback is an unsolicited review of the Police Commissioner's selection process for the
Chief position, evaluating whether it adhered to professional ethical standards and civil service
requirements. The analysis reveals several procedural deficiencies that may have compromised
the integrity and impartiality of the selection. The assessment is conducted impartially, based on
my scholarly research experience, my understanding of ethics and professional standards as a
PhD, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ethical standards. The opinion of this
assessment is intended to inform and educate so that future selection processes may be improved.
Government officials must serve the public interest with integrity, objectivity, and independence;
make decisions based on documented evidence rather than personal feelings; follow established
procedures consistently; maintain professional boundaries; avoid conflicts of interest; and ensure
all personnel actions are based solely on merit principles with proper documentation and
transparency.
The review process began with defining professional standards and ethical breaches as follows:
Professional Ethical Standards:
Professional ethical standards are established principles and guidelines that govern conduct in
professional settings to ensure:
• Integrity: Honesty and adherence to moral principles
• Impartiality: Fair treatment without bias or favoritism
• Transparency: Open processes with clear criteria and procedures
• Accountability: Responsibility for decisions and actions
• Objectivity: Decisions based on verifiable facts rather than personal feelings
• Confidentiality: Protection of sensitive information throughout processes
Indicators of Ethical Breaches:
A breach of professional ethical standards occurs when individuals:
• Show favoritism or bias toward specific candidates (public hugging)
• Make decisions based on personal relationships rather than qualifications (decision of the
heart)
• Fail to maintain procedural consistency and transparency (last-minute changes)
• Compromise confidentiality in competitive processes (fail to sequester candidates)
• Disregard established rules and protocols (no clear procedures)
• Prioritize subjective feelings over objective criteria (established relationships)
• Allow conflicts of interest to influence decision-making (public/subordinate testimonies)
Assessment and analysis of the selection process
1. Sequestration and Confidentiality Failures
Issue Identified:
• Candidates were not sequestered during the interview process
• This allowed waiting candidates to hear the questions and prepare responses in
advance, potentially giving them an advantage
Ethical Implications:
• Violates the principle of impartiality by creating unequal conditions
• Compromises procedural fairness, as not all candidates face identical circumstances
• Undermines the integrity of the competitive process
• Creates an opportunity for bias and advantage
Standard Practice:
When multiple candidates compete for the same position, sequestration ensures:
• Equal access to information
• Prevention of unfair preparation advantages
• Maintenance of process integrity
2. Absence of Structured Assessment Framework
Issue Identified:
• Unclear whether Human Resources was involved in question development
• No apparent rating anchors or rubrics to guide panelists
• Lack of standardized criteria for high versus low ratings
Ethical Implications:
• Compromises objectivity when evaluators lack clear standards
• Reduces accountability as decisions cannot be traced to specific criteria
• Undermines the transparency of the evaluation methodology
• Increases risk of subjective, inconsistent assessments
Best Practice Requirements:
• HR involvement in developing job-relevant questions
• Predetermined scoring rubrics with behavioral anchors
• Clear definitions of competency levels
• Documentation of evaluation criteria
3. Last-Minute Procedural Changes
Issue Identified:
• Commissioners changed interview time allocations without notice
• The alphabetical interview order was altered unexpectedly
Ethical Implications:
• Violates transparency through undisclosed modifications
• Compromises fairness as candidates prepared based on original parameters
• Demonstrates a lack of procedural integrity
• Creates a perception of arbitrary decision-making
Impact:
• Candidates may have structured responses based on allotted time
• Order changes can affect candidate preparation and performance
• Lack of communication suggests poor process management
4. Subjective Decision-Making Criteria
Issue Identified:
• Commissioners stated decisions were based on "personal values"
• Multiple commissioners expressed making "decisions from the heart"
• Six well-qualified candidates were recruited from distant locations
Ethical Implications:
• Critical Violation: Civil service positions require objective, qualification-based
selection
• Contradicts impartiality principles
• Wastes organizational resources and candidate time/expenses
• Creates potential for discrimination claims
• Undermines public trust in the selection process
Civil Service Standards:
For civil service positions:
• Decisions must be based on documented qualifications
• Objective criteria must be established and followed
• Personal feelings should not influence selection
• Merit-based principles must govern appointments
5. Confusion Between Verifiable Qualifications and Testimonials
Issue Identified:
• Selection may have relied on public and/or subordinate testimonies
• Potential failure to distinguish between verifiable skills and testimonial support
Ethical Implications:
• Compromises the objectivity of the assessment
• Testimony reflects popularity, not necessarily competence
• Creates an opportunity for bias and influence campaigns
• May not accurately reflect candidate capabilities
6. Public Display of Familiarity by Candidate
Issue Identified:
• The Interim Chief publicly greeted and hugged Commissioners before the evaluation.
• This behavior occurred in a public forum before the selection process
Ethical Implications:
• Creates appearance of impropriety and favoritism
• Compromises impartiality of the evaluation process
• Suggests pre-existing relationships that may influence judgment
• Undermines public confidence in fair selection
• Demonstrates poor understanding of ethical boundaries
Professional Standards:
• Candidates should maintain professional distance during competitive processes
• Physical displays of familiarity with decision-makers create perception of bias
• Even if relationships are legitimate, appearance of fairness must be maintained
• Candidates bear responsibility for maintaining ethical boundaries
Summary
It is with great humility and courage that I provide this unsolicited assessment to the Police
Commissioners in the hope that it may improve future selection processes. When well-qualified
candidates traveled across the country to participate in the process and then dropped out of the
running mid-selection, it should raise serious concerns about why. The selection process for the
Police Chief position demonstrated significant departures from professional ethical standards and
civil service requirements. The combination of procedural inconsistencies, subjective decision-
making criteria, and failure to maintain professional boundaries compromised the integrity and
perceived fairness of the selection.
For civil service positions, objective, merit-based selection is not optional—it is a legal and
ethical requirement. Future processes must prioritize documented qualifications, standardized
procedures, and impartial evaluation to maintain public trust and organizational integrity.
Sometimes progress is disguised as discomfort or inconvenience to distract good intentions; we
must always be self-aware and stay the course because public service is not only our
responsibility but our duty.
Paul Yang, PhD