The Honolulu Police Department asserts its mission as protecting the public.
The Honolulu Police Commission has a similar purpose, pursued in a different way. It represents the public interest, looking into complaints lodged against HPD, holding the department accountable, seeing that it’s run ethically.
Honolulu voters have a chance to give the commission greater authority by approving a proposed amendment to the Honolulu City Charter, giving the commission expanded authority. It tops the list of 20 amendments that will be on the general election ballot Nov. 8.
Voters should ratify proposed Amendment No. 1: There’s never been greater need for the commission to perform its role aggressively. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported on HPD’s record of lax disciplinary consequences for police misconduct, and more oversight is needed.
But the most high-profile case is an ongoing federal investigation involving Chief Louis Kealoha and his wife, city Deputy Prosecutor Katherine Kealoha. The probe was triggered by the chief’s handling of a now-notorious case, an alleged mailbox theft. That incident reportedly arose from a family dispute involving his wife’s uncle.
However that investigation turns out, there’s responsibility at the city level to do its own due diligence, and it lies with the Police Commission.
Fulfilling the responsibility requires the will to dig beneath the surface when a problem arises, and not just when the public brings it to commissioners directly.
The proposed fix would be to amend the Honolulu City Charter to provide additional investigatory tools to the commission in this work. Whether there’s the will to use them to full advantage remains to be seen, but at least it would be equipped to perform its public watchdog function.
There are actually two amendments aimed at HPD accountability, and both deserve to be adopted. The other proposal — Amendment No. 20 — is part of a set of “housekeeping” revisions, but it’s an important one.
It would allow the public inspection of books and records for all agencies, including those of the Honolulu Police Department and the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. Both are explicitly exempted from the open-records law.
Enabling the public to access those documents would be consistent with, and is critical to, the transparency that helps to assure good government.
But the Police Commission needs enhanced capabilities, too, as outlined in Charter Amendment 1, which also would:
>> Allow the Police Commission to remove or suspend the chief of police before the end of the chief’s appointed five-year term “for any reason, including behavior inconsistent with the interests of the public or the city.”
>> Empower the commission to subpoena witnesses and require evidence to be produced for an investigation.
The chief would have to provide in writing the reasons for any disagreement with a commission recommendation.
Loretta Sheehan, the newest appointment to the Police Commission, has spoken out in favor of these changes as necessary to help the panel meet its mandate, and said the residents of Honolulu have demanded the change.
“The public has made its voice heard,” Sheehan said in a recent interview.
She’s right, and it’s time for that voice to be heard again — at the ballot box.
