There is a glaring disconnect between the Honolulu Police Commission’s glowing view of Police Chief Louis Kealoha’s job performance and the public’s perception of the Honolulu Police Department and its leader.
Last week, Kealoha, who is in his seventh year at the helm of the 2,000-officer department, received an “exceeds expectations” ranking from the Police Commission — scoring 4 on a 5-high scale.
Commission Chairman Ron Taketa cited several of the department’s accomplishments: a 30 percent drop in complaints against officers per 10,000 calls; an increase in recruit training and officer training for domestic violence issues; ongoing relationships with advocacy groups; and expansion of leadership programs — plus reducing overtime by about 8,700 hours.
If only it were so clearcut. For the public, those positives are tempered by some serious HPD situations that have raised lingering questions about misconduct, exacerbated by a veil of secrecy. Among them:
>> The 25 officers whom HPD fired or recommended for firing last year.
>> The 31 of 76 discipline cases in HPD’s report to the Legislature that triggered criminal investigations; domestic violence was the most common reason cited, noted in seven cases, and assault was listed in six cases, according to a Star-Advertiser analysis.
Other high-profile cases drawing negative publicity included a former officer being convicted of assaulting patrons in a game room while on duty; and more recently, Kealoha’s questionable promotion of a major convicted 20 years ago of terroristic threatening in a domestic dispute with his wife; the major later declined the promotion due to intense public scrutiny.
Most troubling is the ominous cloud over the chief himself, one that has only grown since December 2014, when Kealoha caused a mistrial in a federal court case involving his wife’s uncle, by offering unsolicited testimony about the uncle’s criminal history. Now, as then, the Police Commission has failed to pursue and allay questions of conduct and integrity, and that’s feeding public mistrust of HPD.
At least one key critic of Kealoha, Sen. Will Espero, went so far as to suggest the chief be temporarily reassigned with pay given persistent reports that federal authorities are investigating him, and his city prosecutor wife, in the complex case involving her uncle and alleged misuse of HPD resources.
“If there’s somebody that doesn’t believe Chief Kealoha is under investigation, they’ve got their head in the sand,” Espero said.
The Senate vice president said the Police Commission might be getting only snapshots of the department rather than the big picture. Espero has received overwhelming community support for his questioning of the police department, which indicates growing discontent with HPD’s leadership.
Compounding the problem is the limited power of the Police Commission, which hires and fires the police chief.
Proposals have been submitted to the City Charter commission for proposed ballot amendments, such as giving the Police Commission more oversight, including the ability to discipline officers.
One recommendation is to change the parameters for removal or suspension of the police chief for “cause.” Under the amendment, there are four examples of cause, including if “the chief has acted in a manner for the sole purpose of furthering his or her self-interest or in a manner inconsistent with the interest of the public or the chief’s governing body.”
Still, it would be one thing to give police commissioners more power; there must also be the will to use those powers. Unfortunately so far, the commission has shown an unwillingness to probe deeper into the police department’s — and the chief’s — serious troubles. Far from exceeding, that falls woefully short of the public’s expectations.
