It’s been a terrible few years at the Honolulu Police Department, and at the Honolulu Police Commission, which has authority over HPD on the public’s behalf. The focus must turn toward the future, to forge better oversight and more transparency, both from the police force itself and the commission.

The past, along with most of its mistakes, is irretrievable. But Honolulu residents can use their imagination: If the clock could be turned back, the commission could have made better decisions.

The panel would have conducted more stringent oversight than it had provided in recent years. If it had, it might have considered a shorter, or provisional, renewal of Police Chief Louis Kealoha’s contract, which it extended for five years in 2014.

At that point, the commission already was well aware of the controversial police involvement in a family financial dispute involving the uncle of the chief’s wife, Deputy Prosecutor Katherine Kealoha. The messy theft case led to a criminal complaint that ended in a 2014 mistrial and was the heart of the troubles afflicting the chief. And the episode has drawn the attention of the FBI, which is still conducting an investigation.

The commission landed itself in a difficult negotiating spot. It had, perhaps prematurely, extended the chief’s contract with high marks, and it’s tough to walk that back. In a settlement announced on Tuesday, Chief Kealoha will retire and receive, in addition to his pension, a $250,000 buyout for the remainder of his contract, set to expire Nov. 27, 2019.

This is a more empowered commission, with additional discretion in deciding whether to fire a police chief. Still, its choices were constrained under difficult circumstances. Loretta Sheehan, one of the newest members, was the lone dissenting vote in the 5-1 decision to approve the deal.

“I believe it’s expensive, unnecessary and very likely undeserved,” Sheehan said, adding that the commission should have conducted a for-cause hearing to decide whether an assessment of his leadership and management would support a decision to remove Kealoha.

The chief’s annual pay is $182,088. Add that to the buyout package, and quite a lot of money is involved.

Still, Max Sword, the commission chairman, argued that in the long run the taxpayer might be best served by moving past the incident.

The controversy has damaged department morale, so drawing at least a chapter of it to a close very well could be preferable to a protracted, potentially expensive and surely very public battle.

“The department has been under a dark cloud for the last two years with all this federal investigation and we believe that the police department needs to move on to get out from under that cloud,” Sword said.

Of course, the cloud has not cleared. There are other police officers who, along with Kealoha, are being investigated.

The Kealoha matter has involved two high-ranking officials in the provision of law enforcement and criminal justice in this city. The ultimate disposition of the case cannot be anticipated, but it’s long been clear that improvements on how HPD and the commission conduct business is desperately needed.

To begin with: Sheehan’s idea of an open hearing on issues surrounding the chief of police was a good one, even if implementing it would have been difficult in this particular case. Going forward, the commission should conduct its search for Kealoha’s replacement with as much transparency as possible.

And candidates for the post should know at the outset that they would be held to high standards. Yearly reviews conducted over the course of a contract need to be transparent and candid.

The next police chief should be someone with a commitment to openness and public accountability. HPD is far too secretive about the results of its internal disciplinary reviews of complaints against officers.

Police union officials have staunchly opposed disclosure of disciplinary actions taken against officers; objections have included concerns about the privacy and security of the officer and their families.

But the police are accorded great power in exchange for their mission to protect the public. And in that compact, the public is owed consideration as well. If officers are found to have abused their power, the people should be made aware.

For too long the Honolulu Police Commission has acted as a partner agency of HPD, but that is not its function. Amendments to the Honolulu City Charter make it plain that the commission is there to advocate for the public.

Now it’s time to redouble efforts toward that end, by doing a thorough and public examination of candidates to take the helm of the police department, which truly needs this opportunity for a fresh start.