Max Sword has the kind of links with the Honolulu Police Department that comes with being a kamaaina — community ties rather than family ones.

Sword is vice president for industry affairs at Outrigger Hotels & Resorts; Tenari Maafala, the police union president, once worked for Outrigger. Some ties go back to childhood for the future police officers who once played on the neighborhood soccer teams Sword used to coach in Kaneohe.

Now his role includes some oversight, if not managerial, responsibilities. In December he was named chairman of the Honolulu Police Commission, a panel that lately has witnessed a lot of strain at HPD.

Some of that culminated in the March 1 retirement of the department’s embattled chief, Louis Kealoha, and this week the commission had a status report on the search to replace him.

Sword, 65, was born and raised in American Samoa until his family sent him to finish his secondary education at Punahou School. His aim upon graduating from Peru State College in Nebraska was to become a ship’s captain. But a friend lured him with a job at Aikahi Catamarans, where he became a vice president; then, for the past 30 years at Outrigger, his career redirection to the visitor industry was complete.

At 65, with two grown children, Sword’s attention can turn to his current goal to appoint “the best person we can find” to the top HPD job. All things being equal, a local resident has an advantage, Sword said, but all things aren’t always equal.

“You know what? I would like to have a local person,” he said. “But I would not be doing my job if we did not get the best person. If you had a person from off-island here and the local guy’s here” — positioning his hands to different heights — “are we going to settle for second best?”

Question: How do you think the philosophy and/or procedures of the Police Commission has changed materially since the entire controversy over former Chief Louis Kealoha arose?

Answer: The philosophy of the Commission has not really changed. We function similarly to a board of directors for the Honolulu Police Department, with duties that include appointing or removing the police chief, review rules and regulations for the administration of HPD, reviewing HPD’s annual budget, assisting the chief in setting overall goals and policies and receive and investigate charges brought against HPD officers.

But I do want to emphasize that we do not interfere in the day-to day-operations and administration affairs of HPD.

Procedurally, we have changed a few things — like discussing more agenda items in open session, but that is a decision I made as chair, rather than a reaction to the controversy over former Chief Louis Kealoha. We are currently reviewing some of our procedures and rules and may come up with proposals for future consideration.

Q: Some members of the public say the chief got too rich a retirement package upon his departure. How would you respond to that criticism?

A: The Commission has to be extremely careful when making each and every decision — whether it’s a high-profile case or not, as they all affect HPD and the public.

In Chief Kealoha’s case, keep in mind that we have to be aware of the effect our decision will have on the department, whichever way we decide to proceed. We must adhere to the basic principle in the American criminal justice system that one is innocent until proven guilty.

For us to remove Chief Kealoha through the lengthy process of evaluating and removal may have opened the Commission and the City and County of Honolulu to lawsuits. As a Commission, we decided this was the most prudent, expedient and responsible course of action to take, saving time and money as well as the morale of HPD.

We also added a caveat to Chief Kealoha’s separation package agreement stating that, should he be found guilty of any criminal charges within the next six years, he will return the money to the city. …

Q: How will the new language enacted in the recent Honolulu City Charter amendments affect the way the commission does business?

A: The Police Commission has always had the power to appoint or remove the police chief for cause, but “cause” was never clearly defined. … The Charter amendment now allows the Commission to remove the chief for reasons it deems appropriate. …

The other changes in the Charter amendment clarifies what the Commission understood: that it had that authority to subpoena witnesses, if needed, when hearing cases, and get a response from the police chief when the Commission forwards a complaint to him.

Q: How would you say the visitor industry experience prepared you, or assists you, in chairing the commission?

A: The visitor industry is affected by crime on a daily basis. It’s something we don’t like to think about, but crimes against visitors, particularly robberies and thefts, occur regularly, so I have always been supportive of HPD. …

In addition, I have been honored to serve on a number of commissions over the years, including the Judicial Selection Commission and the City Reapportionment Commission, among several others.

I have always considered public service a privilege and hope that I have been appointed to these commissions because of my reputation for fairness and objectivity, and working together, despite coming from different points of view, with my fellow commissioners to achieve each commission’s goals and objectives.

I also had the privilege to head the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) for all of Hawaii and the Pacific for six years serving over 25,000 players, and chaired AYSO’s National Games in 2002, the first national youth soccer tournament to be played in Hawaii.

As you know, I became the chair of the Honolulu Police Commission at an especially challenging time, to say the least. But after having served on the commission for the past several years, I was able to learn from my very capable predecessors, as well as my fellow commissioners, and bring in my experience serving on other commissions.

I never consider myself the decision maker, but as a facilitator for the Police Commission — but I can make tough decisions if I have to. …

Q: What is your take on identification of officers in disciplinary cases? Do you think it needs to be more public, and why?

A: Under the current statutes, disciplinary records are part of an employee’s personnel file, and personnel matters are generally confidential. This is generally true in the case of police officers.

In Hawaii, where the discipline results in termination, the termination should be made public. I support transparency through publicly accessible information and records, which is key to addressing the public’s right to know and to promote accountability of HPD.

However, I also need to stress that we have to walk a fine line when disclosing personnel records of any public employee with a high-visibility position, such as police officers. This can have unintended negative consequences and tend to be the subject of intense media scrutiny for purposes other than promoting accountability and improvement in police practices.

The policies — and periodic review of these policies and procedures — require balancing the privacy interests of the police officer against the public’s right to expect accountability, to ensure that the public’s interest is served.

Q: The Police Commission does not manage the police department; how, then, do you see the commission’s role?

A: As with any board, the worst thing the Commission can do is micromanage the police department in its daily operations.

However, we can, through the chief, help to guide the department by making suggestions, asking questions on policies and procedures, and, at times, even requesting further review of an incident or investigation. Such as we did requesting a review of the case in Ewa Beach involving a little boy and a day-care operator.

In the upcoming weeks and months, the Commission will be going through the rigorous process of selecting the new chief of police. I assure you we will continue to work hard and do our best to appoint the candidate who will serve HPD and the public well, now and in the long term.