Appearing at a Honolulu Police Commission meeting on Wednesday — two days after a crime spree that spanned several neighborhoods ended with police fatally shooting a 16-year-old boy on Kalakaua Avenue — Honolulu Police Chief Susan Ballard delivered a tight-lipped report on department activities.
Responding to a question from the commission’s chairwoman, Shannon Alivado, asking whether Ballard could provide an update about the shooting, the chief flatly declined, saying only that she would consider the request when information is in hand that would not compromise the ongoing investigation.
Ballard’s terse reticence in this case is unacceptable. While not compromising the investigation, there’s plenty that she can — and should — share with the public, starting with articulation of how the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) is actively addressing community concerns and assuring public safety.
During a Monday news conference hours after the shooting, Ballard rightly offered some timeline details, noting that the spree involved a car reported stolen in Kailua. The same vehicle was linked to a car theft in Kaimuki, a purse snatching in Waikiki and, shortly before the shooting incident, an armed robbery in a Moiliili residence where victims reported two guns were used.
But after three days now, the public is due another briefing that expands on how the spree unfolded as well as an overview of issues to be weighed through the investigation, including recent HPD policy changes pertaining to when an officer may shoot at a moving vehicle.
It’s encouraging that the Police Commission, which has been criticized for rubber-stamp support of past HPD chiefs, is now opting for a stronger watchdog approach to its civilian oversight role. In Ballard’s third annual performance evaluation, released Wednesday, the chief “fell below expectations” in two key areas: leadership and management. The upshot, Alivado said, is that “the evaluation has led to serious concerns.”
To prompt corrective action, the commission put Ballard on a performance improvement plan through which it will monitor her progress for a 60-day period, to be followed by another evaluation.
While Ballard’s last evaluations included high marks for leadership and transparency, this year’s was drafted amid mounting scrutiny, such as a whether HPD policies were sufficient to prevent misconduct. Also, the City Council has rightly questioned HPD’s spending of federal pandemic relief money — more than 260 officers tapped to serve on COVID-19 enforcement teams were found to have violated overtime policy.
As police chief, Ballard is the public face and voice for law and order. But instead of explaining HPD’s problems relating to federal funding and overtime abuse, Ballard issued a video statement, which effectively shielded her from public questioning. After that misstep, another occurred last month when she essentially limited her press accessibility to 10-minute one-on-one interviews with news outlets.
Monday’s news conference about the crime spree, which apparently involved up to six suspects, marked the first open to all news outlets in months.
The purpose of a performance evaluation is to find out how a person can improve — and there’s always room for improvement. Through its planned follow-up, the commission creates opportunity for Ballard to set a higher standard for the public face of the police department. Ballard should seize this opportunity by taking constructive criticism to heart.
To her credit, Ballard, who could have opted to keep her evaluation confidential, made it public — as she did for her first two. How she responds to the latest review over the next few months could set an improved template for future HPD leaders.
