Recent criticisms about the actions of Max Sword, former Honolulu Police Commission chairman, and of the commission are misplaced and inaccurate. In particular, the Jan. 20 commentary by Alexander Silvert is unfortunately misleading (“A new opportunity for meaningful reform of police oversight”), though perhaps understandably because Mr. Silvert lacks personal knowledge of the Police Commission’s actions.

My statement on behalf of my client, Mr. Sword, was factual: He did rely on legal and budget advice from the city, namely the Corporation Counsel and the Department of Budget and Fiscal Services. He and other commissioners are volunteers, serving on the Police Commission as a public service. Their main concern was and is the welfare of the Police Department.

As it was, then-Police Chief Louis Kealoha and other police officers were placed on administrative leave and/or reassigned with pay after receiving “target” letters from the U.S. Attorney. Considerable funds had been and were being paid out to Kealoha (and others) from the HPD budget.

Because of the economic impact of these payments on the HPD budget, it was entirely appropriate for the commission to consider two further alternatives:

(1) Mitigating the impact of the payments being made to Kealoha out of the police budget and obtaining his resignation so that a new chief could be approved expeditiously; or (2) termination.

Presentations on the mitigation/resignation option were given by the Corporation Counsel’s office and Budget and Fiscal Services personnel. Members of the commission, including Sword, were informed by the Corporation Counsel and Budget and Fiscal Services that this matter was within the scope and authority of the Police Commission. This advice was passed on to the City Council by Sword. The viewpoints of the HPD were made known to the commission and its legal and budget advisers prior to the vote.

As chairman, it was absolutely appropriate for Sword and other members of the Police Commission to further consider the HPD’s payments being made to Kealoha, including mitigating the payments to Kealoha with resignation or firing him.

Silvert inaccurately said the mitigation discussion was presented as a “done deal.” In fact, pursuant to the negotiations which were known to the members of the commission with Kealoha’s lawyers, the negotiations had reached a point where a decision to accept or reject was appropriate. These two options were given to the commissioners.

The Police Commission considered the proposal, on a cost-benefit basis, and approved it with all voting for it, except one commissioner who believed termination would be more appropriate. One of those approving the mitigation/resignation option was former Associate Supreme Court Justice Steven Levinson.

The suggestion that Sword or other members of the Police Commission should ignore the advice of the city’s legal and budget departments, which are tasked to give advice to the Police Commission, is utterly ludicrous.

As a federal public defender, Silvert vigorously argued for the presumption of innocence and not to prejudge a case until the facts are presented. He should follow that principle instead of giving uninformed opinions.

Mr. Sword has had a long and distinguished career in the visitor industry. He has served in volunteer positions his entire life, from AYSO to various church, community, and educational organizations. He has volunteered his service to numerous governmental commissions, such as the Judicial Selection Commission and the Police Commission, whose vetting processes are extremely thorough. Why would he ever knowingly risk jeopardizing a lifetime of good work and stellar reputation when there was absolutely nothing to gain personally for him? His intentions were always for the good of the Police Department.

Though some may disagree with the action of the commission, we reiterate that we will vigorously defend Mr. Sword from this unjust criminal charge.