The Honolulu Police Commission “lacks defined rules or processes” to meet its responsibilities, and the way it reviews complaints made against police officers “lacks full transparency and accountability,” according to a city auditor’s report published Aug. 29.

Police commissioners are responsible for reviewing the Honolulu Police Department’s rules and regulations; reviewing the annual proposed HPD budget and making recommendations to the mayor; reviewing the five-year plan submitted by the chief of police; comparing, at least annually, actual HPD achievements against the goals and objectives in the five-year plan; and evaluating, at least annually, the chief of police’s performance, according to the report.

“While the HPC has recently conducted required reviews of the HPD budget, it does not currently have a process to regularly review HPD rules and regulations, due in part to HPD’s lack of cooperation with the HPC’s requests,” wrote Arushi Kumar, the city auditor.

When commissioners decided not to evaluate the interim chief in 2022, it “meant they also neglected to review HPD annual achievements.”

“This lack of defined processes for each of the HPC’s responsibilities leads to inconsistent and ineffective oversight of the HPD,” wrote Kumar.

The commission was established by a special session of the territorial Legislature in January 1932, according to the city.

A Governor’s Advisory Committee was formed in response to rising crime in the late 1920s and 1930s, “pressure from community groups, and the handling of several high-profile crimes that inflamed racial tensions” and “diminished confidence” in law enforcement.

The committee recommended the formation of a police commission, appointed by the mayor and approved by its board of supervisors, whose duty was to “appoint a police chief and supervise the operations of the police department.”

Most complaints about police misconduct received and reviewed by commissioners “are not sustained.”

“They primarily focus on alleged officer conduct, such as discourtesy or use of force, and have revealed procedural issues like improper use of body-worn cameras and recurring issues with individual officers,” Kumar wrote.

The HPC sustains a “small percentage of complaints” that have evidence and sends them back to the department “for further review.”

During the time auditors looked at commission reviews of police complaints, the department disagreed with “many of the referred complaints,” which auditors surmised may be because of a “lack of common review criteria and limited commissioner training.”

“Apart from the required written response from the HPD only when it disagrees with a sustained HPC complaint, during our review period the HPC received no documented information on whether the complaints it sustained or the emerging concerns it referred to the HPD resulted in corrective action or responsive changes,” according to the audit. “Overall, the HPC has limited information on if its efforts to serve as community advocates are actually resulting in individual accountability and necessary improvements in the HPD.”

Kumar’s report made seven recommendations to the HPC and three recommendations to the Honolulu City Council to “improve the commission’s effectiveness as an oversight body” and as “an advocate of the community in law enforcement matters.”

“We will defer to the HPC for comment,” according to a statement to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser from HPD.

Audit response

Commission Chair Doug Chin, in a Aug. 21 response to the audit, wrote that the commission “always seeks to balance its Charter obligation to serve as an advocate” for the community in law enforcement matters with its parallel Charter obligation to not interfere “in any way” with the administrative affairs of the Honolulu Police Department.

“Commissioners work very hard to provide oversight and transparency into HPD to the best of their abilities, while at the same time acknowledging they are lay citizens, and not sworn, trained law enforcement,” wrote Chin. “We understand that for the safety of the public, these tensions were intentionally drafted into the City Charter, allowing for a form of civilian oversight while leaving the day-to-day operation of HPD to the trained and sworn professionals.”

In a nine-page response to Kumar’s claims, Chin, an attorney and former Hawaii attorney general, noted each of the auditor’s findings that either misinterpreted the commission’s responsibilities under the city Charter, mischaracterized how they interact with the department on official business or mischaracterized actions take by commissioners.

“Chin reminded the auditor that an important Charter responsibility of the commission “is to receive and investigate complaints by the public against the conduct of a police officer” and the HPD and to issue a report to the chief.

“The Commission strongly disagrees with the Audit that its ‘complaint procedures lack full transparency and accountability,’” wrote Chin. “The premise behind the finding seems to be the mistaken assumption that the Commission has the authority to manage the HPD and take action with respect to individual officers (besides the chief). It does not.”

The charter does not authorize the commission to discipline or recommend discipline of police officers to the chief, he said.

Commission staff “very thoroughly investigates all public complaints” and determines whether there is sufficient information to advance a complaint.

City Council Chair Tommy Waters thanked the men and women of the Honolulu Police Commission for their “voluntary, unpaid, civil service to the community” and told the Star-Advertiser that the group serves on “one of the most difficult City boards or commissions.”

“I believe that they have done a lot to enhance public confidence, trust and support the integrity, fairness and respect of the department, its officers and employees. I also believe Chief Logan is doing a good job and working hard to make HPD the best it can be,” Waters said. “Audits are critical in maintaining and strengthening public trust by ensuring transparency and accountability within our city government. They are essential for recognizing outstanding work, pinpointing areas for improvement, and guiding our leaders, departments, and commissions towards better performance. We take these audits very seriously because they provide vital information that facilitates exhaustive discussions and helps determine the most suitable course of action.”

‘Lack of cooperation’

Waters continued to say that he is “deeply concerned that the audit reported that HPD’s lack of cooperation with HPC’s requests” has contributed to the HPC’s inability to regularly review HPD rules and regulations, noting the commission’s work is mandated by Honolulu Charter Section 6-1606 (a).

“This is important because times change. What may have been acceptable years ago may not be acceptable today,” Waters said. Charter Section 6-1606 (d) authorizes the Police Commission to “receive, consider and investigate charges brought by the public” against the conduct of the department or its members.

“I find it interesting that HPD disagrees with many of the HPC’s referred complaints about police misconduct, despite the fact that the HPC only sustains a small percentage of complaints they receive. The audit attributes this to lack of common review criteria and limited commissioner training,” Waters said. “However, it is not helpful to the HPC that HPD does not receive documentation or information on whether the complaints generated through the HPC are ever sustained or rejected, which is also mandated by the City Charter. We plan to look at the auditor’s recommendations, and do our best to help improve both HPD and HPC.”

Mayor Rick Blangiardi told the Star-Advertiser in an interview that there is a real misconception “about the mayor’s office and its function over HPD.”

“We have direct supervision. The chief reports to the managing director (Michael Formby), and the MD reports to me. There seems to be some confusion with that line of authority that we’ve made very clear,” Blangiardi said. “I absolutely believe, strongly believe, the mayor should have the right to hire (the police chief).”

Currently, according to the charter, only the Police Commission, appointed by the mayor, has the ability to hire, evaluate and fire Honolulu’s chief of police.

“This is a leadership job at the highest level. When you look at the dynamics of operating a city, the leadership role of the chief of police is a top-tier position. It is the person in charge of public safety, (government’s) No. 1 priority,” Blangiardi said. “We have the responsibility for the people, we have the authority over HPD, but we don’t have the authority to hire. That is fundamentally wrong.”