I couldn’t disagree more with several recent columns supporting Mayor Rick Blangiardi’s position that he should have more authority to hire and fire the chief of police for the Honolulu Police Department.

These same commentators applaud Blangiardi for being a strong mayor. There is nothing wrong with being a strong mayor, however, a strong mayor is different from being a strongman mayor. 

While I wholeheartedly agree that the Police Commission is dysfunctional, the solution is not to politicize the process even further by giving that authority over to the mayor, but rather to fix the problems with the Police Commission itself. This can only be accomplished by passing Honolulu City Charter amendments which ensure that the commission has the power to fulfill its mission and to function free from political influence.

Blangiardi’s recent actions in apparently forcing Chief Joe Logan to resign and attempting to install Big Island Chief Ben Moszkowicz as the interim chief should be cause for alarm, not applause. This entire affair is not a good look for the mayor, making him appear to be acting like a strongman rather than a mayor who is decisive, but fair and transparent and who doesn’t overreach his authority.

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat opinion writers are closely following efforts to bring more transparency and accountability to state and local government — at the Legislature, the county level and in the media. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

Moszkowicz, moreover, is a strange person for the mayor to be backing, as Moszkowicz has been anything but transparent in his own department’s handling of the Dana Ireland case. In that case, he is fighting to keep his department’s interview of Dana Ireland’s now known real killer hidden from the public and is refusing to explain why he let the killer walk away, uncharged. Four days later the man committed suicide. The mayor’s support for Moszkowicz, therefore, is puzzling, since one of the mayor’s chief criticisms of Logan was his lack of transparency.  

Perhaps transparency is not the real issue behind the mayor’s support of Moszkowicz but rather gaining control over the next HPD chief.

I submit that rather than abdicating the Police Commission’s authority over HPD and handing it to the mayor, the Charter Commission should craft measures to assure the commission’s political independence and to strengthen its supervisory powers over the police department. And, if we are truly going to have an effective Police Commission, the selection process of its commissioners must be drastically overhauled as well.

The mayor currently has the sole authority to nominate police commissioners, who are then confirmed by the City Council. But this process has proven ineffective, as mayors have consistently nominated people to the commission who are their political supporters and who mostly lack law enforcement or criminal justice backgrounds. And even when a mayor appoints someone who is considered a reformer or activist, the mayor ensures they are in the minority.

As a result, the commission often does the mayor’s bidding even though the mayor claims he doesn’t have “ultimate” authority. Or have we already forgotten the dubious $250,000 payoff to Chief Louis Kealoha? And whose interest does the current Police Commission chair really serve when he failed to tell his fellow commissioners that the mayor was trying to force Logan out when the chair apparently knew for months what the mayor was doing, all  without the support or knowledge of the full commission?

While the Police Commission did not ultimately install Moszkowicz as the interim chief, it had no choice as the city charter dictates who is to serve as an interim chief when a chief resigns early. Had it done anything else, its selection could have been legally challenged.

Time will tell whether, when the Police Commission appoints a full time chief, they bow to the mayor and select his handpicked choice or select someone else who is equally qualified yet independent.

Amending the Honolulu Charter to give the Police Commission a broader mandate to supervise the police department is an easy fix. Clear, simple and direct guidelines need to be implemented that authorize the Police Commission to be able to “look under the hood” rather than to simply accept the chief’s assurances that all is well.

What is more difficult, however, due to the politics involved, is how to implement a system that provides for the appointment of more qualified commissioners. To accomplish this, there first needs to be a set of clearly defined criteria laid out in the City Charter for the selection and appointment of commissioners. Perhaps requiring the appointment of a mix of people who have law enforcement backgrounds, former heads of related organizations, and citizens. None, however, should be appointed if they’ve donated significant campaign funds to the mayor or City Council members.

Second, rather than the mayor being the sole entity who nominates commissioners, there should either be an independent body created with this authority, or the nomination process itself should be divided between the City Council, the mayor and a small blue ribbon citizens committee. In this way, it is far more likely that the commission will act as an independent body as it was envisioned to be, rather than a political foil doing the bidding of a politician. Other cities have made this fix; this is not a novel idea.

Blangiardi says he will submit a proposal to the Charter Commission giving him sole authority to hire and fire the chief of police. The Charter Commission would then need to adopt the mayor’s proposal and put it on the ballot for voters to consider in the November 2026 general election.

If passed, it will ensure the complete politicalization of the process. We should not forget that one of the functions of HPD is to investigate crimes committed by members of state and city government, and if the chief is beholden to the mayor, it can only lead to the corruption of that criminal justice process.

I strongly urge the Charter Commission to reject the mayor’s efforts. Instead, I ask others, including the City Council, to propose other changes to the City Charter to ensure that the selection process for police commissioners is modified so that better qualified people are appointed who are free from undue political influence. There should also be proposals that clearly define the powers of the Police Commission to allow it more latitude in exercising its supervisory powers over the police department.

But both steps must be implemented at the same time. Fixing one problem without fixing the second will only lead to further dysfunction of the Police Commission.

The time has come to take a real step forward toward positive reform, not steps backwards toward one-person rule.