In February of this year an episode occurred in which our mayor sought to intervene in a workplace complaint against two deputy police chiefs, which eventuated in the suspension of the police chief. The exact details of the February police
In February of this year an episode occurred in which our mayor sought to intervene in a workplace complaint against two deputy police chiefs, which eventuated in the suspension of the police chief.
The exact details of the February police department incident have never been fully disclosed. It appears, however, that a female police department employee accused two deputy police chiefs of creating a hostile environment, the mayor wanted the deputies suspended and the police chief objected. The mayor then issued a suspension of the chief.
The episode was resolved after agreement among those concerned with the restoration to service of the police chief and the deputies, but the underlying dispute as to mayoral disciplinary powers led to the initiation by the Police Commission of litigation seeking a declaratory judicial determination as to the scope of the mayoral powers.
Last month, Judge Valenciano of the 5th Circuit Court ruled that the Kaua‘i Charter provided that the mayor is the “chief executive officer” of the county and is by virtue of this status entitled to exercise disciplinary powers over the chief. This decision is expected to be appealed. It is not the purpose of this article to detail the legal arguments that may be made in such appeal or appeals, but rather to consider the issues and the background that should be considered in the ultimate determination that may be made in this controversy.
The Kaua‘i County Charter was adopted by the vote of the people of our island. It represents the basic foundation upon which our county government stands. It expresses that the county shall have the powers for local government with the legislative power vested in the county council and the executive power vested in the executive branch headed by the mayor. Except as to certain shared duties such as the budget, neither the legislative branch nor the executive branch has powers or authority over the other.
Many local governments in our country have what is referred to as the “strong mayor” system. In them, the mayor is directly responsible for all executive functions performed by the county government. However, in our county the authors of the charter chose to limit the mayoral powers by providing for certain commissions whose members would be appointed by the mayor, subject to council approval, and then the commission would appoint and, if required, remove the departmental director. The functions involved in the commission structure include the fire, planning, and police departments and the water board. The principal offices and departments whose head is appointed by the mayor are public works, finance, parks and recreation and the county attorney.
The charter does provide in its article about the mayor that he is the chief executive officer of the county. But that provision has some obvious limitations. His powers only relate to employees and commission members of the county. There is no direct power granted over non-employees such as the people and businesses of the county. His appointment powers do not include the county council and the prosecuting attorney who are elected by the voters of the county.
Executive disciplinary powers are limited. They are subject to collective bargaining agreements, civil service rules and applicable employee protection laws. In general, disciplinary powers over an employee may only be exercised by the person with supervisory power over the employee.
The issues of the lawsuit filed by the Police Commission do not involve any question of fact. They are purely legal questions. One presents for judicial review the position of the mayor that by virtue of his status as chief executive of the county he is entitled to discipline any employee of the county or at least any employee in the executive branch in instances when the conduct of the employee does not conform to the mayor’s standards. The other presents the position of the police commission that by virtue of its status as the entity empowered to hire and remove the police chief, it also has the exclusive power to discipline.
It seems likely that the controversy arose from a mayoral chafing at the limitations on his authority and a desire to test them and a concern by the commission about a political intrusion on the police function.
Both the February incident and the filing of the lawsuit have generated considerable public interest. I have talked with a good many people on our island about the situation and no one has been neutral or indifferent concerning it. Most would like to see an appeal to avoid any inference of local influence, but at this writing the anticipated appeal from Judge Valenciano’s ruling has not been filed. We citizens will then have to be patient and wait for the mills of the judicial system to grind to their resolution.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
