������Ƶ

Of the 20 proposed amendments to the City and County of Honolulu charter set to go before voters this fall, one in particular stands out in its simplicity, timeliness and lasting value: , which would substantially expand the authority of the Honolulu Police Commission.

Specifically and most significantly, the amendment would expand the commission’s authority to remove or suspend the police chief at any time and make it clear that the chief serves at the pleasure of the commission.

If the amendment stopped there, it would be well worth your support, but thankfully it goes further.

Amendment 1 would also require the police chief to submit in writing any reasons for disagreement with a finding of the commission, which would then be included in a summary of charges and findings in the commission’s annual report. And it would strengthen the commission’s investigatory powers in police misconduct matters, authorizing it to issue subpoenas and require witness attendance and production of evidence as part of any investigation.

The commission has been ineffectual, at best, in critical matters in recent years. It has both denied the existence of and refused to act on the ongoing federal investigation of Police Chief Louis Kealoha, for instance. Despite that inquiry, the chief’s involvement in a bizarre legal case that featured the theft of his mailbox and numerous lapses in judgment, the commission has rewarded Kealoha with annual job reviews inexplicably indicating his performance consistently exceeds expectations.

Thanks in part to the commission’s laissez faire attitude toward police misconduct, such offenses seem to have flourished. The City Council earlier this year authorized a $4.7 million settlement in a deeply troubling gender and racial discrimination case in addition to nearly $1 million it had already approved for legal fees in the matter. That case included an outrageous incident in which a female officer was allowed to go into a bar without backup, even though her colleagues knew a dangerous, likely armed felon would be there. She was subsequently injured and is now permanently disabled.

Kealoha was named in the suit along with more than a dozen other current and former staff members, none of whom has been disciplined by the commission.

Thanks in part to the commission’s laissez faire attitude toward police misconduct, such offenses seem to have flourished.

Even when the commission has summoned its nerve to act, the inadequacy of its authority allows the police chief to simply ignore it. That was the case when a group of eight officers zeroed in on two hikers, mistaking them for criminal suspects, and violently beat them, sending one to the hospital with serious injuries.

The city had to pay nearly $170,000 to settle that matter. When the commission found that all eight engaged in “conduct unbecoming an officer” and two guilty of excessive force, Kealoha simply brushed the findings aside and meted out no discipline.

While the commission without question needs more muscle to effectively fulfill its oversight mission, we have no confidence that the group’s current members will make good use of that authority. They have been not only feckless in their , the volunteer commissioners have been silent as the grave in the process, rarely speaking out on even the most outrageous matters.

With the exception of new member Loretta Sheehan, the commission under the leadership of Chair Ron Taketa — who continues to serve, even though his term formally ran out in December 2015 — has more often reminded us of the infamous words of 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot’s running mate, Admiral James Stockdale: “Who am I? Why am I here?”

The next mayor — whether it’s a re-elected Caldwell or challenger Charles Djou — will have the chance to replace Taketa and bring new leadership and life to an important oversight body in desperate need of both. If and when that happens, the commission will still need more authority than it currently possesses to bring order to the nation’s 20th largest police department.

Voters can’t force the commission to act. But they can provide a stronger position for the commission to act and maybe there will be some meaningful consequences. That’s the promise of Amendment 1, and voters should approve it with enthusiasm this November.