Be objective when choosing new chief

Few hiring decisions are as consequential or as politically sensitive as the one faced by the Honolulu Police Commission: the selection of the next chief of police. The resignation of one commissioner dissatisfied with the selection process was unfortunate, but should not be taken as an indictment of its fairness.

The predecessor in the job, Chief Louis Kealoha, left in a cloud of controversy amid accusations that he improperly used Honolulu Police Department resources in pursuit of a private dispute. Federal investigators were called into the case, and are still investigating. Kealoha retired, and secured a generous package from the commission.

The commission itself has dealt with the public perception that it had been too cozy with the chief, and indeed had given him high marks on his last evaluation. There was a lot of bad blood over the episode, which surely contributed to a deteriorating morale among police officers.

That’s why it’s essential that the commission conduct its search with some input from a relatively dispassionate source. Last week, police Cpl. Denny Santiago aired his concerns before the commission about corruption within HPD. This is just one instance that illustrates why the selection process would be improved, not hindered, by guidance from those with the benefit of distance.

And that’s the rationale behind the hiring of EB Jacobs, a Pennsylvania-based consulting firm, tapped to winnow the initial group of 24 applications for the post. Ten additional qualified candidates had applied but did not take a written test and undergo personal interviews.

It was the firm that made the initial selection, scoring the results of the tests. And it was the make-up of the four former police chiefs, three from Pennsylvania, that drove Monday’s resignation of Louella Costales, a Honolulu police commissioner since 2012.

Costales was held over on the commission at the request of Mayor Kirk Caldwell, who had not yet appointed a successor at the end of her term last year. Costales’s resignation came after she had expressed misgivings about the lack of diversity among the scoring panel, all four Caucasian men. Costales wanted a change in that setup.

Some of the questions concerned how the candidates would improve relations between HPD and the community. “What gives them the qualifications, the credibility to score that?” she asked rhetorically.

The commission was not persuaded to up-end the review process, and that’s a good thing. They correctly pointed out that the search already had been delayed when a previously selected consultant withdrew.

Further, Costales’s objection is not persuasive. The list of nine finalists does include a diverse selection of individuals. Even if the scorers are not familiar with Hawaii community dynamics, their professional experience would help them judge whether the answers given are well-reasoned.

The concept of “community policing,” after all, has been adopted broadly and is familiar to law enforcement nationally. The philosophy focuses more on partnerships between police and local individuals and organizations to proactively defuse the tensions that arise and cause distrust. Breakdowns in that trust, and the violence that ensues, is what Honolulu and all cities strive to avoid.

The selection panel seems equipped to help in the selection of Honolulu’s next police chief, one who will need to lift the department’s sagging morale. If the general sense within HPD is that favoritism rules, having some direction from those who can’t be accused of cronyism is advantageous.

The commission itself will have a near-final say today when it meets to select the finalists, bringing its more locally informed perspective. It’s a shame that Costales was willing to give up her chance to influence a decision that will affect Honolulu for years to come.