Key Honolulu City Council members want the city Police Commission to reverse its approval of the use of taxpayer money to pay for former Police Chief Louis Kealoha’s legal expenses.

Kealoha is a target in a federal conspiracy case.

The commission voted 4-1 on March 20 to provide an unspecified amount to Kealoha for attorney fees associated with his defense in the so-called mailbox case brought by federal prosecutors against the retired chief, his wife, Katherine Kealoha who was a former city deputy prosecutor, and four former or current police officers.

By approving the funding, the commission went against the advice of the Department of Corporation Counsel, the city’s chief legal arm.

Councilman Ron Menor, who heads the Council Executive Matters and Legal Affairs Committee, and Council Chairwoman Ann Kobayashi wrote a letter to Police Commission Chairwoman Loretta Sheehan this week voicing their disagreement with the commission’s decision.

“These alleged co-conspirators are charged with numerous illegal acts, including misusing HPD evidence in order to support false claims of criminal conduct, and presenting false testimony and evidence against Ms. Kealoha’s uncle,” the letter said.

Prosecutors, in court documents, alleged the Kealohas and the officers framed Katherine’s Kealoha’s uncle for the theft of the Kealohas’ mailbox.

“Such acts cannot and do not constitute acts done in the performance of Chief Kealoha’s duty as a police officer,” the letter said. “Instead, the thrust of the allegations are that Chief Kealoha and Ms. Kealoha were acting as private citizens in their attempt to produce evidence and file reports that would lead to the arrest of Ms. Kealoha’s uncle for allegedly stealing their personal, residential mailbox. The fact that Chief Kealoha was chief of police at the time of alleged illegal acts does not convert Chief Kealoha’s acts to ones done in the performance of his duty as a police office.”

The commission voted to approve the funding after Kealoha attorney Kevin Sumida urged commissioners to do so during a quasi- judicial contested case hearing.

Council members typically rely on the corporation counsel to provide advice on whether charges alleged against a city employee occurred within the course of the person’s job and therefore entitles the person to city-paid legal counsel. City attorneys on at least two occasions told commissioners that the allegations in the mailbox case were not within the course of Kealoha’s job, the letter said.

The commission met Wednesday afternoon but did not discuss the Council letter. Commission Vice Chairwoman Shannon Alivado, who led the meeting because Sheehan was absent, told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that the commission received the letter Tuesday and could not have given the proper notification time for the public to be able to testify on the issue if they had voted to put it on the agenda.

Alivado said it’s possible the commission will take the matter up at its next meeting May 1.

Alivado was the lone “no” vote last month against paying Kealoha’s fees. She said she stands by her decision, but that she won’t go into detail about why until after a formal report showing why her colleagues voted “yes” is released.

While the Council has the final say on whether to approve the funding, the city is bound by the decisions the commission makes on such matters, Menor told the Star-Advertiser Wednesday night. As a result, the Council would need to file an appeal in state Circuit Court.

“My position is that before the city undertakes a lengthy legal proceeding to challenge the commission’s decision, it would be a wiser move for the Council to ask the commission to reconsider its decision,” Menor said.

The Kealohas already have been granted federal taxpayer-funded attorneys that were appointed by a judge. It’s unclear how the city decision would affect that situation.

At its March meeting, the commission voted to approve legal fees tied to the mailbox case but also voted unanimously to reject Kealoha’s request for legal fees incurred by a second indictment against him involving bank, identity and mail fraud. Corporation counsel also recommended rejection of the fees.