Secrecy in police reports
It’s tough seeing government misconduct, which reveals the baser side of human nature. But it happens — whether it be corruption, such as in the Louis and Katherine Kealoha scandal, or other bad behavior that festers if unrevealed and unchecked. Hand-in-hand with good government is the need for transparency.
That’s why every year, it’s unsettling when Hawaii’s police departments submit their misconduct reports to the Legislature. These annual lists give bare-bones information about the number of officers disciplined and fired, and their transgressions. But what’s glaringly absent are the names of the disciplined officers, even those fired for serious misconduct.
In 2019, 67 police officers statewide were disciplined or suspended, 37 of them from the Honolulu force. Of the 15 Hawaii officers fired, six were ousted from HPD for offenses that included: drugs and alcohol that sometimes involved crashes; forcing a homeless man to lick a public urinal; and engaging in sexual activity while on duty “and under the color of police authority.”
State law requires that in cases of suspension or termination, government employees’ misconduct and identities be made public — except for rogue police officers, who are shielded by anonymity. Last year, House Bill 285 came close to removing the bad-cop carve-out, but died in conference committee amid strong opposition from the police union.
“The current law gives police officers a special statutory privacy interest even in information about misconduct that resulted in suspension,” the state Office of Information Practices wrote last year, in support of Bill 285.
A culture of secrecy abets bad acts. Most of “Hawaii’s finest” deserve utmost respect for protecting the public — but the ones who become trouble themselves, enough to be fired or suspended, don’t deserve anonymity.
Medical aid in dying
It has been just over one year since Hawaii’s Our Care, Our Choice Act — legalizing medical aid in dying — went into effect, with strict safeguards in place.
Now lawmakers are advancing bills to ease some of the law’s restrictions. House Bill 2451 and Senate Bill 2582 would reduce the mandatory waiting time from 20 to 15 days, and in some cases waive the waiting period altogether for qualified patients who are within 15 days of dying — assuming they meet all the other requirements of the law.
The bills also would authorize certain advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) with prescriptive authority to provide the life-ending drugs to their patients who qualify under the act. In light of the state’s shortage of physicians, this change is intended to assist patients without access to willing doctors, particularly on neighbor islands.
As expected, only a handful of patients — 27 between Jan. 1 and Dec. 26, 2019 — received aid-in-dying prescriptions. Of those, 19 died: 14 who ingested the medication and five who did not.
In some respects, the changes would push Hawaii into the forefront. Eight other states and the District of Columbia allow medical aid in dying, but Hawaii would be the first to allow APRNs as well as physicians to participate. And Oregon, which legalized aid-in-dying more than 20 years ago, is the only state with a law that allows physicians to waive the waiting period — a change it made just last July, so the full effects may not be known for some time.
Is changing the law an act of compassion, making this legal right more accessible to suffering patients? Or could it make the option less safe for patients who might change their minds? Lawmakers, move with care.
‘Public charge’ stokes fear
Immigrants who seek to become permanent residents of the U.S. may have cause to worry about how their use of public funds will affect that goal. What won’t be clear for a while is how much they will worry — and how that could affect the local economy and social services.
That’s because of a change in what’s called the “public charge” rule that immigration officials use in evaluating applicants for the hotly pursued “green card,” the document enabling immigrants to stay and work, long-term, in America. Immigrants who are seen as likely to cost the government in services — programs for which they qualify — could be rejected.
The change was made by the Trump administration but then put on hold while legal challengers, including Hawaii’s attorney general, pressed their case in the courts. But a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling means that the rule can go into effect while the full legal process continues.
Officials of Hawaii’s Department of Social Services said this week that they will do outreach to advise immigrants against withdrawing from programs they need — food stamps, for example. They also said fewer Hawaii immigrants are vulnerable to being deported so may feel less fearful than those in mainland border states.
Time will tell what the final outcome will be. The rest of the state should watch to see whether curbs on immigrant spending will have a ripple effect, too. As Americans learned in the Great Recession, those in need put what money they have into the economy.
