The watchwords “integrity, respect, fairness” are on the Honolulu Police Department’s patrol cruisers. Unfortunately, none of those principles are reflected in the way the police force handles disciplinary matters.

Starting with the “fairness” aspect: The misdeeds of most government workers are treated as public information once they are confirmed.

But HPD? An exception unique to its officers among state and local employees is applied, one that shields them from public exposure unless they are fired as a result. Short of termination, any discipline that’s warranted and meted out is handled without the officer being publicly identified.

As a consequence there is no way to ensure that police violations are handled in a timely and consistent manner. And, lacking that accountability, the public is less protected.

The arrival of a new administration at HPD affords a new opportunity to correct this lapse by opening disciplinary cases to greater scrutiny.

There is a long list of cases that should have been handled with greater transparency. But one that prompted a lawsuit against the department and an individual officer more recently brings the issue back out for re-examination.

Last week, Honolulu Star-Advertiser writer Rob Perez chronicled the negligence case that Christine Soroka, now a Maui resident, is pursuing against HPD and police officer Clarence Neves Jr. The case alleges that Soroka suffered life-altering injuries in an accident resulting from Neves’ violation of traffic standards. Responding to a call, he was speeding up to 74 mph in a 35-mph zone; neither his siren nor flashing blue lights were on. Thus unaware, Soroka’s car was hit broadside, according to the suit. For violating six conduct standards, Neves received a written reprimand.

Due to HPD’s secretive disciplinary system, it’s hard to gauge that reprimand as lenient or routine. Correcting problems like this would require a legislative change, of course, but there’s an encouraging sign within the new HPD leadership. According to an HPD official, newly installed Chief Susan Ballard has ordered a full review of the department’s disciplinary system.

The aim, reportedly, is to make that system more consistent. It’s unclear what steps the new chief might take, but one of them should be to make it less secretive. Police disciplinary actions should identify the offender and become part of the public record.

The administration undoubtedly will run up against opposition from the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers. Testimony from the statewide police union in past state legislative sessions has asserted that releasing the names of suspended officers could produce a chilling effect on the officers. who may hesitate before making essential, split-second decisions.

But this is an era of increasing expectations of public transparency — owing to everything from the body cams police will wear to the mobile phones any member of the public could use to document a case.

In this context, the push to maintain this level of police secrecy is ill-considered and even futile.

There is some momentum on the judicial side in support of increased transparency. In June 2016, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the privacy interests of police officers must be weighed against the effect on the public.

In other words, the burden should be on HPD to justify why its officers’ privacy outweighs the public’s right to know how its tax-supported police force is functioning.

The only reason Officer Neves’ name is public is because it’s now in a public court document. In earlier years, cases arising from myriad offenses have led to termination, and those officers’ names have come out. However, these are departures from the norm in a department that has been walled off from the people it serves.

Only a shift in HPD”s outdated attitude, and end to this secrecy, will bring integrity, respect and fairness to the system. Honolulu’s residents deserve no less.