Even though the allegations against suspended Kaua’i County Police chief George Freitas were openly discussed at a Police Commission meeting Nov. 23, at least one County Council member thinks the council shouldn’t have been kept in the dark with the
Even though the allegations against suspended Kaua’i County Police chief George Freitas were openly discussed at a Police Commission meeting Nov. 23, at least one County Council member thinks the council shouldn’t have been kept in the dark with the public until then.
Meanwhile, the commission has scheduled a special meeting for Monday at 10 a.m. at Historic County Building to discuss Freitas’ salary.
He has been on paid leave since September, and the commission is consider whether he should continue to receive his $69,000 a year salary.
The commission is planning a future hearing on five charges against Freitas arising from a formal complaint filed by two of high-ranking Police Department officials that he interfered with a departmental investigation of another officer.
Councilman Gary Hooser wanted county attorney Hartwell Blake to explain at a council committee meeting Thursday the legal basis for not informing the council more specifically about the investigation of Freitas.
Hooser also wanted to know what the investigation is costing the county and where the money to pay for it is coming from.
The investigation into alleged misconduct by Freitas is being performed by Honolulu Police Commission investigator John Ko. Blake said Kauai’s share is being paid for with Kaua’i County Police Department funds.
Although Ko’s salary is being paid in Honolulu, Kaua’i County is responsible for any overtime, plus his food and lodging.
Deputy county attorney Laurel Loo listed the investigator’s expenses, except for overtime, which she said haven’t been calculated: Air fare $1,104, per diem (meals) $1,900, gas $77, cell phone $69, office supplies $169, and hotel expenses $5,514.
The legal basis for keeping the council out of the investigative loop turned out to be more of a debate than the cost of the investigation.
“Because it’s an ongoing administrative investigation, I feel we are precluded from giving anyone information,” Blake said.
“This is a discretionary opinion?” Hooser asked.
“Yes,” Blake replied.
Blake explained that even though Freitas has expressed invited open proceedings, there were other considerations.
“There are others involved with privacy concerns,” including witnesses, Blake said. He said that at least two principals in the matter have threatened lawsuits against the county if their privacy is breached.
Blake said his judgment falls on “the conservative side” in interpreting the law.
“That includes even (not) commenting on anything seen in the press. That’s why we are not releasing information to anyone who doesn’t have to have it. It’s the only way to preserve the process,” Blake said, adding there had been numerous leaks throughout the affair to news reporters.
“It’s been a sieve,” he said. “The press has its responsibility to the community and we have ours.”
Blake did agree to seek a legal opinion to back his personal decision. And he said he would inform the council of the ongoing Police Commission procedures which will conclude the investigation.
Freitas may ultimately be exonerated, warned, suspended or terminated by the commission.
In 1995, the commission (then with five different members) selected Freitas as the new chief after a national search.
Staff writer Dennis Wilken can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 252) and mailto:dwilken@pulitzer.net
