This is my limited response to the article titled “Good cop, bad cop” by Tom LaVenture wherein KPD Chief of Police Darryl Perry was interviewed. My response is to two specific statements made. The statements are: 1. “We, as law
This is my limited response to the article titled “Good cop, bad cop” by Tom LaVenture wherein KPD Chief of Police Darryl Perry was interviewed. My response is to two specific statements made.
The statements are:
1. “We, as law enforcement officers, are bound to adhere and follow the laws, rules, and regulations, of our government, and although I may disagree, there is little room to inject my personal opinion.”
2. “At the end of that entire process if the complaint is sustained and we find that the act was egregious, then we will move forward with dismissal.”
KPD’s Standards of Conduct Mission Statement provides in part:
“INTEGRITY — We strive to maintain public trust and confidence by upholding the highest moral and ethical standards, and are honest and open in our mission.”
KPD’s Standards of Conduct, Article V,C.16. provides: “Truthfulness — Officers and civilian employees are required to be truthful at all times, whether under oath or not.”
Perry’s statements cited above violate the mission statement and Article V,C.16. because:
a. Perry refused to comply with an arbitrator’s award issued on June 2, 2009, that overturned promotions made by KPD because the arbitrator found numerous violations of law including the SHOPO agreement. A few of the arbitrator’s findings included in his 14 pages of findings are: (1) “This Arbitrator finds that the oral interview portion of the promotional process used by the Kauai Police Department did not address these posted requirements for a candidate’s knowledge, skills, abilities or qualifications and was subjective, arbitrary and capricious.”
(2) “By not using the entire applicant history and knowledge and abilities, this Arbitrator finds that the promotional process was subjective, arbitrary and capricious, and not based on fair standards of merit and ability.”
The arbitrator’s finding was based on testimony under oath by members of the interview panel that included than acting Assistant Police Chief Alejandre Quibilan who was promoted to assistant chief by Chief Perry.
One panelist, while explaining what a “clearly exhibiting” trait meant or what “slightly deficient” meant, testified that there was “nothing” out there to explain it, and “I can’t answer that.”
Another panelist testified that he was putting his own spin or interpretation on the scoring criteria. The panelist testified instead of independent scoring by each panel member they collaborated when they would “sit down and check over the questions to see what we might miss, or a rating or something like that, how we felt the candidate responded to each particular question.”
Another panelist testified that the oral interview questions and answers could not be scored objectively.
(3) “The varied instructions on what experience could be used in answering the oral questions by each candidate and the inconsistent treatment of the candidates renders the oral examination unfair, inconsistent, and arbitrary.”
The Arbitrator’s finding was based on testimony by the panelist that all candidates were given the same instructions however testimony from the candidates proved that the candidates were not provided the same instructions. Perry was ordered to promote the three officers, which he objected to, and appealed the Arbitrators award in court.
b. Perry’s statement in reference to a county administrative review board that takes testimony from the officer and their union representative is actually an Administrative Review Board (ARB) that is established by a KPD General Order. The ARB consists of the Michael Contrades, Deputy Chief of Police, Assistant Police Chiefs: Alejandre Quibilan, Sherwin Perez and Roy Asher.
One example of the method of operation is: Chief Perry filed a complaint against a female officer on July 16, 2008, for not complying with a general order on the hair length of female officers. An internal administrative investigation began on August 1, 2008.
The complaint was based on a general order that Perry was aware of that KPD did not operate under because all officers believed it was revised 13 years prior to Perry becoming chief.
The investigation continued until the ARB held a hearing on June 28, 2012, almost four years after the complaint was filed. The ARB conducts a hearing pursuant to the general order, Section II.B.4.c. It provides: “Employees will be permitted to have a Union Representative present with them to offer advice, counsel, and may speak on behalf of the employee for a maximum of five (5) minutes.”
After the five-minute presentation the employee and the union representative must leave. Without the employee present an officer, usually a lieutenant presents the investigation report to the ARB instead of the officer that conducted the investigation. The ARB decides the validity of the complaint in closed session.
The general order establishing the ARB does not provide the standard for its decision based on due process. The only reference to due process is provided in Section II.B.5.b. It provides: “The essence of “due process” is the employee’s right to be given notice and with that, the opportunity to be heard.”
The employee is not provided with a copy of the investigation, not allowed to question the investigating officer or witnesses, not allowed to present evidence or witnesses, not allowed to be present during the entire hearing, etc. The ARB operates like a clear dictatorship and not in compliance with Article I, Section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution and the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution that require due process to all.
The end result of the four-year investigation was that ARB sustained the complaint filed by Perry. The officer filed a grievance. In step I and II of the grievance procedure KPD denied violating the SHOPO agreement and refused to provide any information about the investigation and the decision of the Administrative Review Board.
On Jan. 24, 2013, at step III, KPD was overruled based on numerous violations of the ARB general order by Deputy Chief Michael Contrades, Assistant Police Chiefs: Alejandre Quibilan, Sherwin Perez and Roy Asher. The officer was granted the remedy requested and KPD was ordered to make the officer whole. Chief Perry and deputy chief Contrades have refused to comply and the officer filed a complaint with the Hawaii Labor Relations Board.
The cost of the two cases to process and the additional cost to Kauai taxpayers cannot be found in the budget of the Kauai Police Department.
Based on the above, who are the bad cops?
• Gary Rodrigues is a resident of Kapaa.
