On a basic level, I believe that disciplinary actions imposed upon an employee should be confidential unless criminal charges resulting in conviction are involved.
Understandably, the public has placed a greater responsibility and given more authority and discretion to police officers. Therefore they should be held to a higher standard.
Yet, if the Honolulu Police Department has not found the acts to warrant criminal charges, then what is the point of printing the individual officer's name in the newspaper?
The only apparent reason to do so would be to embarrass and make an example of the person to prevent or deter repetition of the offense and to push the Police Department to take steps to correct the problem.
In typical work environments, when there is an employee problem, it is managers who are held accountable. I agree that the public has a right to know the type of incidences and the serious nature of the offenses. However, any action against the employee for misconduct should fall within the jurisdiction of the "employer," which in this case is the Police Department, and not the public.
When an individual in a private business commits a wrongful but non-criminal act, does the public demand to know who this individual is? Generally not. Instead it wants to know what the business is going to do to prevent the recurrence of the incident.
Therefore, if there are complaints about police misconduct, the plaintiffs should be addressing their concerns to the Police Department or to the Honolulu Police Commission and not the individual officers.
Also, I personally feel that attorney Jeff Portnoy's statement to the press that "we pay their salaries . . . as their employer shouldn't we be entitled to know who they are?" is ridiculous.
When you patronize a particular grocery store, your money in essence pays the store's employee's salary. Does that give you the right to know what is in the employee's personnel records?
Just because an individual is employed by the government, why should he or she have to give up his or her right to confidentiality that is granted to any other employee in the private sector?
Furthermore, the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers expressed concerns that in addition to the "serious violations," the information released would include minor incidences such as failing to file reports on time and that the public disclosure of this information would be humiliating for not only the officers, but the officers' families.
The public was assured that the plaintiffs were not interested in these minor events, yet exactly what SHOPO feared occurred. The Star-Bulletin printed a list of officers and their violations which included: not being present for line-up, failure to submit a report that was due, failure to appear in court.
While I believe these infractions deserved disciplinary action, the printing of their names was unwarranted.
The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the Police Department was required to provide the information being requested by the University of Hawaii chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. However, it is up to the media to determine what information should be released.
On the positive side, the Star-Bulletin did note that "the number disciplined compared to the nearly 2,000 in the department is 'certainly a small percentage.' " I hope the public remembers that, every day, our officers literally put their lives on the line for us.
Their base salaries are comparable to beginning teachers' wages. Just as we support our teachers in their effort to improve our educational system, I hope the public will learn to be more supportive of our officers who are committed to maintaining public safety in an increasingly violent climate.