The lesson of the police chief ' s selection

The process by which Louis Kealoha was selected to be Honolulu police chief makes me rethink my view about "the appearance of impropriety" versus actual impropriety. To explain, let's start with a common situation involving motorists and traffic cops. When you're ticketed for running a red light, you might challenge it by telling a judge that the light was still amber as you crossed under it. Absent a traffic cam, it's your word versus the officer's. But in many places it's illegal to cross an intersection when the light is yellow. The idea is not to cite people for running a yellow light, but to remove the opportunity for argument when you run a red light. Someone wants to simplify the system and eliminate a lot of fuss. Similarly, in many states it is illegal to cut across a parking lot to evade a red light. I've never been a fan of slamming someone for "the appearance of impropriety" because, in my years in Washington, I saw appearances used to slam people who hadn't actually done anything improper. For years I've said we should worry less about the appearance of impropriety and more about impropriety. The Honolulu Police Commission acted questionably, even suspiciously, though not necessarily improperly, by altering its procedure for choosing a new chief in the middle of choosing one. At the point in the process where it customarily weeds out candidates to focus on the four highest-scoring candidates, the commission chose instead to consider the six highest, a change which incidentally put the only female candidate into the finals. Christine Camp, the businesswoman who chairs the commission, has since said it was her idea. She told the City Council she thought more choices would be better. Trouble arose as soon as it was heard that the process had been altered while it was still going on. Suspicion arose that commission members were gaming the system to influence the outcome. The most widespread speculation was that La Camp was manipulating the process in favor of the female candidate. Camp says choosing a woman on anything other than merit would fly in the face of everything she believes. Having interviewed her a few times over the years, I find that credible. In the event, the commission chose Kealoha, who was one of the top four. One could suggest that this settles everything, proving nothing improper was intended, but I've already heard two people speculate that the commission dropped a plan to choose the female candidate when the flap arose. Let's sort out what we know for sure, as opposed to what we may think we know. We don't know if the change in procedure was back-engineered to facilitate an outcome. We don't know if someone had an ulterior motive. So what do we know? We know for sure that government processes have been gamed in the past. People are suspicious in new situations because of what is known to have happened in past situations. And we know this is not Christine Camp's fault. She didn't cut corners on Superferry, for example. But we also know that it is human nature to be suspicious of anything government does. I can let a glib dismissal by Camp pass if she's simply embarrassed by the flap and hopes it will blow over, which it well may. But neither she nor any of us should miss the lesson here, which is that any change of procedure when a procedure is already underway will inevitably be interpreted in the most negative light by those outside the process, and a reasonable view of these things compels a personal policy of leaving a process alone to avoid loss of faith in the process. Fix it before next time, if you want, sure, but don't change it in mid-stream. The hassle of public suspicion and doubt is a bigger problem than any failing of the original pocedure was. Why do something whose principal effect is to make people think you cut across a parking lot to dodge a light?

Comments

[Moani]

Open message to Christine Camp: I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your decision to add 2 more persons to the final candidate list was a well-intentioned one. However, after watching this evening's news interview of Asst. Chief Tandal the pain your ill-conceived decision had on her her family, convinces me to agree with Howard Dicus. Don't change the rules midstream, just because you can.

[Michael]

Her choice should have been put on a waiting list for moderation.