Here’s a bit of history that might add some perspective to the issue of whether the Kauai County mayor has the authority to suspend or discipline the police chief.

This morning I was nosing around in news reports and court records of a previous case involving former chief George Freitas.

Two complaints were filed against Freitas with the police commission in 2001. Freitas was eventually found to have committed two violations of the department’s code of conduct, and resigned in 2003.

An interesting and possibly instructive legal case came out of the situation. At the time, the chief’s secretary, Jacquellyn Tokashiki, also served as secretary to the police commission.

In her capacity as commission secretary, Tokashiki received and processed the complaints, then set up the commission meeting where the complaints would be considered and maintained the commission’s internal records. She ended up being caught in the middle of the case. When the chief was reinstated at the beginning of 2002, he reassigned Tokashiki and later terminated her. She sued under Hawaii’s whistleblower protection law.

It was a complicated situation, and a later Hawaii Supreme Court opinion described how the complaints were processed. The complaints were filed with the police commission, the commission conducted the investigation, and the commission suspended the chief pending its outcome.

But here’s the thing that caught my eye.

A Star-Bulletin story in 2007, when the case was settled, noted that Tokashiki’s position as commission secretary had been transferred to the the mayor’s office, apparently to avoid the conflict in handling the complaints against the chief.

Freitas said yesterday that he did have Tokashiki transferred and did try to terminate her for searching his office without a warrant.

But, he said, she was never fired, since she went to court to block the termination.

Instead, Tokashiki moved to the mayor’s office and continued to serve as the Police Commission secretary until her retirement in 2004. The chief’s office got another secretary position, thus eliminating one of the causes of the controversy.

I’m guessing that the commission secretary may still be lodged in the mayor’s office, although the secretary would answer to the commission. At minimum, there’s surely a strong administrative memory of this arrangement, which could cause some confusion when sorting out the legal authority of the mayor versus the police commission.

Perhaps there will be more information made public following today’s meeting of the police commission.

The commission’s first item of business:

Pursuant to Hawai’i Revised Statutes, §92-4, 92-5(a) (2) and (4), the purpose of this Executive Session is for Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho Jr. to provide the Commission with a briefing regarding personnel and/or disciplinary actions related to notarized complaint filed with the Police Commission on 01/31/12, and for the Commission to further consider and discuss said personnel and/or disciplinary actions. The purpose for this Executive Session is also for the Commission to obtain a briefing and consultation with its attorney as to its powers, duties privileges, immunities and liabilities as they relate to this agenda item.