Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Settlements And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council authorizes multi‑case settlement after corp counsel and police cite legal risk; some members express fiscal reservations
Summary
The City Council approved a set of committee reports authorizing settlements in several cases, with corporation counsel and the police chief saying settlements protect officers from criminal exposure; several council members registered reservations about payout amounts and taxpayer protection.
The Honolulu City Council adopted the balance of committee reports (CR 378–382), which included requests for authorization to settle multiple civil claims against the city. Corporation Counsel Dana Viola told the council the settlements were reasonable because officers involved could face compelled testimony that might expose them to later criminal prosecution, and murder charges carry no statute of limitations.
The chief of police told the council the department supported the settlements and officers. In public comment, members of the audience and council questioned the ultimate cost to taxpayers. Council member Tolba said settling for $1,000,000 in one matter was a “hard pill to swallow,” and requested stronger judicial and criminal‑justice remedies to reduce repeat offenders.
Several council members recorded reservations on specific reports (notably ILACR‑381) even as the overall package was adopted. Council members who supported settlement said the city and taxpayers face greater legal and financial risk if cases go to trial and officers are forced to testify.
What was adopted: the council approved the committee reports authorizing settlements and recorded reservations from multiple members; itemized case numbers and committee report IDs were read into the record during discussion. The resolutions require the administration to carry out settlement steps and will be reflected in upcoming budget and claims reporting.
What remains unresolved: public questioners asked for clearer disclosure of total settlement costs to taxpayers; no comprehensive dollar total was provided on the floor, and council members noted that detailed figures may be constrained by legal confidentiality in pending matters.
