When I was on active duty, I had taken the Commissioning Oath for officers a few times.  I was also required to sign NDA paperwork several times which detailed what I was required and forbidden to do regarding protecting classified information.

Apparently, just taking an oath doesn't make one legally responsible should they compromise or disclose national security secrets, be it from intentional or negligent actions.

Maybe we need a written agreement/responsibilities list for each government official to sign that not only spells out all their duties, but also the penalties should they fail to execute those duties.  Within that document would of course be the "protect and defend the Constitution/s" promises the current oath of office entails.

In today's lawyer-run government, nothing short of a signed and witnessed original document can effectively make sure the officials understand what their oath involves and requires of them.

Think about it. If the US Congress has such an agreement that included you can't keep your job if you've facilitated foreign spying, Feinstein and Swalwell would have been gone years ago.  I think Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be in the same boat.

Yet, they remain in office.

I mean, they don't have to spend that much. No need balloons and a DJ. Just take 15 mins out of other cops time so they can attend.

Guess they knew they messed up because there will be an official ceremony now.

There was always going to be an official ceremony with the press/public invited.  They did a private ceremony to fulfill a procedural requirement...without the Chief swearing in, he could not legally act as the chief of police so he could address some issues right away.  They didn't have time to arrange the usual public swearing in ceremony with all the pomp and circumstance with invited dignitaries, etc. The bruhaha over this was that the Star Advertiser made a bad choice of words.  Originally, the headline was: New Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur ‘Joe’ Logan is sworn in secretly.  When everybody got their panties in a bunch over it, SA quietly edited the title to say: New Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur ‘Joe’ Logan is sworn in privately.

obm is correct
the chief was not an HPD employee, so as acting chief, he was a volunteer
to officially assume the role of chief, he needed to be sworn in
this was a formality, and the official ceremony was always going to be held at a later date...

There was always going to be an official ceremony with the press/public invited.  They did a private ceremony to fulfill a procedural requirement...without the Chief swearing in, he could not legally act as the chief of police so he could address some issues right away.  They didn't have time to arrange the usual public swearing in ceremony with all the pomp and circumstance with invite dignitaries, etc. The bruhaha over this was that the Star Advertiser made a bad choice of words.  Originally, the headline was: New Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur ‘Joe’ Logan is sworn in secretly.  When everybody got their panties in a bunch over it, SA quietly edited the title to say: New Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur ‘Joe’ Logan is sworn in privately.

The fact that it was also useful to avoid answering difficult questions about systemic corruption regarding special treatment of family members…well that s just coincidental.

But it does give us options for keeping public officials in check.  Let's say the the 10-round magazine limit is ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.  Doesn't that open the door for HiFiCo/HRA to bring legal action against all legislators that took an oath to defend the Constitution and voted for the limit?  Each legislator who voted for the magazine limit violated their oath of office and should be removed.

I would say not really because one way that constitutional cases get changed is when someone passes a new law that challenges the precedent. Case in point, Roe v Wade only got overturned because some state had a law that conflicted with it.

I don't think having taken the oath or not having taken the oath ever made a significant difference in holding a public official accountable for a decision they made. At least I cant find an instance where someone got away with something because they could not be shown to have taken an oath. The oath is really more symbolic and would (hopefully) inspire someone to maintain a certain standard.