As transparent as our county budget process seems on the surface, several areas give us pause for serious concern — chief among them being its scheduling. Let’s start by looking at what’s happening now and then work our way backward.
As transparent as our county budget process seems on the surface, several areas give us pause for serious concern — chief among them being its scheduling.
Let’s start by looking at what’s happening now and then work our way backward.
On Wednesday, the Kaua‘i County Council held a public hearing on Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.’s proposed $146.29 million operating budget and $100.59 million capital improvement projects budget.
Sadly, few residents bothered to share their input on how their elected officials should spend their money. (As a side note, the agenda for this rare 5 p.m. public hearing was curiously absent from the county’s website where such notices are routinely published.)
The testimony from community members who did attend this theoretically important hearing was worthwhile. But what concerns us here is the almost blatant reality that their government does not care what they have to say.
This is evidenced by the fact that the mayor’s supplemental budget — a revised version of his original proposal delivered March 15 — was due less than 48 hours after the public hearing.
This scheduling gives the administration almost no time to incorporate any changes to the budget based on comments from constituents.
The council is put in a similar predicament.
With the mayor’s supplemental budget coming out on a Friday afternoon, council members have the weekend to familiarize themselves with any and all changes, craft alternative proposals if desired, and be ready to make presentations on such by Monday morning when the first of two consecutive days of final decision-making begins.
We’re not sure if the council just loves our mayor that much and is fine with whatever the administration proposes that they allow this schedule to persist or what the deal is here.
Some council members, such as Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum, have publicly voiced their frustration with the process but we haven’t seen any real change as a result.
By contrast, let’s look at Maui County Council. The mayor there delivers her budget proposal around the same time as ours, mid-March. The council’s budget committee then spends five weeks in late March and April holding almost daily budget sessions. (Our council has about two weeks of budget reviews, which, given the fact that our budget is about one-third the size of Maui’s, is probably enough time — assuming it was actually utilized well.)
Maui’s budget committee then passes its version, which, as in years past, was quite different than the mayor’s. (Our council’s Budget and Finance Committee made only a handful of minor changes, if any, to the mayor’s proposed budget.)
Maui’s budget then goes before its full council, just like in our process. What’s different at this stage is that the Maui council’s first reading of its budget bill is May 12 and its second reading is May 24 — as opposed to two consecutive days here with little time to review revisions much less come up with any changes.
We believe Kaua‘i’s budget process should be less hurried and more open to an influx of alternative ideas. The end result benefits from multiple minds having more time to work together on a shared goal.
Instead, our process allows the mayor to push through his version without any real scrutiny from the public or council. This year’s budget process is set up to conclude much as it has in years past — with the vast majority of the mayor’s budget intact.
We’re not saying that the council’s ideas on how to run this county are better than the administration’s. We’re saying improve the public’s and council members’ ability to participate in the process by affording them the resources to do so.
The operating budget alone is some 242 pages. Digesting all that information takes more time than the current schedule allows. (And let’s not forget that most council members are holding down full-time jobs while serving as our lawmakers and mounting reelection campaigns.)
Maybe we’re missing something here or maybe most council members are fine with the status quo, but we expect a more robust vetting of the budget.
Something is wrong when it takes more time to figure out where to let people walk dogs on a path than it does to pass a $247 million budget.
