Honolulu Star-Advertiser

Wednesday, January 22, 2025 69° Today's Paper


Use full vetting for grants in aid

There is something inherently wrong when a system to vet applications for city “grants in aid” for Oahu nonprofits is circumvented — and Honolulu City Council members must put a halt to that dubious practice.

It’s easy, though, to see why they keep trying: Politicians look good if they’re able to secure large sums of taxpayer money for constituent causes. In the current fiscal year ending June 30, the Council tacked on $2.16 million for 23 agencies — only $100,000, though, will likely be released — above the $6.1 million already set aside through the standard grants-in-aid process.

That grants process is the result of a Honolulu City Charter amendment approved by voters in 2012 that sets aside for nonprofit groups one-half of 1 percent of all city general fund collections. With it comes a thorough vetting process by the seven-member Grants in Aid Advisory Commission — and a grant limit of $125,000 per request.

As a matter of principle, the Council should ensure all nonprofit grants be submitted for vetting by the advisory commission rather than inserted into the city’s operating budget as pet projects.

This year, the commission received 98 applications from nonprofits and 58 were awarded grants for fiscal year 2017, totaling $6.19 million. The worthy groups include the Blood Bank of Hawaii, the Boy Scouts of America Aloha Council and Special Olympics Hawaii.

Still, the Council felt compelled to add another $2.35 million for 20 organizations, one of which had already been awarded funding through the formal grants-in-aid method.

The controversy surrounding grants-in-aid unnecessarily pits Mayor Kirk Caldwell — who believes the additional funding takes away from core city services — against the City Council. Ultimately, it becomes just another political fight between the city’s administration and legislative branches that the public can do without.

Council Chairman Ernie Martin said the add-ons are justified, saying the one-half of 1 percent was meant to be a minimum amount for nonprofits, not a ceiling. But that doesn’t explain, or does it justify, why some nonprofits must undergo intense vetting while others do not.

Martin said Council members individually consider requests made by nonprofit agencies and submit an amendment for consideration to the Budget Committee. However, nonprofits applying for funds through the grants-in-aid process have their applications heavily scrutinized over several months, and the commission approves or denies the grant based on a detailed scoring system.

There needs to be a level playing field among the nonprofits.

To underscore his opposition, Caldwell has refused to release the money for nearly all of the Council add-ons for nonprofits over the past few years. Yet the Council continues this exercise in futility.

We’d prefer that the City Council serve as the taxpayers’ watchdog of sorts. Instead, its members are carving out exceptions when it serves their interests and skirting the prescribed application process.

There is no room for arbitrarily showering nonprofits with taxpayer money that should go toward public safety or road repaving. Although $2.35 million in add-ons amount to a small fraction of the city’s $2.33 billion operating budget, those millions amount to a circumvention of a proper process that the public expects for accountability.

7 responses to “Use full vetting for grants in aid”

  1. manakuke says:

    Correction of a long abused procedure.

    • allie says:

      Seeing the Boy Scouts on the grants list is offensive to many. City Council is not intellectually able to handle non-profit grants. If they want to spend this kind of money to reward supporters, why not give it to United Way and allow them to sort out where the money goes, demand reports and accountability, etc? I agree with SA that the City Council has handled the entire matter poorly. Let individual donors decide where their own money should go. Why turn it over the Council? makes no sense.

  2. bikemom says:

    Not only is it a bad practice to skirt the GIA process, it also gives the organizations false hopes of actually receiving the funding. Some organizations may be naive and think that because they are listed in the budget they will receive the grant. Some organizations could potentially make bad financial decisions. Agreed – the practice should stop.

  3. ShibaiDakine says:

    It’s time for the Boy Scouts to adopt a business plan and start selling cookies; and for the city council to start paying down the massive debt they have accumulated over the past forty years.

  4. aiea7 says:

    martin is the main culprit – granting money to 2 nonprofits of friends for capital projects. this is really egregious, why can’t someone tell this bird that it is not his money to give to his friends. everything has to be fair and transparent.

  5. ready2go says:

    How can we get a list of these non-profits which receive these grants?

Leave a Reply