Revenue for land conservation in Hawaii is almost as precious as the land itself. But as much as creation of the Legacy Land Conservation Program was a welcome addition to the state’s tools for stewardship, an official critique citing the program’s poor management is not welcome news, signalling a need to correct course quickly.

The audit listed problems such as: the lack of a required strategic plan; a growing unspent cash balance; improper financial management practices; and weak administration, “hindering effectiveness, transparency and accountability.” These are missteps that the state Legislature ought to review after it convenes on Wednesday.

The analysis came last week in an official report from the Office of the Auditor, which found the state Department of Land and Natural Resources lacking in how it managed the program and the Land Conservation Fund. This cache, replenished by the investment of a 10 percent share of state conveyance tax money, provides the funds for grants awarded after review by a nine-member Legacy Land Commission.

For its part, DLNR defended the program’s accomplishments and ascribed most of the problems identified by Auditor Les Kondo and staff to a year-long period in 2016-17. At that time, DLNR Director Suzanne Case wrote in the official agency response, the program’s administrator post and two other staff positions were unfilled, and leadership generally overseeing the program was in transition.

The report was met with an outpouring of testimonials from the defenders of the fund, primarily community-based and environmental groups that have had projects selected to receive grants from the fund. Among numerous acquisitions cited as beneficiaries are the Hawea Heiau Complex, the Ka Iwi Coast and the large Turtle Bay preservation project.

Since 2005, when the program obtained a dedicated source of funding, it has completed 30 acquisitions (viewable online at dlnr.hawaii.gov/ecosystems/llcp/projects), closing each deal within 1-5 years of funding approval, Case wrote. The fund also draws much more than the required amounts in matching funds from outside sources.

The program “performs in a rigorous, transparent, and cost-effective manner that maximizes return on state investments,” she added.

It’s difficult to square that assertion, however, with the shortcomings Kondo highlighted.

The program was fully launched after 2006 when the Legislature established the Legacy Land Conservation Commission to work on distributing available grant funding.

Among the most disturbing flaws in program operations is that, about a dozen years after it gained its dedicated source of funds, there is still no strategic plan, which the enabling legislation mandated to be created. According to the audit, the program manager said it was not a priority.

Suffice it to say, the whole reason the plan was a legislative mandate is that lawmakers rightly believed that this would provide guidance to the commission that decides which acquisition deserves the most immediate attention.

Further, there is a lack of basic recordkeeping practices: The department could not produce documents that grant recipients are required to file every two years. There was a lapse in $2.2 million in grant funding due to the failure to encumber the money on a timely basis.

Finally, DLNR maintains that it consulted with state ethics officials in contracting with a consultant as fulfilling procurement requirements. But three consecutive purchase orders for $4,999.50 each, just 50 cents below the threshold to comply with small-purchase rules, show the willful favoring of a familiar consultant — and that leaves the public with little confidence in a fair process.

Even the fund’s avid supporters, such as those who penned the commentary on the opposite page, express hope that the program will “thrive and improve.” The state audit makes it clear how much room for improvement there is.