As former governors, we know that contractual challenges are a part of the procedural life of government. Why then might we wade into the conversation around the question of whether the Hawaii Tourism Authority should reverse its decision to give the U.S. tourism brand management contract to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement (CNHA) and return it to the current entity, the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau?

Our interest isn’t in any of the process issues, which must run their course in accordance with rules and laws. Our focus is on the important public policy questions embedded in HTA’s decision, and on how the controversy is being portrayed.

Without a doubt, tourism is a critical driver of Hawaii’s economy. We are also at a critical crossroads in our relationship with tourism and the visitor industry. The precipitous drop in visitors during the height of the pandemic, especially in the first year, gave all of us — from keiki to kupuna — a once-in-a-lifetime true-life experience with what it would mean to have very few tourists.

There were severe economic impacts, felt most keenly in the loss of jobs. There were also amazingly empty beaches, and no traffic jams in places like Lanikai and Kailua Beach, North Shore Oahu, and Upcountry Maui. Restaurants shuttered, and local produce otherwise consumed by visitors found its way to local markets or ceased to be grown or harvested. Fishermen couldn’t get as much at the auction block, but local families could eat fish more often given the drop in price.

The composite experience gave us an opportunity for a different kind of conversation with friends and family, one that has yet to be fully aired in the public domain. How much and what kind of tourism supports the overall quality of life for the people who live in Hawaii? Is there a crossover point at which our quality of life actually decreases, even if some individuals and businesses, and institutions reap monetary benefits? Is Hawaii just a destination and our residents just a workforce, and if that is what some want should that be what we settle for?

It is against this backdrop of legitimate and healthy inquiry that HTA’s choice makes timely sense. Their request for proposals was a pivot from the usual marketing and public relations, emphasizing something they call “integrated marketing and destination management services” in keeping with their new strategic plan. Destination management services means, among other things, the ways and means by which tourism is in a dignified and healthy relationship with natural resources, with the Hawaiian culture and its institutions, and with our many communities. Integrated marketing means that these efforts are blended functionally with how we portray ourselves.

Traditional marketing has its place. The hotels, airlines, and the travel industry are experienced and well-positioned to pursue that course. HTA is prioritizing the use of public dollars to emphasize who it is we are as a community, our natural resources, and Hawaiian culture. Its choice of CNHA recognizes the advantage of their deep community ties, along with visitor industry veterans who are excited to bring a fresh perspective.

Hotels, airlines and visitor industry businesses should join HTA in embracing a balanced, healthy, and thriving industry as an ideal state of affairs. Consider the alternative: a return to ever-increasing visitor numbers accompanied by ever-increasing unhappiness among locals, external costs and generic visitor experiences. The current explosion of numbers is showing we will shortly be absorbing close to 10 million visitors a year, once again.

It is more than past time to have a renewed focus on Hawaii’s people and their destiny. This is a goal and commitment that locals and visitors alike should welcome and applaud.

George Ariyoshi, John Waihee and Neil Abercrombie are former governors of Hawaii.