The Legislature’s bumbling attempts to micromanage the Hawaii Tourism Authority have resulted in yet more budgetary chaos.
This week, Gov. David Ige announced his intention to veto House Bill 1147, which would have funded HTA for another year. Ige said the Legislature’s use of gut-and-replace tactics to pass the bill could subject it to a constitutional challenge.
This should surprise no one. Late last year, the state Supreme Court ruled that the standard three readings are required for bills that were gutted of their original content and replaced with nongermane amendments.
HB 1147 started out as a capital improvement projects bill, but in conference committee, lawmakers gutted its contents and replaced them with operating appropriations for HTA, the Hawai‘i Convention Center special fund, the State Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, and the University of Hawaii — six days before the end of the session, and with no public input.
Now, with Ige’s veto threat, funding for HTA is in doubt. The governor is considering using federal funds, but those come with their own strings attached. More negotiations among the Ige administration, lawmakers and HTA will be needed to clean up this mess.
This, too, should surprise no one. HB 1147 was the result of lawmakers eager to exert control over HTA, using funding as a cudgel, but without a coherent sense of common purpose.
Last year, lawmakers reduced HTA’s budget, from $79 million to $60 million, and eliminated its dedicated source of funding. This year, they cut HTA’s funding out of the supplemental budget and debated two alternative bills.
HB 1785 would have made major changes to the organization of HTA, while Senate Bill 775, HD 1 — itself the product of gut-and-replace — would have funded HTA without strings but also would’ve created an additional agency, the Natural Resource Management Commission, to help manage natural resources important to residents and the visitor industry.
There were some useful things in both bills, but lawmakers failed to find common ground through the normal course of legislating, with a full public vetting.
Instead, it was business as usual: closed-door conferences, gutting and replacing, patching together a legally questionable frankenbill at the last minute. That speaks volumes about the Legislature’s ability — or willingness — to manage the public’s business in a responsible and transparent way.
