The state’s $13.7 billion budget bill, a 184-page behemoth approved by the Legislature earlier this month, contains more than just a list of appropriations. It contains a list of provisos — amendments tacked on by legislators, sometimes near the end of the budget process, often anonymously — that define or otherwise restrict how appropriations can be spent.

This practice has become a fairly routine part of legislating, but it deserves closer critical attention.

Provisos can be added in conference committee, without a public vetting. They can reflect the collective wisdom of the Legislature, arrived at after due deliberation, in setting spending priorities. Or they can reflect the agenda of an individual legislator or legislators, with baffling and unsound results.

Case in point: The budget contains $48.6 million in bond funding for the University of Hawaii to spend on deferred maintenance projects — less than half what UH originally requested to pay for this critical need. The funding comes in a lump sum, allowing UH, at least in theory, to decide how to spend it.

However, as reported by the Star-Advertiser’s Nanea Kalani, there is a proviso:

The money “shall not be expended for the College of Education if the College of Education remains at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.” Furthermore, UH may not spend $3 million of the money “until the university establishes and implements a master plan” for transitioning students from high schools and community colleges to the state’s four-year institutions.

In other words, to spend the $48.6 million freely, UH will have to achieve two complex tasks in short order: Move the College of Education out of Manoa and establish a master matriculation plan for the entire UH system.

Setting aside the obvious logical fallacy — why would UH spend maintenance funds on the College of Education if it needs to be moved? — the proviso demonstrates how the process can be misused. It won’t move the college or generate a master plan. It will simply keep UH from spending that money.

Moving the College of Education out of Manoa to, say, West Oahu, would be a daunting endeavor, even if it were a good idea, which it’s not.

The college’s students must take courses in other disciplines that are available at Manoa, but not at West Oahu. There are more than 500 kinesiology and rehabilitation sciences students who use Manoa’s athletics facilities, also not available at West Oahu. The University Lab School, a K-12 charter school, provides critical training for College of Education students.

A master matriculation plan makes more sense. Students moving to one of UH’s four-year institutions should be able to transfer seamlessly, regardless of which high school or community college they come from. The Board of Regents has already tasked UH President David Lassner to come up with such a plan. But obviously, it will take time — certainly longer than a one-year appropriation will last.

Regardless, what does any of this have to do with deferred maintenance? Nothing, of course.

What the proviso does do is put UH on notice.

For example, UH had intended to use some of this year’s appropriation to tear down two obsolete and unused College of Education buildings, at a cost of about $600,000 to $700,000. But even if another source of funds was found for the work, UH officials may feel constrained to act, in the interest of maintaining good relations with legislators armed with the power of the purse — and the proviso.

And while this process may appeal to lawmakers who want to exert their influence, it’s a poor way to manage a multibillion-dollar budget. They should use more discretion and good common sense.