[ OUR OPINION ]
Another day, another
critical state audit ...THE state auditor's most-recent report repeats the findings that appear to run through the host of studies the agency conducts on government operations: Lack of proper accounting of expenses and monitoring of performance. Although the nature of audits is to ascertain problems, the report on the Health Department's management of its emergency medical services again points to the overall deficiency in officials' ability to keep tabs on government functions.
THE ISSUE The state auditor finds poor management of yet another government operation.
The overwhelming frustration voters are voicing this election season demands that every elected official who inhabits the governor's office and the chambers of the state Legislature next year must compel repair of broken systems. Taxpayers should not accept anything less.
The audit found that the department's Emergency Medical Services and Injury Prevention System Branch did not follow competitive-award procedures in contracting a collection agency and in making purchases for services. Procurement laws are in place to prevent favoritism and even if there were no ulterior motives in doing so, the violation feeds the notion of backroom deals and improper spending of state funds.
Many of the problems reported involve the state's transactions with the city. The auditor discovered that the 2000-'01 contract for ambulance service with the city was not signed until the last day of the contract period. It also found that the city "inappropriately expended $400,000 in state funds" without getting the required branch approvals, and that there were an "inordinate number" of repairs on city ambulances by one vendor, some of which might have been covered on the vendor's warranty on previous work.
The audit pointed to lax controls over billings and collection, estimating that $400,000 went uncollected for services provided by the city. The negligence also extended to contracts with other counties with about $1 million in fees left uncollected.
The department's response, as in previous audits, was appalling. Health director Bruce Anderson said the uncollected fees' total was not based on verifiable data, then goes on to acknowledge that the branch did not maintain records so that it could be verified.
Although the state auditor provides a check of government operations and makes recommendations, the agency has no authority to force corrective actions. These must be carried out through the will of the executive and legislative branches, both of which can be faulted for allowing poor management to continue. Each critical audit further unravels the already frayed trust taxpayers have in state government. It has got to stop.
BACK TO TOP |
Use Hanauma fees
to preserve the bayTHE city won a court battle over its authority to charge tourists to enter the Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve, but it also received a strong warning that it confine the use of that revenue to the Hanauma Bay area. The restriction should result in a reduction of the fees if the current revenue is more than needed to maintain the nature preserve and its facilities.
THE ISSUE A $3 fee for tourists to enter Hanauma Bay is legal -- if it is used to maintain the bay.
Honolulu lawyer James Bickerton filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf on nonresidents last year challenging the fee, maintaining that it discriminated against tourists. It does, of course -- tourists are charged $3 and residents are allowed to visit the beach free. But there is nothing unconstitutional about that.
The problem, U.S. District Judge Alan Kay agreed, is that money collected from the fees should be spent solely on operating and maintaining the bay and its facilities. As city Corporation Counsel David Arakawa has pointed out, the 1997 city ordinance that provided for the fees specifies that they be used to protect against "the degradation of the nature preserve."
However, the city disclosed three years ago that nearly 20 percent of the revenues from tourist fees at the bay were used to pay city debt service. The city has been using the extra Hanauma Bay revenues recently to maintain four other park sites. Kay ruled that Hanauma Bay revenues may no longer be spent on those other parks or any other non-Hanauma Bay uses.
The city argued successfully that the $3 charge is a user fee, not a tax, since the city is not allowed under state law to levy new taxes. Also, if it were a tax, the city would have discretion on how the revenue was used. Since it is a fee, the revenue must be used to maintain the bay and nothing else.
The sloppy use of revenues from fees may not be confined to Hanauma Bay or even to the city. Former Waikiki Aquarium Director Bruce Carlson complained several years ago that much of the revenue from aquarium admission fees was transferred to the state's general fund. Fees collected for admission to a city or state facility should be used strictly to operate and maintain that facility.
BACK TO TOP
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, Editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, Assistant Editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, Assistant Editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comMary Poole, Editorial Page Editor, 529-4790; mpoole@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, Contributing Editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
