We happened to watch the KGMB-Hawaii News Now last night at 6 p.m., and I was interested in the promo announcing an upcoming story about law violations by the state.
It turned out to be a story on the Senate hearing on the state’s finances. Senators were told that the state ended up with a $22 million deficit at the end of the fiscal year.
State government ended fiscal year 2010 in the red. It is the second straight year Hawaii has operated at a deficit and by in doing so violated the state constitution for a second straight year.
According to the story: “The state constitution requires a balanced budget, but no one gets penalized when it is not balanced.”
The allegation is not clearly sourced, so its difficult to tell whether the charge that the deficit created a constitutional violation came from the senators or from Hawaii News Now. Even if it came from senators at the hearing, wouldn’t you compare it to the actual constitutional provision while reporting and take note of discrepancies?
Baehr pressed Ways & Means Committee Chair Donna Mercado Kim about the issue, suggesting that the absence of penalties or consequences is a problem. She was noncommital.
But wait. What are they talking about?
The constitution addresses the budget, not the actual, end of the year financial picture. The BUDGET.
“Budget” is clearly different from “actual”.
The budget is the plan, in the form of bills, prepared by the governor and eventually passed by the legislature. The Hawaii State Constitution says that there have to be sources of revenue, also identified in bills, to cover all of the budgeted expenditures. The budget provision of the constitution addresses just that–the budget–and makes no reference at all to actual, end-of-the-year financial shortfalls.
The State Constitution (Article 7, Section 8) clearly refers to the budget, the plan of proposed expenditures. Plan, not actual.
Within such time prior to the opening of each regular session in an odd-numbered year as may be provided by law, the governor shall submit to the legislature a budget in a form provided by law setting forth a complete plan of proposed expenditures of the executive branch, estimates as provided by law of the aggregate expenditures of the judicial and legislative branches, and anticipated receipts of the State for the ensuing fiscal biennium, together with such other information as the legislature may require.
The section goes on about the budgeted expenditures and sources of revenue, contained in various bills, that have to match in order for the resulting budget to be legal.
The legislature passed balanced budgets in each of the two years, so there was no violation of the constitution, contrary to the Hawaii News Now report.
What the deficit does mean is that the budget submitted by the new governor will be that much harder to balance in order to meet the constitutional requirement.
This is one of those situations where the Lingle administration was unfairly maligned with the charge that they violated the law. I wonder why someone along the way didn’t catch the problem with the story, and also if anyone will offer the public a correction and the administration an apology?
You’re right, of course.
And yet you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that Mufi’s administration was unfairly maligned by the bogus complaint about procurement that was made by allies of your pal Abercrombie.
You naively called the Advertiser’s ignorant May 6 hatchet job about this politically motivated attack a “good story,” and ignored the news that the state procurement office found absolutely nothing to substantiate the loaded allegations.
Your slip is showing.
I just got a copy of the SPO report, and will have more to say after having a chance to review it.
Although I easily found the city’s press release, getting a copy of the actual document was quite a bit harder.
-Ian
Good luck on trying to keep the media honest.
Yeah, civil beat wrongly picked up on this too.
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2010/08/18/3639-state-violates-balanced-budget-requirement/
Does your concern extend to your own reporting? Do you intend to offer corrections to your readers when you incorrectly alledge violations of state law? How about apologies to those that you incorrectly malign? Who watches out for Ian?
care to be specific on errors? I assume Ian makes mistakes and I assume he corrects them. Have you an evidence that the first happens without the second?
bob is watching Ian……his choir, his site but after he embaresed me in past election years with Randy Iwase for Governor beating Lingle with false Chinatown gaming odds statement that was not true the odds were not what he stated….no multi-sources or double fact checking as required by papers. This caused me to realize yes even Ian is jaded. I still hold him in high respect and all around nice true-liberal, he is Hawaiian w./ Aloha and this is the only site for politics and investigative reporting in Hawaii! I think Ian should like his old newspaper employer make endorsements, he openly discloses for those that don’t know it he was Neil A.’s City Council Chief of staff a position that paid $80,000+ per year at that time now more. Let me state again that it would be more honest for Ian to make his endorsements early at least 30 days prior voting day so as not to be a push poll blog. I don’t care who wins but I know the odds of Ian endorsing a samoan/german are (-) minus infinity. Our choices are limited to an aged punchy stoner, a big man storm trooper and that old time religon.
Otherwise called: Social justice with attitude, Buisness on demand and the lords crusader.
I did work for Neil at the City Council for something under two years, likely closer to one. I resigned from that position more than 20 years ago. Realistically, it would be a mistake to blame my views on that experience.
And I wish the salaries were $80,000+. Far from it. I think I was getting not quite half of that amount. As I recall, Neil’s office split the available staff funds to add an additional position to work on constituent issues, of which there are always many at the city.
You accuse Ian of racism, (!!), and wildly overstate his compensation from a job he did two decades ago.
You call Neil those things, which are false, in the same paragraph that you chide Ian for not double sourcing and fact checking.
Classic.
No incorect no racism under the social justice umbrela. The cause common or otherwise rules.
The support is liberal over conservative…..race has no factor! Ian like I being of mixed race one of which is Hawaiian don’t think like maindland stereo types we “all tease da other race” to quote the Beamer brother’s song.
Deficit sounds like it was an expenditure control issue.
Chapter 37-42 may apply in this case.
Ҥ37-42 Allotment as limit of expenditures; liability for excessive expenditure. No department or establishment shall expend or be allowed to expend any sum, or incur or be allowed to incur any obligation in excess of an allotment. No obligation incurred in excess of the balance of an allotment shall be binding against the State, but where the obligation is violative only for having been made in excess of an allotment, the director of finance may authorize payment thereof from unallotted funds. Any officer, employee, or member of any department or establishment, who makes or causes to be made any excessive expenditure or incurs or causes to be incurred any excessive obligation shall be deemed guilty of neglect of official duty and shall be subject to removal from office and shall be liable to the State for such sum as may have been expended or paid, and such sum, together with interest and costs, shall be recoverable in an action instituted by the attorney general.
Provided that any state department, with the prior consent of the governor and of the director, and subject to terms and conditions insuring protection of the State as shall be imposed by the department, may cosponsor with another state department or with the county or any agency thereof, for the purpose of applying for federal funds or assistance for any project, after certification by the state comptroller that proper and sufficient allotment has been made by the governor to the other department or after receipt of resolution adopted by the county council that proper and sufficient sums for the project have been appropriated and encumbered. [L Sp 1959 1st, c 12, pt of §3; am L 1963, c 194, §1; Supp, §35-30; HRS §37-42]
Revision Note
“County council” substituted for “board of supervisors or city council”.”
That’s a statutory rather than a constitutional provision.
So it clearly isn’t what was being referred to in this instance.
Understood. That’s why I listed the statutory cite. It seemed to be the more applicable issue.
I am sorry to hear Neil split the position. Hear that Chief of Staff now $95k? Chairman gets two Chiefs. Not to mention Council Services positions. Much more lucrative at Council vs. Leg.
Twenty years ago was the good old days! I rember them like yesterday, we all made a decent salary. Forty was good livin back than. Did the paper pay a lot more? Ian I don’t hink your views are based on employment alone I believe your more about liberal social justice rainbow.
The ultra complicated multi-Billion dollar budget ended up a couple thousands of one percent off? I’m outraged! Who can we put in jail for this?
Maybe the truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere in between?
This morning’s Star-Advertiser article suggests that an error was made in drafting the budget (causing a higher revenue projection than would have been the case had the error not been made), resulting in the submission of a budget that was not, in fact, balanced, as shown by later/actual reveneu receipts.
Or am I being uncharacteristically kind?
“I wonder why someone along the way didn’t catch the problem with the story…”
In old-school journalism, that’s where a good editor comes in. The story gets reviewed by a real news veteran who knows how to ask questions and spot errors.
Then the story is sent back to the reporter who has to rework it and get the additional facts.
In some news organizations, that has been gradually going by the wayside in the past decade or so. Balanced reporting is often replaced by single-source, sensational stuff.
Looks like the creeping conservatism problem we’re having across local politics. These days, anti-tax, anti-government views are just accepted without question.
Article 7 Section 5 of the State Consitiution:
EXPENDITURE CONTROLS
Section 5. Provision for the control of the rate of expenditures of appropriated state moneys, and for the reduction of such expenditures under prescribed conditions, shall be made by law.
No public money shall be expended except pursuant to appropriations made by law. General fund expenditures for any fiscal year shall not exceed the State’s current general fund revenues and unencumbered cash balances, except when the governor publicly declares the public health, safety or welfare is threatened as provided by law. [Ren Const Con 1968 and election Nov 5, 1968; ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]