Tourism Talk
Kudos to tourism authority for safeguarding budgeting ethics

By Michele Kayal
Advertiser Staff Writer

Score one for accountability.

Tourism authority members deserve a big "Braaa-vo" for not blithely recommending a 2002 marketing plan presented last week by the Hawai'i Visitors and Convention Bureau that outlines efforts to be undertaken with $47 million.

It's not that it wasn't a good plan. It's just that the bureau doesn't have $47 million. Under the contract it signed with the Hawai'i Tourism Authority in 1999, it has only $45 million.

Didn't we all think this was settled?

In the past, the bureau told the Legislature each year how much it needed, and the Legislature haggled and fought and hemmed and hawed, and somehow they all came up with a number. But the tourism authority and its $61 million budget were put in place to end that process. And to create a mechanism that accounts for and justifies every dollar going out. If the marketing committee members who met last week had sent up the plan the way it was submitted, both objectives would have been undermined.

For the record, contracts are legal documents. They say, for example, "We'll give you X dollars each year for three years. You must show us each year how you plan to spend the X dollars."

A contract does not say, "You have X dollars — unless you feel you need a few more, in which case just let us know."

The bureau may very well need the extra money, and giving it to them may not be a bad idea. It's an option that's been mentioned for months. Last year, the bureau got a $2 million special appropriation from the authority to boost dismal Convention Center bookings and the meetings business that goes to hotels. The efforts bought with that money are already in place, and many argue that they need to be kept going to maintain momentum and continue improving tourism, especially in a tough economic environment.

Last week, bureau chief executive officer Tony Vericella said he was trying to submit a plan that was "reasonable" given the current economic outlook and the bureau's obligations.

But the problem comes when asking for more money is the first option. This is how budgets get bloated. This is how watchdogs lose track of public spending.

Look at it this way. I make a certain amount of money. I have agreed to that with my employer. When unforeseen circumstances require that I buy something extraordinary — a new washing machine, a repair job for where I put my foot through the ceiling (don't ask), a Coach bag (OK, "need" is excessive) — I don't ask my boss for more money. I just cut my household budget: no eating out, no Neighbor Island trips, no CD purchases.

This is a financial management skill I picked up somewhere between graduating college and acquiring a mortgage. And its practice is not too much to expect of people who spend public money (which, again for the record, is also my money).

If I simply asked my boss for more money, how would she explain that to her boss? Likewise, if the bureau asks for more money, and the authority grants it, the authority better be able to explain why to its boss: the public.

So kudos to those authority members who safeguarded that ethic. Tomorrow, the same committee is scheduled to review the bureau's revised proposal for $45 million (what the contract says), and to consider a plea for $48 million (what Hilton Hotels executive Peter Schall says he believes the bureau needs this year).

Whatever plan the committee winds up recommending to the full board for approval, at least it will have been considered, analyzed, and justified by the people asking for it — and the people giving it.

Michele Kayal can be reached at mkayal@honoluluadvertiser.com