Transparency, accountability and openness should be more than just words that elected officials pay lip service to. Advertiser reporter Rob Perez recently published a series of articles that exposed a grants-in-aid award process that is shrouded in secrecy, is conducted behind closed doors and lacks any formal criteria. The Legislature must bring this process out of the shadows and explain to the public why and how GIAs are awarded to nonprofit organizations that are serving important needs.

Legislators from both parties have posed solutions ranging from opening a discussion on how to develop a better GIA system to bills that would enact systemic changes. On opening day, Republican House Minority Leader Lynn Finnegan spoke about convening a GIA forum with experts from the University of Hawai'i to develop procedures that will ensure a better system.

Other legislators have introduced bills that target the more troublesome areas of the GIA process. Senate Bill 2615, introduced by Democratic Sen. Les Ihara, proposes that the Legislature disclose the criteria and guidelines used to select grant recipients. House Bill 2743, introduced by Republican Rep. Colleen Meyer, suggests adoption of a 72-hour waiting period between introduction of appropriation or revenue bills and a hearing or vote on these bills. This waiting period will afford the public more time to review and comment on proposed budget measures.

I stand with all of my colleagues — Democrats and Republicans — who will work toward developing a more transparent and open process that will result in a government that is accountable to all of the people of Hawai'i.

The overhaul of the GIA process, however, must happen now — not next session or several years from now. The House has already taken immediate steps in abolishing the single-member GIA subcommittee. Finance Committee Chair Marcus Oshiro has also announced that applicants will be asked to present an overview of their request and be available for questions. While this is progress, it is not enough. In the next two weeks, the Legislature can take the following common-sense steps to achieve greater transparency and openness:

1. Grants-in-aid applicant list made available to all: All Finance Committee members, at the very least, should be provided a list of all the GIA requests that includes the nonprofit organization making the request, a brief description of the project to be funded, the amount requested, the amounts the project receives from other sources, whether the group has received grants from the state in the past and the amount received in the past.

2. Public meeting to discuss criteria and guidelines: After members of the Finance Committee have had the opportunity to review the list for at least 48 hours, the Finance Committee should hold a public meeting to discuss criteria and guidelines that will shape the House proposal for GIAs.

3. Proposed House grants-in-aid list: Following this first meeting and recognizing that the committee organization of the House relies on the guidance of chairpersons, the chair and the vice-chair of the Finance Committee should provide a proposed list of the grants-in-aid to the members of the Finance Committee.

4. Public votes on the House grants-in-aid list: After being able to review the list for at least 48 hours, the Finance Committee should then hold a second public decision-making meeting to discuss the proposed list and to publicly vote on the list and its inclusion in the House budget bill. The House budget bill, with the House grants, will then be considered by the House as a whole before it crosses over to the Senate for its consideration.

Critics of these four simple steps pose a number of arguments: the information about the requests are already available; it is impractical to conduct public meetings in a tight legislative calendar; it is too early in the budget-making process for the House to determine if or what monies will be available for GIAs; and that issuing an initial list of proposed GIAs would have a negative impact on any nonprofit organization not included on this list.

These criticisms are easily countered. First, although the information on requests are available, transparency and accountability is not achieved by simply revealing who is applying for a grant. Instead, information produced in a usable format for decision-makers provides a tool for prioritization, further analysis, and better decision-making. It also serves as a way for the public to assess the process used by legislators.

Second, the approach I have suggested, two public hearings that involve a public discussion by members about the criteria and guidelines to be applied and a proposed list, can be less time-consuming (if managed properly) and more insightful into the process of identifying GIA recipients than the House's current proposal to require every applicant to present a review of their request.

Third, identifying top priorities and planning early is the most sensible approach to creating any budget. For those who believe it is too early in the budget-making process to know what monies are available to craft a complete GIA list, the House Finance Committee can look to the past for guidance as to how much money might be available, and then conservatively propose and vote on a list that is substantially lower than the average amount that has been awarded in the past. This process will compel legislators to identify the most critical needs and most deserving projects, and leave room for adding or subtracting GIAs as the budget is negotiated and discussed by the Senate and, later, the Joint House and Senate Conference Committee.

Fourth, although any non-profit that is not included on the proposed list will not be happy, providing more information earlier in the process would allow groups to redirect their lobbying and overall fundraising efforts. Knowing whether or not they had made an initial list, GIA applicants would be able to refocus their efforts on educating more legislators about the public purposes served by their projects, gather or ensure support for their application, and invest time in developing other funding sources.

Simple modifications to the process, like the ones I have outlined, can ensure that the GIA process is conducted with integrity. In his opening-day speech, Speaker Calvin Say urged that we must "open up our institutions, our committees and our boardrooms, to provide ... access to leadership (that) young people deserve." Taking this obligation one step further, all of the people of Hawai'i deserve an open-door policy to how and why decisions are made by our public leaders.

Rep. Della Au Belatti, a Democrat, is a freshman lawmaker who represents District 25 (Tantalus, Makiki, McCully). She wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.