In commenting on the recent procurement audit of the Hawai'i State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, DBEDT director Ted Liu is apparently satisfied that while the audit identified numerous errors in the department's procurement pro-cess, the errors were not "individually significant." However, there comes a point where small flaws add up to big concerns.

The auditor's report raises concerns in three areas: failure to follow established procurement procedures in a manner that provides the public the transparency and accountability the law was intended to ensure; the fostering of a culture within DBEDT that disregarded the procurement process as a valuable part of the functioning of our state government; and the use of "transfer authority" to circumvent the Legislature's policymaking function via the state budget.

Our state's procurement laws are not solely directed at preventing fraud, and so "good intentions" are not sufficient to ensure compliance. Part of preserving the public's faith and confidence in government consists of putting in place processes that we can all look to for reassurance that our operations are free from corruption or waste. Deviating from established guidelines — even in small ways — tends to erode that public confidence.

As a result, as DBEDT systematically ignored state procurement guidelines and fostered the "culture of disregard" identified in the auditor's report, the department's claims that these were insignificant errors lost their strength. DBEDT and its director need to acknowledge that they are a part of a larger state system that owes the public an affirmative duty to operate within established guidelines.

However, despite a number of requests for adjustments in DBEDT practices and admonitions regarding the department's failure to follow the procurement system, DBEDT has not adopted even the simplest of suggestions for change.

Specifically, DBEDT refused to implement the recommendations of the Senate Investigative Committee that examined the facts surrounding the granting of a contract to manage the state's Hydrogen Investment Fund. While the results of the committee's investigation are now with the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, undergoing review for possible criminal violations, the committee also recommended a number of practical changes to improve DBEDT's procurement pro-cess. In ignoring those recommendations, the director's dismissive attitude is evidence of the kind of arrogance that renders actual service to the public a secondary concern.

This is further demonstrated by DBEDT's practice of ignoring legislative budget action and unilaterally funding new initiatives through budget transfers.

Our state budget is a primary vehicle for developing and implementing public policy. The legislative and executive branches each play well-defined roles in developing the budget, with the Legislature having its final say by determining whether or not to fund programs. This constitutional system of checks and balances mandates and protects a sharing of power between the branches of government, which serves vital public interests.

DBEDT's practice of "finding" excess monies and transferring them to pay for programs the Legislature declined to fund short-circuits that system and usurps legislative budget authority, including opportunities for public review and comment on budget priorities. The proper way to deal with funds that have been allocated but not expended would be to return them to the general fund and allow for reallocations pursuant to agreed-upon priorities. Instead, DBEDT's practice has been to place the department's desires above the public interest. Despite what the DBEDT director has claimed, such an approach does not serve the "legislative intent" or the public good.

Unfortunately, the auditor's recent findings have simply confirmed what appears to be a regular course of practice by DBEDT and its director. No attempted misdirection, no claim of innocent mistake, and no invocation of insignificant error by the DBEDT director can detract from the simple, now-established fact that we simply cannot allow DBEDT to continue to operate as it has in the past.

As we all face our state's economic challenges and carefully weigh our expenditures, we have an opportunity to consider whether DBEDT should be restructured, if not eliminated. Especially at a time when we are trying to rebuild public confidence in our economy and our government, and at a time when we are duty-bound to examine how our government spends taxpayer money, turning a blind eye toward the problems plaguing DBEDT would be irresponsible, at best. Because whatever one may claim about any individual shortcoming, we cannot avoid the conclusion that when taken together, DBEDT's failures have given us reason to be very concerned indeed.

Reach Gary Hooser at (Unknown address).

Sens. Donna Mercado Kim, Gary Hooser, Les Ihara Jr., Clarence Nishihara and Sam Slom are members of the Senate Special Investigative Committee. They wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.