Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 17, Number 8, 1 ʻAukake 2000 — 0HA's reorganization and the budget processs [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

0HA's reorganization and the budget processs

KE ALOHA nui kākou, e nā 'ōiwi o Hawai'i. In this article, Trastees Apohona, Cataluna, DeSoto and Machado highlight the process and outcome produced, between May 23 and June 26, by meetings of the Committee on Budget and Finance in completing its recommended OHA budget for FY2001. The 14-meeting budgeting process revealed to the majority of trastees on the

Budget and Finance Committee that some of the problems OHA has had and is facing reflect the need for an organizational stracture and systems whieh are an improvement on the current situation. When an organization is not functioning weh, reorganizahon is not an automatie alternahve. You determine, first, if certain components or systems within the organization need to be strengthened, their funcrions changed or refined to increase accountabihty and responsive-

ness to the beneficiaries' needs. The staff is trained for new and emerging systems of service dehvery; relationships within program areas and with other components of the organization are clarified; and the eommon core values, mission and goals are shared by the organization's leadership and management. Onee the internal assessments are complete, there must be certainty that service dehvery provided is consistent with the outcomes OHA trastees and beneficiaries expect. Therefore, the Budget and Finance Committee had a two-fold task. It needed to develop a trast-fund-only budget for 2001 to address the needs of the Hawahan community and to recommend to the board the following: • an organizational configuration that would be responsive to the program dehvery needs within a "clustered" eomponent system; and • a budget whieh ensured accountabihty to the Legislature according to Act 147 and to OHA's beneficiaries, consistent

with use of a reasonable percentage of the trast assets. n addirion to the development of the FY-2001 budget, the B&F Committee sought accountabihty for FY-2000 expenditures from OHA's administration. The FY-2000 variance reports the administrator provided to trastees, made it difficult to compare expenditure patterns with the previous year. The FY-2000 varianee reports lacked clarity in identifying sources of funds (general, pubhc land trast match, and trast-fund-only). Rather, they used a "lump sum" approach difficult for trastees to analyze and monitor. Further, the FY-2000 variance reports failed to provide trastees with accurate budget data on personnel. Through the budget process the B&F Committee discovered positions were being reclassified, without prior BOT approval, and, "select" personnel's salaries were being increased. These disclosures alarmed the majority of See BUDGET on page 5

Editor's note: Thefollowing eolumn was co-authored by Vice Chair Colette Machado and Trustees Haunani Apoliona, Donald Cataluna and Frenchy DeSoto, pictured left to right above. It is continued in the spaces normally allotted to Trustees Apoliona, Cataluna and DeSoto.

BUDGET

from page 4 the committee. These types of issues wiU eonhnue to be scratinized by the B&F Committee in FY-2001. The budgeting process was lengthy and difficult due to the laek of timely, relevant and accurate information to the committee from the administration. However, the budget was completed in an open process and the B&F Committee, foUowing a eon-

centrated review of various components of the organization, recommended a six-component organization model. The budget also addressed adjustments for strengthening our Administrative Services Office (OHA's fiscal management and financial investment system) and improving the evaluation component of the organization, both areas of earher trastee

concerns and the state auditor's focus. Included in this multiauthor article are further detaUs of B&F Committee's recommendations. This information provides beneficiaries a view of a focus for the FY-2001 budget imple-

mentation whieh the B&F Committee intends to address with OHA's administration. E maka'ala kākou! In preparing the B&F Committee's proposed 2001 trast-fund-only budget, it became apparent that the current OHA four-function configuration is of eoneem for several reasons: (1) Elimination of program divisions and positions whieh reflect the board's priorities, specificaily : • Plannina

Office. OHA expects to update the OHA Master Plan and to coordinate preparation for a Native Hawaiian Comprehensive Master Plan. This change leaves the trastees with limited long term inhouse planning capacity. • Education

Office. The six staff positions have been dispersed. Five have become evaluation positions and one was eliminated, a move contrary to the Native Hawaiian community's confirmation that education is its top priority.

• Health and Human Services, Housing and Eeonomie Development Offices. Staff in these three offices have been reclassified and deployed into managing data, pohcy analysis, information and referral, evaluation, training and fiscal duties. • Culture Office. The staff of five has been deployed to information and referral, evaluation and policy analysis positions. The only culture officer position has been reclassified as a federal desk officer. • Uniform Information and Practices Act SpecialisL The position has been used to fund a "media speciahst." This leaves beneficiaries concerned regarding

continued access to information consistent with the law. (2) Merging the 11 program categories into four function areas. This may appear to "streamline" the organization. Instead, it creates a major problem in accountabihty for expenditures in program categories and in aUocation of staff who are given mulhple cross-program assignments. • In an attempt to trim costs and staff quickly, the designing of coUaborative clusters of appropriate programs (within clear program cost centers) was bypassed. The organization has been excessively compressed, blurring cost centers and leaving a "nightmare" of fund reaUocations and obscured expenditure trails. • In the rash to change ffom program service deUvery, the reclassification of positions into new multiple functions, with Umited training time and no time aUocation formulas, resulted in tentative outcomes and incomplete responses to the B&F Committee's requests. (3) Unrealistic staff assignments and reclassifications. These resulted from a laudable effort to improve evaluation procedures and outcomes, in an excessive response to trastees' expectations for information on the effectiveness of OHAfunded programs. • In creating an evaluation unit, 12 See BUDGET on page 6

Tn preparing the B&F eommiUee^ proposed 2001 trust-fund-only budget, it became apparent that the current OHA four-function configuration is of eoneem.'

fcgg;BsagBS!BjHf

positions from housmg, culture, eeonomk development and administrative services were reclassified. Three secretaries, a clerk typist and a receptionist heeame evaluation specialists or assistants. Seven culture. education. land and housing specialists were deployed into evaluation. • Insuf5cient time and planning in retrauung of staff in tbe four function areas is evident (4) Issue-by-issue or topic- by-topic assignments to staff "teams, " resulting from merged program Iines and multi-ple-program tasks. This "team" approach was intended to avoid delays due to the absence of any one lead person. However, appropriate staff were unavailable when the Administrator himself lacked ready information on questions raised by the B&F Committee. (Note: The "team" approach is still possible and preferable for coordinated responses to community requests/needs within a clearly program-focused, six-cluster configuranon.) (5) In OHA's job descriptions. an absence of an appropriate time alloeation formula for multi-program functions. The absence of a prescribed percentage of time and a system of recording time allocatdons results in gaps in service and insuf5cient information to support budget allocarions and stafSng requirements. The B&F Committee held 14 day-long meetings and worked hours to develop a budget process that would serve Hawaiians. The deliberations exposed tremendous inconsistencies and flaws in OHA's administration of programs for beneficiaries. Īhe committee resolved those problems by developing a programmatic system that will better serve the needs of our beneficiaries. We called this improved system the OHA Kauhale and passed it to the board for final approval. We recommended a six-cluster kauhale configuraticwi, with a compatible budget format

and program categories, as a stronger solution than the overly-compressed current organization. To the dismay of many beneficiaries and the majority of the B&F Committee, the board wavered in its support. The result is OHA will continue to crawl along with little improvement in direct beneficiary services. Mueh of the current system that eame under tremendous scrutiny by trustees is unchanged. Staffing now appears to consist of more and more patronage positions. Although we anticipate slower results in OHA's output, the future is not completely lost. In the hearts and minds of many Hawaiians is the hope OHA will somehow rise above the political gamesmanship, take on a less intrusive and more facilitative role, and help our people heal. The OHA Kauhale was an attempt to build that kind

of foundation for our Hawaiian people. Kauhale literally means a cluster or settlement of different, interdependent houses. Kauhale is also a figurative reference to the cultural and spirimal thread that

unites our people with our environment, our lifestyles and eaeh other while respecting the differing opinions and roles of eaeh individual kuleana or hale. The B&F Committee applied this kauhale concept to OHA's operations. The OHA Kauhale attempts to create a culturally appropriate cluster of programs or homes that will increase direct services to our people. We identified six major program areas: • housing and eeonomie development; • education, health and human services, and grants; • land and natural resources, government affairs and community outreach; • cultuie and historic preservation; • administrative services; and • the Board of Tmstees. tach cluster represents a special eommunity need and focus. For example, the housing and eeonomie development program cluster would provide housing services for our people and find them financial assistance. Skilled staff in that hale would implement policy and programs to benefit our people. Eaeh additional program cluster would be focused on a particular kuleana and would have staff whose expertise would complement the programs. Yet, every program hale would be interdependent and would collaborate with the others, making for a cooperative unit of programs, the OHA Kauhale system. In concept, the OHA Kauhale would reach out to all areas affecting our Hawaiian community: Communication - electronic technology, media, etc.; all levels of politics; economics; institutions, both pubhc and private, including tmsts; and integrative activities - non-

profits, individuals and families. The OHA Kauhale approach recognizes that OHA must not overextend its relation

with or role in the community. Rather, OHA must be more facilitative, thereby providing for the community and its organizations a pu'uhonua where voices ean resonate.

The OHA Kauhale would support the community instead of leading the eommunity. And, like the traditional kauhale system, eaeh hale or cluster would have a responsibility to its people as well as an obligation to making the entire eommunity of hale function soundly. The result would be the development of a productive, thriving, experienced community serving our Hawaiian people. The quest to build a kauhale for our people at OHA is not over. The need still exists; the people are still waiting. Hawaiians need to be served; their social, eeonomie and physical conditions must improve. OHA is poised to be a serious contributor to our people's well- being. The OHA Kauhale is but one approach. However, should the board continue to falter in its duty to build a home that will service all our people, beneficiaries will need to eome take control of their destiny. The house is only as good as its foundation. OHA's foundation lacks its beneficiaries' support and that is causing instability. It is time for our people to reclaim their home. E komo mai. ■

The committee resolved those §roblems by eveloping a programmatic system that will better serve the needs of our beneficiaries. We called this improved system the OHA Kauhale and passed it to the board for final approval.'

'ln the hearts and minds of many Hawaiians is tne hope OHA will somehow rise above the poliheal gamesmanship, take on a less intrusive and more facilitative role, and help our people heal.'

'OHA must be more facilitative, thereby providing for the community and its organizations a pu'uhonua where voices ean resonate.'

[?]

TRUSTEE MESSAGES

[?]

[?]

[?]