PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS
Chair Batangan and Members of the Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee,
My name is Edward Codelia, a resident of Kula, Maui, REALTOR®, and small business owner.
I am opposed to Resolution 26-89 as currently drafted.
The County budget is one of the most important policy documents adopted each year. It reflects public testimony, committee review, Council deliberation, and elected officials' decisions regarding community priorities.
This proposal would amend the Charter to allow the Mayor to transfer appropriations within departments, while leaving the actual limits and procedures to be determined later by ordinance.
The administration's transmittal memo provides virtually no evidence that the current Charter language is causing operational problems. It simply states that the amendment would allow transfers and that limits would be established later.
That raises a fundamental question:
Why should voters approve a Charter amendment before knowing the limits of the authority being granted?
The Charter should define authority first and flexibility second.
If departments need additional flexibility, the administration should demonstrate:
What projects were delayed.
What services were impacted.
How much money needed to be transferred.
Why existing authorities were insufficient.
To date, that justification has not been provided.
Before this proposal advances, I respectfully request answers to the following questions:
What specific incidents prompted this proposal?
How many times during the past five years has the current Charter prevented a department from accomplishing its mission?
What is the largest transfer the administration anticipates making under this authority?
Why are voters being asked to approve the authority before knowing the maximum amount?
Why are the limits not included directly in the Charter amendment?
What public problem is solved by this amendment?
How much money could potentially be transferred without additional Council approval?
Would transfers be publicly reported before or after they occur?
Would residents receive notice when funds are moved?
Could transfers undermine spending priorities established during the budget process?
Could appropriations originally intended for one purpose be redirected to another purpose within the same department?
What audit requirements would apply?
Has the administration prepared any fiscal impact analysis?
Has any independent review been conducted?
Why should the Council reduce its direct control over appropriated funds?
If future administrations abuse this authority, what safeguards exist?
The public budget process exists for a reason. Residents expect that funds approved through that process will be spent according to the priorities debated and adopted by the Council.
Charter amendments should expand government authority only when a clear need has been demonstrated. Based on the information provided thus far, that case has not been made.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to reject Resolution 26-89 or defer action until the administration provides specific examples, fiscal analysis, proposed limits, and accountability safeguards.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO RESOLUTION 26-89
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS
Chair Batangan and Members of the Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee,
My name is Edward Codelia, a resident of Kula, Maui, REALTOR®, and small business owner.
I am opposed to Resolution 26-89 as currently drafted.
The County budget is one of the most important policy documents adopted each year. It reflects public testimony, committee review, Council deliberation, and elected officials' decisions regarding community priorities.
This proposal would amend the Charter to allow the Mayor to transfer appropriations within departments, while leaving the actual limits and procedures to be determined later by ordinance.
The administration's transmittal memo provides virtually no evidence that the current Charter language is causing operational problems. It simply states that the amendment would allow transfers and that limits would be established later.
That raises a fundamental question:
Why should voters approve a Charter amendment before knowing the limits of the authority being granted?
The Charter should define authority first and flexibility second.
If departments need additional flexibility, the administration should demonstrate:
What projects were delayed.
What services were impacted.
How much money needed to be transferred.
Why existing authorities were insufficient.
To date, that justification has not been provided.
Before this proposal advances, I respectfully request answers to the following questions:
What specific incidents prompted this proposal?
How many times during the past five years has the current Charter prevented a department from accomplishing its mission?
What is the largest transfer the administration anticipates making under this authority?
Why are voters being asked to approve the authority before knowing the maximum amount?
Why are the limits not included directly in the Charter amendment?
What public problem is solved by this amendment?
How much money could potentially be transferred without additional Council approval?
Would transfers be publicly reported before or after they occur?
Would residents receive notice when funds are moved?
Could transfers undermine spending priorities established during the budget process?
Could appropriations originally intended for one purpose be redirected to another purpose within the same department?
What audit requirements would apply?
Has the administration prepared any fiscal impact analysis?
Has any independent review been conducted?
Why should the Council reduce its direct control over appropriated funds?
If future administrations abuse this authority, what safeguards exist?
The public budget process exists for a reason. Residents expect that funds approved through that process will be spent according to the priorities debated and adopted by the Council.
Charter amendments should expand government authority only when a clear need has been demonstrated. Based on the information provided thus far, that case has not been made.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to reject Resolution 26-89 or defer action until the administration provides specific examples, fiscal analysis, proposed limits, and accountability safeguards.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Edward Codelia
Kula, Maui
Resident, REALTOR®