When Environment Hawai’i sought comment from DLNR administrator Peter Young on the budget cuts suffered by his department, we were asked to submit questions in writing to the DLNR’s public information officer, Debbie Ward. Here are the questions we asked and the answers we were given.
Q. The DLNR lost 79.5 authorized positions in the 2005 budget. That’s 11 percent of its workforce. Was this done over your objections?
A. The Department lost a total of 74.00 of the 731.00 permanent positions and 13.48 temporary positions in the 2004 Legislative Session. This includes all means of financing.
The Department had requested the state Legislature’s and Department of Budget and Finance’s reconsideration on the proposed vacancy reductions on HB 1800, HD1, SD1, and CD1. This was done by the Legislature over our very strong objections.
[Editor’s note: HB 1800 was the budget bill, which became Act 41, Session Laws of Hawai’i. Also, information provided by the DLNR’s personnel office was used in our determination of the precise number of positions lost; our figures do not precisely agree with the numbers cited in the DLNR’s response to this question. Requests for clarification went unanswered.]
Q. Almost all the positions lost were vacant as of December 2003. Why did the DLNR have such a high vacancy rate?
A. A vacancy rate depends on numerous factors such as timing, the recruitment process, funding availability and budget execution policies, which may affect the speed of filling vacancies. As of December 2003, DLNR was in various stages of recruitment to fill 48.5 vacancies. These stages included: recruitment, interviewing, etc. Given the different functions of the various divisions within DLNR , certain types of positions have taken longer to fill due to specific qualifications required (e.g., biologists, foresters, hydrologists, enforcement officers, etc.).
[Editor’s note: As of December 31, 2003, the DLNR had a total of 161 positions vacant; in other words, only one in three of the vacant positions was being actively recruited at that time.]
Q. The DLNR personnel losses for FY 2005 account for 22 percent of total statewide personnel losses. In other words, more than 1 of 5 positions lost as the Legislature made its cuts came from your department. How do you account for this?
A. We don’t have any information concerning the total statewide personnel losses, therefore we are not able to confirm this statement. However it had appeared that the Legislative vacancy reduction was an across-the-board policy.
Q. Does the Legislature have an animus against your department – or was it a sitting duck for the cuts because of the extraordinarily high vacancy rates?
A. You will have to ask that question of members of the Legislature.
Q. The vacancy rate at the DLNR still is around 10 percent, which is twice as high as the figure the Legislature uses (5 percent) in estimating budget requirements. Are these vacancies deliberate (e.g. means of budget cuts/savings?), or is there a hang-up in filling positions?
A. You’ll have to ask the Legislature about how it addresses vacancy estimates. The actual vacancy rate varies at any given point in time and depends on numerous factors such as timing, the recruitment process, funding availability and budget execution policies, which may affect the speed of filling vacancies. As of December 2003, DLNR was in various stages of recruitment to fill 48.5 vacancies.
Q. Is the Department of Human Resources Development a stumbling block in your efforts to fill positions?
A. We are working with DHRD regarding personnel matters at DLNR. DHRD must follow laws relating to recruitment and hiring and must assure fairness. They are not a stumbling block.
Q. What will the department’s biennium budget request look like when it goes to the governor? Will it contain a request to reinstate some or all of the positions lost in FY 2005?
A. We are working to develop the State Administration budget at this time.
Q. The Division of State Parks lost 21 positions. As you have yourself acknowledged, the state’s park system has a huge backlog of maintenance work and many of its facilities require far more attention than they receive. Will residents and visitors see further deterioration of state parks as a result of these cuts?
A. Over the next several years the public will be seeing a concerted effort to make improvements to the state parks in the form of capital improvement upgrades and ADA improvements to state park restrooms, cesspools and other facilities.
We are receiving about $30 million over the next three years from CIP moneys, Hawaii Tourism Authority and ADA sources to reconstruct restrooms and other facilities and to do things like replace toilets, sinks and urinals, widen stalls and replace cesspools. We will be updating facilities to accommodate people with disabilities, and to improve sidewalks and pave parking lots.
Expanded recreational opportunities are also being explored via increased camping opportunities through concession operation of selected state park recreation area. We are also looking to bring in mobile food concessions and expand docent programs in the parks.
Q. The Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement lost 12 permanent positions. Will you be seeking reinstatement of these positions?
A. We are working to develop the State Administration budget at this time.
Q. The Natural Area Reserves System budget allows $10 an acre for management (including all administrative costs) for the 109,000-plus acres under NARS’ jurisdiction. Do you believe this is sufficient?
A. The Natural Area Reserves System is not funded solely through state funds. As with other components of DLNR we seek and are involved with partnerships at various levels. We are exploring various alternatives for raising additional funds to support the Natural Area Reserves System as well as other DLNR programs.
For example, we were successful in receiving a Hawaii Tourism Authority grant specifically for use at the ‘Ahihi-Kina’u NAR on Maui. The grant helps fund two ranger positions for three years, purchase and installation of buoys demarking ocean boundaries of the reserve, a cultural assessment of the entire area, improved signage and infrastructure (including installation of porta-potties and enforcement and educational signage), and funds the Hawaii Wildlife Fund interpretive program and user surveys.
The Natural Area Reserve System has received matching funds from: state watershed funds, federal USFWS Section 6 (Threatened and Endangered Species) funds; Federal State Wildlife Grant funds; some Federal USDA Wetland Reserve funds; and State HTA funds.
In addition, the Natural Area Reserve System benefits from partnerships. For example, we work closely with: Watershed Partnerships crews to complete projects; the Army Environmental crews to complete projects on O’ahu and Hawai’i; the National Parks Service on NARS adjacent to national parks on Maui, Moloka’i and Hawai’i.
[Editor’s note: If such funds are spent on Natural Area Reserves, they are not called out in the NAR budget, which shows no sources of funds other than general funds and the NAR fund.]
Q. Will you be seeking an increase in budget as well as authorized personnel levels?
A. We are working to develop the State Administration budget at this time.
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 15, Number 5 November 2004
Leave a Reply