SB1513 would add a new section to Chapter 37, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to restrict how state departments and agencies move money between personnel funding and operating expenses. Specifically, it prohibits transferring appropriations intended for positions to operating costs, or operating-cost appropriations to positions, unless the transfer is necessary to carry out the Legislature’s intended purpose for the appropriation.
The bill’s findings explain that the executive branch requested about $3.6 billion for positions in fiscal year 2025 and that the State has experienced significant vacancy rates in civil service positions. The Legislature states that some appropriated funds have been transferred or used in ways inconsistent with the original purpose of the appropriation, and the bill is intended to preserve legislative control over budgeted funds and ensure they are spent as authorized.
Impact
If enacted, SB1513 would create a new statutory restriction in Chapter 37 governing the state allotment and appropriation process. It would limit executive branch flexibility to shift money between salary/position funding and operating expenses, except where such a transfer aligns with the Legislature’s stated purpose for the appropriation. This would affect state departments and agencies that manage appropriated funds and could constrain budget adjustments during the fiscal year.
Sentiment
The bill appears to reflect a generally skeptical view of executive branch budget transfers and a desire to tighten fiscal oversight. Its findings suggest concern about high vacancy rates and the use of appropriated funds for purposes other than those approved by the Legislature. The available voting history shows the measure was deferred in the Senate Committee on GVO, and there are no recorded votes or transcript excerpts indicating broad support or opposition in the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between legislative control of appropriations and agency flexibility in managing budgets. Supporters would likely favor the bill as a safeguard against reprogramming funds away from positions or operating needs, while opponents may argue it could make it harder for agencies to respond to vacancies, staffing shortages, or changing operational demands. The bill’s exception for transfers that fulfill the Legislature’s purpose may also be debated as potentially vague or difficult to apply in practice.