The Office of Hawaiian Affairs Budget and Finance Committee took up a contested proposal Oct. 15 to raise the administrator position’s base salary for fiscal years 2025 and 2026. The proposal would have set a FY2025 base salary and applied a step increase for FY2026; trustees raised procedural and legal concerns during extended debate.

Chair Alapa presented a motion that would have increased the administrator’s FY2025 base salary retroactive to Nov. 1, 2024 and set a FY2026 base salary effective Nov. 1, 2025. Committee materials referenced contract language, comparative executive compensation and the Commission on Salaries report. Administration staff provided budget alignment numbers during the discussion.

Trustees asked detailed questions about the scope of authority, contract obligations and who prepared the budget realignment materials. Several trustees noted the board’s executive policy manual and the administrator’s employment contract and questioned whether the administrator (whose contract is referenced in the motion) had been involved in preparing the proposed realignment. General Counsel Everett Ota clarified legal limits in HRS and read relevant contract language into the record, noting that the contract ties step increases to the Commission on Salaries recommendations when an increase is applied.

Multiple trustees expressed concern that the matter required coordinated preparation from administration and the chief financial officer because a substantive base-salary change requires budget realignment and might implicate procurement and HR processes. Trustees also said ongoing performance evaluations should be completed before adopting larger compensation changes tied to performance.

After extended discussion and a roll-call vote, trustees did not adopt the proposal as presented and returned the matter for further administrative and legal review. Trustees instructed staff to bring a clarified recommendation that addresses the committee’s procedural questions, explains how the proposed figures were calculated relative to applicable statutory guidance and, if needed, offers an alternative path (for example: conformity to the contract’s step increase provision, phased approach, or separate amendment to the employment contract). The committee did not finalize a permanent salary adjustment at the Oct. 15 meeting.

Why it matters
The administrator is the agency’s top executive charged with implementing the board’s strategic plan and overseeing OHA’s operations. Trustees said they want a transparent, legally grounded and administratively coordinated process before altering the position’s base pay. Several trustees warned that adopting a large increase without clear process or administrator input could expose the board to criticism and procedural errors.

Next steps
The committee chair and administration will coordinate to provide a revised proposal that: (1) explicitly cites the contract language and how any increase would be calculated; (2) identifies the source(s) of funding and whether a budget realignment is required; and (3) documents consultation with HR, general counsel and the administrator’s office so trustees can take a final vote at a later meeting.