 Aloha, I'm Keely Ikeena, president of the Grassroot Institute, and although I'm an elected public official, the views in this commentary are purely my own and do not reflect those of any organization or agency. In theory, the legislative session is a time when complex issues can be hashed out in full view of the public. Citizens are free to testify and offer feedback to legislators about proposed bills. Researchers can research the complex variables involved and debate the bill's possible impact. Hearings are held, compromises are found. In theory, the process helps protect us all from hastily composed legislation with secret agendas and unintended consequences. Now, all of that is in theory, but then comes the end of the session when that care, compromise, and concern are occasionally thrown out the window. Now, if you ever doubted that the proverbial smoke-filled room still exists, you only need to look at how transparency goes by the wayside at the end of the session. Consider the budget bill. We know that Governor David Ige asked for an extra $50 million to help meet payments for the state's unfunded liabilities. What was less clear until recently is that the state is also sitting on a multi-year surplus. What's completely unclear is how legislators are planning to spend that surplus. Now, part of the issue is that it's an unofficial surplus because it wasn't submitted as part of the Governor's financial plan. But let's not get mired by the semantics of bureaucracy. The money is either there or it's not. If it is, what's the legislature planning to do with it? The Hawaii Constitution says excess revenues can only be given back as a tax refund credit or deposited into an emergency fund or used to pay down state obligations. You'd think that the question of how to allocate the unofficial surplus would be a public matter, but it is surprisingly difficult for the public to get any information about budget proceedings at this stage. They are neither broadcast nor recorded, and the process itself is opaque. In essence, the way the public learns what is in the budget bill is for the legislature to pass it and then read it. Now, even worse is the notorious practice of gut and replace. Every year, legislators take advantage of a vaguely titled bill to swap out its contents with an entirely different measure they want to see advance. Thus, a bill that has passed one house, going through debate and public testimony, can end up being amended in the other house until it's an entirely different bill. That amended bill now moves along to conference committee and passage, immune from the need for more hearings or public comment at all. And gut and replace isn't unusual. It can happen more than a dozen times every session. For example, take this year, HB 1985 began as a bill about zoning, land use and affordable housing. Then it went to the Senate, where it was transformed into a bill about the Mauna Kale Management Authority. Now, HB 2304 started as a bill about industrial hemp. Now it's an appropriation for capital improvements in East Maui. Take HB 2471. It received attention as a proposal to regulate video games. Then it became a licensing bill about small dollar lenders, which are payday loans. The practice of gut and replace is a repudiation of transparency and citizen involvement. It allows legislators to advance pet projects and dead bills without subjecting them to fair scrutiny or the full legislative process. And yet it's so common that the League of Women Voters and Common Cause Hawaii created what we call the Rusty Scalpel Award for the bill that makes the greatest leap in subject without constitutionally required legislative review. In 2017, the award went to a bill that started as a lower income tax rate bill for the poor and turned into a $1 million appropriation for the Hawaii Tourism Authority. The real damage here isn't to the budget or Hawaii's tax system, though they're questionably suffering as well. The larger question is how these practices destroy public trust and government. The purpose of transparency and legislative review is to promote an active and educated citizenry. By shutting the public out of the process through secretive budget hearings and gut and replace tactics, the legislature fosters the notion that they don't need to play by the rules. This in turn leads to greater public frustration and distrust of government. What we need is a show of integrity and restraint from our policymakers. Refrain from indulging in the practice of gut and replace. Demand more transparency in the legislative process. Under passing rules that would prevent gut and replace tactics, this isn't just about getting more sunlight in those smoke-filled rooms. It's about protecting the democratic process. I'm Keeley Iaakena, Aloha.