The heated debate over how much budgetary independence the University of Hawaii should have — an issue that recently has reached a boiling point — has persisted for the better part of a decade. It’s been a tug-of-war based on trust, or the lack of it, and recent problems suggest lawmakers must consider tighter controls.

Here’s the history: Proposals for greater UH autonomy stalled during the contentious era under President Evan Dobelle, but finally became law in 2005. That’s when then-Gov. Linda Lingle enjoyed good working relations with David McClain after he took the helm at the university.

More recently lawmakers and the university’s current chief executive, M.R.C. Greenwood, have clashed. Last summer’s massive fumble over the bogus Stevie Wonder fundraiser showed oversight and accountability at UH to be weak. It severely damaged the trust placed in the university to run its own affairs.

Now new allegations have emerged: that construction projects were mismanaged and that at least one UH official was playing favorites with contracts. Dennis Mitsunaga, owner of an engineering firm and a major Democratic Party donor, has accused Brian Minaai, associate vice president for capital improvements, with steering subcontracts to firms operated by Minaai’s friends. According to Mitsunaga, who made the explosive charges in written testimony to the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Government Operations and Housing, millions of dollars could have been wasted.

These are still only allegations, but Greenwood is already aware that UH is skating on thin ice. One telling sign: The regents are also considering clamping down on executive sabbatical benefits, another recognition of the public trust deficit. In the Minaai case, Greenwood has asked the attorney general’s office to assist in an investigation of the charges.

In fact, the AG must take the lead in this inquiry and put a high priority on its completion. And the inquiry should be broad enough to uncover any systematic problem with oversight that may exist, beyond the issues concerning Minaai and the job in question, a UH-Hilo dormitory project.

Greenwood also has promised transparency in the investigation, which is on the agenda for today’s Board of Regents meeting. She must be held to that pledge by increasingly frustrated taxpayers who, distressed by rising tuition rates, deserve to know how their money otherwise is being spent.

In theory, greater UH autonomy seems a practical policy, especially where capital improvements are concerned. UH has lagged in its facilities upgrades and upkeep, so it makes sense that there be as few needless barriers as possible. That may be why Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz, who chairs the economic development panel, has held up Senate Bill 1383, which would have put much of UH contract activity under the state’s procurement office.

However, given these fresh concerns about procurement, a bill should be moved forward that would address this problem. And closer scrutiny also should apply to the awarding and management of professional service contracts, such as engineering and architectural work, and not only construction projects as proposed in SB 1383.

At the very least, UH officials should be directed to bring their contractual arrangements into the light. Problems crop up whenever people running procurements believe that nobody is watching. In an era when online tracking of government spending is becoming par for the course, the procurement process should be just as open.

Greenwood’s various support offices should be enlisted in making this data accessible. If UH officials don’t move quickly to correct the perception of secretive, slovenly management, the Legislature seems ready to force their hand.