Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Support Senate’s OHA Settlement Bill

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter-to-the-Editor, Star-Bulletin, April 19, 2009

I strongly support Senate Bill 995, which attempts to resolve claims and disputes relating to the portion of income and proceeds from the lands of the public land trust for use by OHA between Nov. 7, 1978, and July 1, 2009.

This bill proposes to convey Mauna Kea to OHA, along with several other parcels of land. The bill would allow OHA and the state to reach a “global settlement” of the past and future obligations of the state to native Hawaiians.

The committee felt that the proposal made by Gov. Ben Cayetano back in March 31, 1999, is a sensible and appropriate approach toward a “global settlement” and that it should be re-offered to OHA.

It should be noted that a global settlement does not include natural resources, water and gathering rights or any other rights.

The Senate’s “global settlement” offer includes monetary payment to OHA of $251 million; conveyance of public lands from the state to OHA equal to 20 percent of the 1.8 million acres of ceded lands already inventoried, and the suspension of the $15.1 million in annual payments to OHA effective a date to be agreed upon in good faith.

In my view, SB 995 provides a great opportunity for all native Hawaiians to finally have the resources to build a strong nation.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Government

Governor trying to strongarm ceded land deal

Saturday, April 18th, 2009

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter to the Editor, The Maui News, April 18, 2009

Senate Bill 1677 is the only surviving bill that would provide any protection to ceded lands from being sold or exchanged. While it does not provide the complete moratorium that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs wanted, it does require a majority vote of both the House and Senate to approve the sale or exchange of ceded lands. It also requires that the community be briefed regarding the location of the lands prior to its sale or exchange.

Unfortunately, state Attorney General Mark Bennett and House Speaker Calvin Say are now holding the bill hostage in an attempt to browbeat the OHA trustees into dropping our lawsuit against any further sale of ceded lands. At this writing, SB1677 has been deferred from the final vote on third reading for four days in the House. Gov. Linda Lingle has made it clear that she will not sign the bill unless we drop our case.

Both Lingle and Bennett do not have any interest in doing what is right for Native Hawaiians. If the Lingle administration truly won the recent Supreme Course case, like Bennett has bragged about in the media, why do they want us to drop the case while it’s being reconsidered by the Hawaii Supreme Court? Also, if they really don’t intend to sell or exchange any ceded lands in the near future, why won’t they just pass SB1677 instead of threatening to kill it?

There is no reason for OHA to drop the case at this point because the Senate will most likely not accept the House’s changes to SB 1677 and we would just end up dropping the case for nothing. Settling the case with the Lingle administration without a moratorium on the sale of ceded lands would only anger our beneficiaries. We would also be sending the wrong message to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Government

Shapiro wrong on ceded lands

Thursday, January 8th, 2009

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter sent to the Honolulu Advertiser Editor, January 8, 2009

I take issue with Mr. David Shapiro’s December 10, 2008 statement that, “No state can operate effectively with its ability to manage its resources in indefinite limbo.”

I agree with the principle of his statement but he cannot compare Hawaii with any other state.  No state other than Hawaii relies on native lands to function.  It is a shame that this state cannot find other sources of revenues to meet its needs and has to continually rob “native” resources.  It has been too easy for this state to use our native resources to balance its budget.  We acknowledge the right of the state to use ceded lands to satisfy other purposes mentioned in the Admissions Act, OHA has never disagreed with that fact.  However, we do disagree that the state has a right to sell ceded lands that satisfy the Hawaiian requirement of the Admissions Act.

A whole new attitude of respect must be initiated at the state level regarding ceded lands so that Hawaiians are not short changed.  Only then can the state expect to have the cooperation of the Hawaiian community.

The state must also change its stance that it has the legal right to all of our native lands, which is clearly not the case.  Hawaiian Home Lands are ceded lands and its mandate was created by federal law.  For the state to say that “they” have the legal right to all of our lands while we only have a moral one is not only arrogant but also ignorant.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Government

Lingle is wrong on ceded lands

Monday, December 8th, 2008

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser. December 8, 2008

Governor Lingle’s assertion over the weekend that Hawaiians only have a “moral” claim to the ceded lands, and not a legal one, is preposterous.

The governor knows that the state has been financed on the backs of Hawaiians since its inception.  To take a position now that we do not have a legal claim to ceded lands is a slap in the face for all of us who have supported her for the past six years.

OHA has done nothing but open our hearts, and wallets, to her administration.  We’ve guaranteed loans for her Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to the tune of $33 million dollars which should have been part of her budget and spent countless millions subsidizing her Department of Education, which has done so poorly educating our children.  Where would her administration be without OHA money and Hawaiian land subsidies?

You would think that after six years of lobbying Congress to get the Akaka bill passed she would know better, or were her actions and words just a political ploy?  Can Hawaiians, or anyone, trust what she says in the future.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Government

Apoliona Sells Out Hawaiians

Saturday, November 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: November 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

During this past legislative session I strongly opposed HB 266, HD because the bill, if passed into law, would bind us to a settlement agreement that was signed between OHA and the State on January 17, 2008.  The agreement contained language that will forever extinguish all rights afforded to Native Hawaiians under section 4 and 6 of Article XII of the State Constitution. 

Apoliona tried to rush through a settlement with the state so that she could claim she settled our 28-year-old dispute during her bid for re-election.  Apoliona was willing to sell-out all Hawaiians, both now and in the future, by signing an agreement that would forever give up any claims we have to land and natural resources.  Hoping that no one would read the language of the agreement, Apoliona kept it a secret until she finally revealed it in January to the legislature.

Apoliona was confident that she could sneak this bill through the legislature before anyone caught on to this betrayal.  Unfortunately for her, the general public, Hawaiian beneficiaries, and the legislators did not agree that this was legislation that should be passed and over a hundred people testified against it.  In the end, the legislature killed the bill and told OHA to take any future agreements out to the public for hearings.  This has not occurred as of the writing of this article.

The following is the exact language that was contained in the agreement Apoliona signed:

“For claims on or after July 1, 2008: For each and every fiscal year following June 30, 2008, during which OHA retained the statutory right to receive an annual payment of income and proceeds from the public land trust lands of at least $15,100,000, OHA releases, waives, and forever discharges any and all claims of any kind concerning, relating to, or arising out of each and every claim for damages or any other relief against the STATE, or its departments, agencies, officers, or employees, by the office or any other person or entity, with respect to any controversy, claim, cause of action, or right of action arising out of, or relating to any right OHA or any other person or entity may have to income, proceeds, or any other tangible right, item, or benefit from the public land trust under section 4 and 6 of Article XII of the Constitution or any statute or act.  Such claims are forever barred, and to the extent any waiver of sovereign immunity for such a suit, claim, cause of action, or right of action still exists, that waiver is withdrawn by the Proposed Legislation.”

The language above also conflicts with the Akaka bill, specifically the section that allows for the United States and the State of Hawaii to enter into negotiations with the future Native Hawaiian governing entity to addressing such matters as the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other assets, and the protection of existing rights related to such lands or resources and also to address grievances regarding assertions of historical wrongs committed against Native Hawaiians by the United States or by the State of Hawaii.

It was for these reasons that I strongly opposed HB266, HD2 and ask the legislative committees to hold the bill until a more favorable agreement can be worked out by the Governor’s administration, the Legislature, Native Hawaiian beneficiaries, and OHA.

Everyone knows that OHA’s mission is to advocate for the betterment of our beneficiaries, so how could Apoliona sign an agreement that would extinguish the rights of all our beneficiaries to future entitlements including rights to surface and ground water and mineral resources?

BIG BULLY

          Since December of 2007, Apoliona has been bullying the administrator about approving my travel to the Cook Islands and questioning why the Premier of the country invited me and not her.  Apoliona’s non-stop harassment, micro-managing, and need to control everything has finally proved too much for him.

She recently used a Star Bulletin reporter to question me on why my airfare was more expensive than other trustees traveling on one particular trip to Washington, D.C.  This was one of the few times this happened and as those of you who have traveled to the continent know, your ticket price varies based on when you make your reservations.  Our trips to Washington are usually based on when the Akaka bill is heard and we don’t have a lot of time to rework our schedules before we can commit to traveling.

Apoliona never mentioned to that reporter that on one of her own trips to Washington, D.C., she spend nearly $9,000!  She also never mentioned that she outspent every trustee that ever served on the OHA board, with over $56,000 in one fiscal year of travel.

VINDICTIVE

Astonishingly, even though our Executive Policy manual clearly states that the Administrator has the power to authorize travel for trustees, he has chosen to let the Chairperson take over this duty before the new policy has been officially passed!

Without even the proper authority, Apoliona has denied my travel to South Dakota for official business.  For the past five years, I have been a board member of the Governor’s Interstate Indian Council.  I am the only non-Indian member.  This organization has supported our efforts for federal recognition with five resolutions that have been sent to Congress on our behalf.  This organization represents Native Americans and Alaska Natives in all 50 states.

This is one small example of the many punitive things Apoliona does to her fellow trustees who do not support her efforts to overspend, break procurement laws, withhold information from trustees and beneficiaries, and encouraging a “wild west” behavior at OHA for the last five years.

MORE THINGS TO CONSIDER

  • Beneficiaries should question why OHA spent over $37,000 on the mayoral debate, but spent zero dollars on a forum or debate for OHA candidates.  Wouldn’t an OHA candidate’s forum be more important to our beneficiaries than a mayor’s race?
  • Apoliona would never agree to a candidate’s debate for OHA.  She would have to answer the many questions beneficiaries have about all the money OHA has spent during her term as Chairwoman with no results or benefits that directly impact our people.
  • Everyone should question why Apoliona and her cronies did not question the Governor’s motives for appealing the State Supreme Court’s ruling that said the state could not engage in the sale of ceded lands until it reaches a settlement with Native Hawaiians.

The Governor appealed this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has recently granted the state the right to present its case before them.  This is the Governor who said that she believed that the Hawaiian people deserve to be compensated for the wrongs done to them.  This is the Governor that Apoliona has been in agreement with in signing-off on the future of entitlements for Hawaiians.  Who is Apoliona representing?

Apoliona has put Native Hawaiians in a NO WIN situation.  The Governor is fully aware that there is currently no justice for any native people at the U.S. Supreme Court.  We all know what happened to us in the “Rice Case” when we went before the Supreme Court.  That decision has led to nearly ten years of constant litigation.

CHOOSE WISELY

In this election year, voters can make the necessary changes and elect people who work cooperatively with others for the benefit of our people, in a manner that is open and transparent.  This is my hope for CHANGE.

Apoliona and Machado have proven that they cannot be trusted with the future of our native people.  Mahalo Ke Akua.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Government

Programs need to be self-sufficient

Monday, September 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: September 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  OHA gets millions from the state general fund each year, which OHA matches through trust fund dollars, which totaled about $2.8 million in 2005.  Most of these funds goes to three nonprofit organizations that benefit Native Hawaiians — Na Pua No’eau, the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (NHLC) and Alu Like.  In 2005, Na Pua No’eau received about $700,000 of its $1.5 million budget from OHA.  Roughly $600,000 went to the NHLC, which represented more than half of its operating budget.  In 2006, OHA earmarked $750,000 toward Alu Like programs.  All of these amounts do not include separate grants, contracts, and programs funded by OHA that are outside of these organizations’ budgeted appropriations.

While I applaud the mission of these organizations and the dedication of their employees to better the conditions of Native Hawaiians, OHA does not have the resources to fund these programs indefinitely.  Add to that the fact that our economy is slowing and OHA’s Native Hawaiian Trust Fund portfolio has fallen to approximately $375 million (as of June 30, 2008) and the outlook seems even more doubtful.

Given these tough economic times, OHA needs to find a way to help these organizations become more self-sufficient and less of a drain on our budget.  Some organizations, such as the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, should be completely eliminated from our budget.  Funds allocated for legal representation for our beneficiaries should be given to more than one firm so that they may get the best representation they can.

Despite our generous assistance to NHLC over the years, we are constantly hearing complaints from the community regarding NHLC’s treatment of our beneficiaries and the quality of their customer service.  Things have gotten so bad lately, that it now seems as if a beneficiary is appearing at almost every meeting to complain about the way NHLC has treated them. 

OHA has even been forced to set-up a special fund to handle cases that were rejected by the NHLC, which we call our “conflict fund.”  However, in order to qualify for these funds, our beneficiaries have to go through the bureaucratic hassled of first getting a letter from NHLC stating that they cannot take the case.  Unfortunately, NHLC seems to be dragging their feet on getting these letters out.  For example, one beneficiary claimed that NHLC refused, despite repeated requests, to give them a letter stating they could not represent them because of a conflict of interest.

In another case, a beneficiary in Hilo claimed that NHLC dropped their case at the eleventh-hour.  This forced the beneficiary to scramble and find other assistance in order to save her case.  There are also several beneficiaries who have reported that NHLC has not responded to them regarding the status of their cases, even after years have gone by.  It seems as if the NHLC is keeping certain cases “ongoing” so they can keep them on their books to justify additional funding.

Several trustees have also brought up concerns that the NHLC’s lawsuits against the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) on the island of Hawaii will have detrimental affects on OHA’s ability to develop affordable housing.  Currently, NHLC is trying to stop DHHL from leasing out lands in order to generate revenue through several lawsuits.  Clearly, they are not looking at the larger picture – how can DHHL operate and assist their beneficiaries without more revenue?  All the lawsuits are doing is creating a negative sense in the community at-large that “Hawaiians are suing Hawaiians.”

Clearly, if NHLC wants OHA to continue finding their organization, they must conduct a major overhaul.  Our administrator has also suggested that they send a report on their caseload to OHA on a weekly or bi-monthly basis so that we are no longer blindsided at the board table.  I would require that their continued funding depends on it.

Employee Exodus to Date for 2008

On August 8, 2008, our Chief Financial Officer (CFO), a senior officer in OHA’s administration, resigned from his position effective October 8, 2008.  So for those trustees who insist on taking a Pollyanna attitude and insist everything is OK, I would like to remind them of the glaring fact that in the last six-months, OHA’s fiscal department has lost: (1) an accountant, who wrote a letter to trustees saying she felt she was unfairly terminated; (2) our Comptroller, who moved to another state, and (3) our CFO, who left while OHA is in the midst of an audit and finishing up our upcoming total operating budget.

In total, there have been at least six staff members who have left OHA by choice or otherwise this year.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government

Too Little, Too Late

Friday, February 8th, 2008

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter sent to Star Bulletin Editor on February 8, 2008

I am writing to correct the errors that were made by the Chairperson of the Office of Hawaiian Affiars and other trustees in their Feb. 7th letter. 

First, the letter twists the facts by stating that I rejected former Governor Cayetano’s offer in 1999 while I was serving as the Chairperson of OHA. 

What really happened is that the full board voted to reject Cayetano’s first offer, which was much less than the $251 million he later offered, for the past due amounts owed to OHA from 1980.

OHA and the state were also discussing a prospective offer of 20% or 365,000 acres of ceded lands, if OHA would settle on all land claims against the state in the future.  This offer would not have included any ocean resources, or any other resource, that the Hawaiian people would be entitled to.

OHA was not able to consider Cayetano’s second offer because five trustees, who include currently serving trustees Haunani Apoliona and Colette Machado, voted to end all negotiations.  OHA’s attorney at the time, James E. Duffy, Jr., now a Hawaii Supreme Court Justice, repeatedly advised the trustees to continue the negotiations, but they rejected his advice.

The $251 million that Cayetano offered in 1999 would be worth more than double today if it were properly invested and the 365,000 acres of ceded lands would have meant economic self-sufficiency and a better negotiating position for the Akaka bill.

I believe that Apoliona and Machado wanted to end negotiations because they did not want any credit to go to our negotiating team, which was made up of myself and former trustees Clayton Hee and Mililani Trask.

Apoliona and Machado thought they could negotiate their own deal, one that would serve as their legacy, but nine years later all they could come up with is a watered-down version of our previous deal that we now see before the legislature.  Their short-sightedness caused OHA to pay dearly a year later when the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Rice decision.

Later, the Hawaii Supreme Court threw out Act 304 and suggested that the remedy must now be sought at the legislature.  I believe this decision was made by the court because OHA walked away from the negotiating table after the Hawaii Supreme Court had asked OHA and the state to negotiate a settlement.

Also, in light of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s recent injunction preventing the state from any future sale or transfer of ceded lands until the claims of Native Hawaiians have been resolved, OHA should really consider whether a better settlement can be negotiated than the one we now have before the legislature.

I encourage anyone who would like to dispute my statements to speak directly to Governor Cayetano, his chief negotiator Sam Callejo, Senator Clayton Hee, or Hawaii Supreme Court Justice James Duffy.  I also have signed documents from the 1999 negotiations to back up what I have written.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government

Cayetano offered better ceded land deal

Monday, February 4th, 2008

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
Monday, February 4, 2008

Source: Honolulu Star Bulletin

I am writing to confirm former Gov. Ben Cayetano’s statement in the Star-Bulletin’s Jan. 22 article that his ceded lands settlement offer to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, while he was in office, was a better deal for native Hawaiians than the proposal now before the Legislature. I was the chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 1999 when he offered OHA $251 million plus 20 percent of the ceded lands, which is estimated at 365,000 acres.

Following OHA’s victory in the Heely court case, the state of Hawaii appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which then ordered the state and OHA to negotiate a settlement.

After only a few months, Haunani Apoliona, Colette Machado, Frenchy DeSoto, Louis Hao and Mililani Trask voted to halt the negotiations because they didn’t understand that the $251 million was for the past due revenues to OHA and the 20 percent of the ceded lands was to settle future claims.

While it would have been a final settlement, imagine how great that would have been for our people if we had received the 20 percent of all of the ceded lands back then. Not only that, Gov. Cayetano was willing to consider many of the lands that OHA wanted. Our intention was to take the offer out into the community for input, but we never had the chance because of the shortsightedness of those trustees. As a result of OHA walking away from the table, the Supreme Court ruled the Heely act void, and told OHA to go back to the Legislature for a remedy.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Government

Response to OHA Trustee Heen’s June 13th Letter

Friday, July 13th, 2007

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter-to-the-Editor, Star Bulletin, July 13, 2007

I was surprised to read OHA Trustee Walter Heen’s June 13th letter where he wrote, “I do not recall Akana ever dissenting from any of the terms that were brought before the board, including the waiver provision that she now loudly decries.”

Heen was present at all of the executive session meetings where I expressed concerns regarding the waiver provision.  Further, all of the OHA trustees, along with the administrator, received a letter from me in advance which explained why I could not support the settlement bill and that I would be submitting testimony to the legislature in opposition to the bill (see attached).

I hope that Heen will make sure that OHA has lined up its “ducks” for the 2009 legislative session since he is now part of the negotiation team.  Further, I question why OHA’s negotiating team is still negotiating with the Governor’s office when she has publicly stated that she will not reconsidering her proposal.  Why not work with the legislature?

Tags: ,
Posted in Government

Thoughts on the ’07 State of the City Address

Sunday, April 15th, 2007

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: April 2007 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  I was honored to be an invited guest to hear Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s State of the City address.  The Mayor’s hour long speech highlighted the many good things that his administration has already done and he also listed the many projects that he plans to complete within the next few years. 

It is funny how people tend to focus on the few things that they don’t like, but be that as it may, I was disturbed by his comments about a new gate for the Honolulu Zoo and how wonderful it was going to look.  I was also concerned about the Mayor’s plan to raise the sewer fees and his proposal to remove one day of trash pick-up.

When did the Mayor last visit the Zoo?  In my opinion, our Honolulu Zoo is one of the worst kept zoos in the country.  The animals look sickly and their cages are dirty and pathetic.  The poor elephants are chained at the legs with only a limited amount of space to move in.  Anyone who cares about animals would agree that these poor animals should be free to roam around.  If that isn’t possible, we should at least send them to a zoo that would take better care of them.  It makes no sense to waste our money beautifying the zoo’s entrance, while letting the public get repulsed by what they see once they get inside.

The Mayor also proposed an increase in our sewer fees, saying he wanted to avoid another rupture like the one that happened in Waikiki that diverted 48 million gallons of sewage into the Ala Wai.  While all of us agree that our sewers are in bad shape, I don’t see an increase in fees based on the current system of assessment as the answer.  The mayor really needs to revamp the flawed system that our sewer and water fees are calculated from.  That way, the City could charge the appropriate fees to those who are the heaviest users.

Most people are unaware that the calculation the City currently uses to charge us our exorbitant rates are not based on any fair formula.  The fees are being assessed based on our water usage.  The City claims that all of the water we use is going into our sewer systems, but what about the water that we use on our yards and the evaporation from swimming pools?  The only fair way to assess a land owner’s sewer fee is to install a meter.  Instead of giving homeowners a $150 property tax credit, the mayor should use the money to install water meters in every home so that the rates that we are charged are fair.

As for once-a-week garbage pick-up, I don’t know of anyone who thinks that this is a good idea.  The mayor has said the final program is far from definite and he is only putting it out there for the sake of discussion, but the thought of smelly, week old garbage permeating our neighborhoods and the poor sanitation it would create gives me great discomfort.  For once, I’d like to hear how the City will expand services while cutting costs.  It may be difficult, but it’s not impossible.  Just look at what Mayor Rudy Giuliani did in New York.

Also, his proposal to charge an extra $10 monthly fee to add a second pickup (for those of us who feel a once-a-week trash collection isn’t enough) is not the answer.  As any resident of Oahu who already has to deal with the high cost of living would tell you – we don’t need another fee for such an essential service.  As they say, you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.  Trash pick-up, like water and sewer, is one of the most important services the City provides.  Honolulu wouldn’t last long without it.  The mayor should look else where for his cuts before he turns to trash pick-up and raising sewer fees. 

The City has already significantly raised our property taxes and doubled our car registration tax.  The mayor needs to find a way to use the new monies more effectively.  There should be more wiggle-room in the City budget now that our property taxes and car registration fees have shot up so high.

I do hope the mayor and his administration will give these concerns much thought.  Honolulu residents already endure much of the burden for our visitor industry and businesses who cater to them.  Let’s not compound our problems.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »