Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Perreira’s Opinion Shared By Many

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Lettter to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser, April 22, 2010

The editorial opinion shared by Randy Perreira in your paper speaks for the many thousands of people who share the same sentiments (“DHS proposal will increase social calamity,”April 14).

What on earth can the Lingle administration be thinking?

It is so unfortunate that when government mis-spends our tax dollars, it is always the school children and the less fortunate who suffer.

Perhaps it is time for our local people to start our own “Tea Party Group” and tackle real-life issues instead of political philosophies.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Government, Political

Broken Promises by the Legislature

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: April 2010 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

There is no question that from the Territorial Government to the present, the state has consistently mismanaged our ceded lands.  Politicians have leased thousands of acres to their friends for as little as a dollar a year through insider deals.  A previous Governor even suspended landing fees at the airport, which sits on ceded lands, for two years to allow airlines to bring in more tourists.  We all know that didn’t happen.  And they wonder why they don’t have any money!

These same politicians are now forced to come up with “creative” ways to supplement their shortfalls during these tight economic times such as legalized gambling, raising taxes and, worst of all, selling ceded lands.  They wouldn’t have to look far if they simply managed our ceded lands properly.

The state’s failure to manage ceded lands should not be used as an excuse to sell a resource that is so critical to the future success of our future nation.  Just a year ago, state legislators agreed with us and voted to preserve ceded lands.  Act 176, 2009, established that the state cannot sell any ceded lands unless they get a two-thirds majority vote in both the State House and State Senate.  Now they’re going back on their word and trying to sell ceded lands.  How can we trust these people?

This election year, let’s elect responsible leaders who will make the tough decisions needed to get our economy out of the toilet.  We do not need more politicians to think of even more creative ways to tax us or squander our resources.

ON ANOTHER NOTE:

On February 10, 2010, OHA’s money committee decided to stop investigating whether we should keep or replace our investment managers.  According to the minutes of the meeting, after considering all factors involved, all trustees present at the meeting came to a consensus that our staff would “cease all due diligence efforts at this time and retain the current investment advisors.”

The decision to postpone the evaluation of our investment managers is very shortsighted [I was not at the meeting and did not join the discussion].  It disregards the criticisms that the State Auditor had in her recent audit regarding OHA’s management of the trust.  It also disregards what Trustees Lindsey, Mossman, Heen, Stender and I learned from the Mercer Investment Forum on January 28-29, 2010 in San Francisco. 

The Forum stressed the need for investors to look for managers who are specialized in each field of investment.  More importantly, they recommended that we evaluate whether our managers are able to handle the new requirements of “opportunistic” investing.

Trustee Stender later informed the trustees that our fiscal staff would continue to monitor the top five money managers we are considering and bring this matter back to the committee within a year. 

One year is long time to wait.  At the very least, our staff should report to the committee on a quarterly basis to keep us informed.  In these volatile times, we do not have the luxury to “take our eyes off the ball” for such an extended length of time.

Until the next time.  Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Land, OHA, Political

State Auditor confirms the lack of vision and foresight within OHA’s leadership

Monday, March 15th, 2010

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: March 2010 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

Back in September of 2009, the trustees were given a draft of State Auditor Marion Higa’s Investment Portfolio Review of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.  The 48-page report to the Governor and the State Legislature had many critical things to say about OHA’s investment structure and ability to carry out its duties.

Here are just a few of the Auditor’s concerns:

  • The board’s Investment Policy Statement (IPS) is inadequate to ensure potential conflicts and other violations are identified, reported, and resolved.
  • OHA does not have a “whistleblower” policy or a toll-free phone line available to OHA staff and beneficiaries to report potential conflicts, violations, or other issues.
  • OHA does not track general beneficiary concerns or complaints specifically related to the trust.  Complaints are therefore less likely to be reported and OHA cannot ensure complaints are properly received and resolved.

The Auditor also wrote that the Trust’s lackluster performance warrants review of the advisory service’s policies, processes, and performance.

  • The trust’s investments were underperforming for the majority of the review period of FY2004 to FY2008, not only failing to meet its own target earnings goals in nearly half of the quarters, but also falling below average nationwide peer performance in 18 of the 20 quarters reviewed.
  • OHA did not consistently monitor investment compliance during FY2004 to FY2008.  In addition, the investment advisors do not certify quarterly or annually that they are compliant with the trust’s investment guidelines.

On September 8, 2009, Chair Haunani Apoliona responded to the State Auditor and tried to address the concerns the Auditor brought up and what OHA planned to do about it.  It was clear that the Chair wanted the Auditor to soften the harsh report.

However, on October 1, 2009, I received a copy of the State Auditor’s Final Report and, to no surprise to me, nothing substantive was changed.  The Auditor concluded that:

  • While a cursory reading of the board’s response may appear to contradict the Auditor’s findings, in most instances the board challenged secondary points but ultimately acknowledged the major points of the Auditor’s findings.
  • Moreover, many of those arguments misconstrued the facts presented in the Auditor’s report.
  • The Auditor’s final report contains only a few editorial changes based on the board’s response.

On October 2, 2009, an obviously irritated Chair Apoliona personally responded to the Auditor, complaining that she could have gone over the auditor’s comments point-by-point but chose to focus on the “big picture.”

In a memo dated October 23, 2009, I wrote that I agreed with many of the criticisms made by the State Auditor.  Further, Chair Apoliona should focus on making the much needed changes that the State Auditor suggested.  Only then can we move forward as an organization and do better for our beneficiaries.

If you are interested in reading the State Auditor’s report on OHA in its entirety, please visit the State Auditor’s website at http://hawaii.gov/auditor/Reports/2009/09-10.pdf.  Until the next time.  Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Legal, OHA

Broken Promises by the Legislature

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser, February 23, 2010

From the Territorial Government to the present, politicians have consistently overspent.  This forces them to come up with “creative” ideas to supplement their shortfalls when the economy eventually sours. 

They wouldn’t have to look far if they simply managed ceded lands properly.  Thousands of acres have been leased by politicians to their friends for as little as a dollar a year.  A previous Governor even suspended landing fees at the airport, which sits on ceded lands, for two years to allow airlines to bring in more tourists.  We all know that didn’t happen.  It was just another sweetheart deal.

There is no question the state has mismanaged ceded lands.  However, this rationale should not be used as an excuse to sell such a precious resource.  A year ago, legislators voted to preserve ceded lands.  Now they’re trying to sell them.  How can we trust these people?

We need leaders who can balance budgets.  Then they wouldn’t have to raise taxes, legalize gambling or sell ceded lands.  This election year, let’s vote for people who will make the tough decisions needed to revitalize our economy.  We definitely do not need more creative ways to tax us or squander our resources.

Tags: ,
Posted in Government, Land, OHA, Political, Sovereignty

Portraits of Traitorous Overthrowers Must Go

Monday, February 15th, 2010

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: February 2010 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

As difficult as it is to believe that in this day and age, and with all of the history that has been revealed regarding the unjust nature of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, large, framed portraits of Provisional Government officials are still being displayed in the rotunda of Ali’iolani, the headquarters of the State’s Judiciary.  Specifically, the portraits include Albert Francis Judd, who was Associate Justice from 1874-1881 and Chief Justice from 1881-1900, and Walter F. Frear, who was Associate Justice from 1893-1900 and Chief Justice from 1900-1907.

The display of such portraits is an affront to many Native Hawaiians and gives the appearance that the State of Hawaii approves of the overthrow.  The portraits also perversely give legitimacy to the Provisional Government which has clearly caused great harm to Native Hawaiian people, culture, and self-determination.

History has proven unequivocally that the Provisional Government of Hawaii was established illegally, immorally, and unjustly in 1893 following the treacherous overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

The Provisional Government ruled Hawaii during the period between the overthrow and when they declared themselves the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894.  Anyone who accepted an official position within the illegal Provisional Government were traitors to the Kingdom and, by remaining in office, perpetuated the great harm brought upon Native Hawaiians by the overthrow.

Soon after the overthrow, President Cleveland appointed U.S. Commissioner James H. Blount to investigate the events surrounding the overthrow.  The “Blount Report,” as it is now commonly know, was part of the 1893 United States House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee Report provided the first official evidence that United States was complicit in the illegal overthrow.  The Blount Report concluded that the U.S. diplomatic and military representatives in Hawaii had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government.

President Grover Cleveland himself described the acts leading up to the overthrow as an “act of war” and acknowledged that the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii, with its peaceful and friendly people, had been overthrown.  On December 18, 1893, President Cleveland sent a message to Congress calling for the restoration of the monarchy.

The Provisional Government protested President Cleveland’s efforts to restore the monarchy and continued to hold onto power and pursued annexation to the United States.  They even successfully lobbied the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to conduct a new investigation into the events leading to the overthrow in order to challenge the Blount Report’s findings.

The policies of the Provisional Government were far more restrictive than those of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including denying citizenship to Chinese immigrants.  They also restricted voting to only 4,000 people, which was down from the 14,000 people under the Bayonet Constitution.  This led to the Blount Report’s conclusion that if the question of annexation were put to a popular vote, it would be “defeated.”

I encourage everyone to support OHA’s Concurrent Resolution in this legislative session which urges the State to remove the portraits of any Provisional Government official which are being displayed in a position of honor in state buildings.

Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Government, Historical, OHA, Political, Racism, Sovereignty

Looking Back at 2009 and Looking forward to 2010

Friday, January 15th, 2010

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: January 2010 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

Last year started out with the whole world caught up or affected in some negative way by America’s recession.  Economists said it would probably last through to 2010 and they were right.

During the 2009 session, I found it embarrassing to sit through OHA’s budget briefing to the state legislature and listen to Senators and Representatives ask about OHA’s budget.  Questions included things like “Where are OHA’s priorities for spending?” and “How much was being spent on Kau Inoa registrations and OHA’s Washington D.C. office?”

They basically scolded us for not making any sacrifices and were reluctant to give us any more money.  At least that was my impression of their message to us.  However, it is important to note that the approximately $3 million that we receive annually from the state helps us to serve the less than 50% Hawaiian beneficiaries that we are also mandated to serve.

SETTLEMENT WITH THE STATE

I supported Senate Bill 995, introduced by Senator Clayton Hee, which attempted to resolve the claims and disputes relating to OHA’s portion of income from the public land trust between 11/7/1978 and 7/1/2009.

Senator Hee’s proposal offered OHA $251 million in cash and 20 percent of the 1.8 million acres of ceded lands to be determined in negotiations between the agency and the Lingle administration.  During the Cayetano administration, OHA was offered 20% of all ceded lands and $150 million in cash.  Five OHA board members refused the offer; two of which are still on the OHA board (Trustees Haunani Apoliona & Colette Machado).  In Governor Cayetano’s recent book, he speaks to the foolishness of those board members and refers to the events as a “missed opportunity” for OHA.  SB995 SD2 offers OHA another opportunity to redeem itself.

SB995 would have given OHA the right to choose from the following properties, among many others: Kaka’ako Makai; Kahana Valley and Beach Park; La Mariana and Pier 60; Heeia meadowlands; Mauna Kea: Mauna Kea Scientific Reserve; Waikiki Yacht Club; Ala Wai Boat Harbor Complex; Kalaeloa Makai; and any and all other lands that the State may agree to convey to OHA.

Even a few of these properties could generate all of the revenue OHA needs to operate indefinitely and would have given our future nation the concrete assets it needs to serve the Hawaiian population.  SB995 would have made Native Hawaiians self-sufficient (the very essence of sovereignty) and relieved the State of Hawaii of a large burden on their budget.

Unfortunately, SB995 failed to pass during the last days of the legislature because according to Advertiser Staff Writer Gordon Y. K. Pang, “key House members,” no doubt let by Speaker Calvin Say, declined to support the bill.  Let us hope that we can convince them this year.

SAINT DAMIEN

It is fitting that we closed the year with the celebration of the sainthood of Father Damien, a non-Hawaiian who unselfishly gave his life to care for Hawaiians.

On October 1, 2009, I traveled along with a Hawaii delegation on a pilgrimage to Belgium and to Rome to honor Father Damien.  We visited Father Damien’s hometown of Tremelo where the people of the town embraced us.  I can now truly understand where the kindness and compassion that father Damien had for our Hawaiian people came from.

In a ceremony led by Pope Benedict XVI in St. Peters Basilica in Vatican City, Rome, we witnessed the canonization of Father Damien on October the 11, 2009.

To Father Damien, people were people, and his service to his God meant that he must serve all of God’s people.  We would undoubtedly have a more peaceful world if we could all embrace the compassion for others that was exemplified by Saint Damien.  Let us think of these good thoughts and deeds as we move forward into this New Year.

My best wishes to all for a happy and successful 2010.  Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Government, Historical, OHA, Political

Setting the record straight about the sale of ceded lands

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: November 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

On July 15, 2009, OHA, three individual Native Hawaiian Plaintiffs, and the State jointly filed a motion to dismiss the 14-year-old OHA v. HHFDC case, which involves a tract of former crown (ceded) land on Maui, now known as the “Leiali’i parcel.”  OHA sued the state to stop the state from selling the ceded land.  Fellow plaintiff Professor Jonathan Kamakawiwo’ole Osorio was the only plaintiff who did not join the motion to dismiss the case.

OHA only agreed to dismiss the 14-year-old case after Act 176 (2009) became law after this past legislative session.  The new law will make it extremely difficult for the state to sell ceded lands.  While Act 176 is not as all inclusive as a full moratorium, it nonetheless provides a high bar for the sale of any ceded lands.

There is now a process for the state to follow to get permission to sell ceded lands.  Act 176 assures that Native Hawaiians will have many opportunities to participate in that process, including community meetings.  There is also a higher standard of 2/3 legislative vote (of each house) for any ceded lands to be sold.

While OHA simply asked that the case be dismissed without prejudice, the State, represented by Attorney General (AG) Mark Bennett, filed a Motion to Dismiss that went much further. 

AG Bennett argued that Professor Osorio does not have standing because he is not a Native Hawaiian as defined by the term is used in § 5(f) of the Admission Act and Art. XII, § 4 of the Hawaii Constitution.  OHA does not agree with this and explained to the AG that this type of argument should not be made.  However, the AG did not change his position.  The danger with making this argument in this case is that even if the Hawaii Supreme Court does not dismiss Professor Osorio’s claim on standing grounds, other people may use these statements against OHA and the State in other cases.

OHA also does not agree with the assertions made by AG Bennett that the “Newlands Resolution” gave all of our lands to the United States.  AG Bennett wrote that:

  • “Pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, the Republic of Hawaii ‘cede[d] absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind’ and further ‘cede[d] and transfer[red] to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining’ (hereinafter ceded lands). Ibid. The Newlands Resolution further provided that all ‘property and rights in the ceded lands ‘are vested in the United States of America.’”
  • “The Organic Act reiterated the Newlands Resolution and made clear that the new Territory consisted of the land that the United States acquired in ‘absolute fee’ under that resolution.”
  • “The Newlands Resolution and subsequent federal enactments foreclose any theory that native Hawaiians may have legal title or claims to the ceded lands that must necessarily (or can) be protected by injunction.”
  • “In the Newlands Resolution, Congress extinguished any such title or claims as a matter of federal law, by accepting the Republic of Hawaii’s cession of these lands and by vesting absolute title to (and ownership of) these lands in the United States.”  (NOTE: They of course do not mention that the Republic of Hawaii was an illegal government that had no right to cede any lands.)
  • “The Newlands Resolution annexed Hawaii to the United States. It recognized the Republic of Hawaii, accepted the cession ‘and transfer to the United States [of] the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government [and] Crown lands, and declared that all ‘property and rights’ in the ceded lands had become ‘vested in the United States of America.’”
  • “Congress thereafter confirmed that the United States had assumed perfect title to the ceded lands and could use or dispose of them as it deemed appropriate.”

On August 6, 2009, Professor Osorio submitted a Memorandum in Opposition to the motion to dismiss the case.  In it, Professor Osorio asserts that:

  • OHA “has breached its fiduciary duty to beneficiaries by abandoning the lawsuit.”
  • That “[u]ndisputedly, the ideologies of race and eugenics are the genesis of the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act’s division of the Native Hawaiian people into those of 50% blood or more Hawaiian blood, and those without… It would appear the State’s memorandum that those ideological constructs necessary to reduce the number of potential beneficiaries are alive and well.”
  • That during the many years of litigation, there has never been a distinction between Native Hawaiians and that is and should be the law of this case.
  • That the Akaka bill will pass and the State will use arguments similar to the ones in this case to contend that Native Hawaiians have no claims to the ceded lands and that a “dismissal in this case will undermine the legal and historical bases upon which Native Hawaiians will rely in those negotiations.”

My hope is that the above information will help to clarify all of the different positions regarding the OHA v. HHFDC case.  The State and Osorio have made very negative statements against each other in the media.  OHA has not been involved in the “name-calling” other than refuting Osorio’s accusation that OHA breached its fiduciary duty.  OHA’s continuing position is to dismiss the case without prejudice.

The danger in Professor Osorio continuing this case is the possibility that the Hawaii Supreme Court might rule that he has no standing to pursue this case because he does not have a 50% native Hawaiian blood quantum.  This would seriously damage all of the progress that has been made to establish that there is no difference in a 50% blood quantum Hawaiian and those of us with less that 50%.  Until the next time.  Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Land, Legal, Political, Sovereignty

How can we get the PUC to be more responsible to our Hawaii residents?

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, October 2009

On July 9, 2009, the Honolulu Advertiser reported that Oahu electric bills would rise at least 4.7 percent so that the Hawaiian Electric Co. (HECO) can pay for more than $200 million in new “capital investment projects.”

I found HECO’s justification for their Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved rate hike disingenuous because nowhere did it mention that HECO has accumulated $1.4 billion worth of debt. In fact, the Advertiser later reported on July 21 that Moody’s Investors Service has lowered its rating outlook for Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc.’s debt from stable to negative.

The public should not have to suffer because of HECO’s failed investments. How can Oahu residents be sure that the rate hike will be used for new capital investment projects and not to help pay down HECO’s debt? In the meantime, all of us will have to take on this added burden at a time we can least afford it. The PUC has really let us down.

Most people have no idea what the PUC is or who is in charge of the organization. I believe that anonymity allows them to make these kinds of detrimental decisions. Therefore, in an effort to bring transparency to the PUC, here is a brief summary of the agency:

THE PUC COMMISSION

According to the PUC’s Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2006-07, the PUC is responsible for regulating 221 utility companies or entities (four electric, one gas, 179 telecommunications, and 37 water and sewer companies), four water carriers, 590 passenger carriers and 521 property carriers in the State.

The PUC was established in 1913 as a part-time, three-member body with broad regulatory oversight and investigative authority over all public utility companies in the Territory of Hawaii.

Today, the PUC is comprised of three full-time Commissioners appointed by the Governor with the consent of the State Senate. They each serve six-year terms on a staggered basis.

PUC COMMISSIONERS

Carlito P. Caliboso, Chairman – Appointed and named Chairman by Gov. Linda Lingle on April 30, 2003. He earned a B.A. in business administration and a law degree from the University of Hawaii. In 2004, he was reappointed to the Commission for a term to expire on June 30, 2010.

John E. Cole, Commissioner – Appointed by Governor Lingle on April 24, 2006, for a term to expire on June 30, 2012. Prior to his appointment, Commissioner Cole served as Executive Director of the Division of Consumer Advocacy of the State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. He has a B.A. in biology from UH and a law degree from Washington University.

Leslie H. Kondo, Commissioner – Appointed by Governor Lingle on July 3, 2007, to replace Commissioner Wayne Kimura for the remainder of the six-year term that expired on June 30, 2008. He was later reappointed for a term to expire June 30, 2014. Mr. Kondo was the past director of the Office of Information Practices and is an attorney with an educational background in industrial engineering.

OFFICES

As of June 30, 2007, the PUC had a staff of 35 employees, including an administrative director, attorneys, engineers, auditors, researchers, investigators, neighbor island representatives, documentation staff and clerical staff. The PUC has four offices located throughout the State:

* OAHU: Public Utilities Commission, Kekuanaoa Building, 465 South King St., #103, Honolulu, HI 96813, Phone: (808) 586-2020, Fax: (808) 586-2066.

* MAUI: PUC Maui District Office, State Office Building #1, 54 S. High St., #218, Wailuku, HI 96793, Phone: (808) 984-8182, Fax: (808) 984-8183.

* KAUAI: PUC Kauai District Office, 3060 Eiwa St., #302-C, Lihue, HI 96766, Phone: (808) 274-3232, Fax: (808) 274-3233.

* HAWAII: PUC Hawaii District Office, 688 Kinoole St., #106-A, Hilo, HI 96720, Phone: (808) 974-4533, Fax: (808) 974-4534.

* PUC e-mail: Hawaii.PUC@hawaii.gov

* PUC web site: hawaii.gov/budget/puc

ELECTRIC COMPANIES

The PUC regulates all four electric companies in the State: (1) HECO on Oahu; (2) MECO on Maui, Lanai and Molokai; (3) HELCO on the island of Hawaii; and (4) Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (“KIUC”) on Kauai. MECO and HELCO are subsidiaries of HECO, which is in turn a subsidiary of Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc.

PUC GOALS

The PUC’s main job is to make sure that the companies they regulate provide their customers with “adequate” and “reliable” services at reasonable rates in a way that is efficient and safe. They also have to allow them a “fair opportunity to earn a reasonable rate of return.” Question: What is the “reasonable” rate of return?

INCREASING TRANSPARENCY

I am encouraged that the PUC has stated that their short-term goal is to “increase the transparency of the regulatory process and public access to the Commission to ensure that the Commission efficiently, independently, fairly, and impartially regulates public utilities.”

Certainly a step in the right direction. The Question is though, when does this goal become a reality? Let’s work together to make sure the PUC keeps its word.

ON ANOTHER NOTE:

On Sept. 10, 2009, the County of Maui adopted a kuleana land tax-exemption ordinance. After five years of hard work by OHA trustees and staff, kuleana lands are now protected from the threat of rising property taxes in all four counties!

Until the next time. Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Government, OHA, Political

More OHA News

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: September 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

MAUNA KEA SELECTED FOR THIRTY METER TELESCOPE

Despite the serious concerns voiced by our administrator regarding the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) Observatory Project, on July 2, 2009, the board of trustees voted in favor of an OHA resolution supporting the selection of Mauna Kea as the site for the proposed project.  Trustees Cataluna, Waihee, and I were excused from the meeting and did not vote for the measure.

On July 22, 2009, Advertiser Staff Writer Mary Vorsino reported that Mauna Kea was selected for the TMT project despite the strong opposition from Native Hawaiian and environmental groups.  While Mauna Kea is considered sacred to us, the environmentalists are concerned about how the project will impact rare native plant and insect species at the top of the mountain.

The planning and permitting stage will begin in 2010.  Construction is scheduled to begin in 2011 and completed in 2018.  While this may seem like a done deal, the opposition posed by potential lawsuits could delay work on the new telescope. 

LEGISLATURE OVERRIDES LINGLE’S KAHANA VALLEY VETO

According to a July 16, 2009 Honolulu Advertiser article, the Kahana Valley living cultural park was established 30 years ago to preserve one of the few surviving ahupua’a.  Residents who were living there at the time received 50-year leases in exchange for 25 hours of work a month on cultural activities.  Last year, the state attorney general discovered that the leases had expired and six families without leases were told to leave.

During this past legislative session, Rep. Jessica Wooley introduced HB 1552 which authorizes the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to issue long-term residential leases to qualified persons in state living parks. The bill also establishes living park planning councils to develop state living park master plans to ensure the living park achieves its purpose and goals.  Mostly importantly the bill establishes a 2-year moratorium on evictions of residents of Kahana valley state park.

On July 8, 2009, Governor Linda Lingle said she intended to veto the bill and this forced residents to schedule a protest rally the very same day.  After the bill was vetoed on July 15, 2009 by the Governor, the veto was quickly overridden and passed into law by the legislature, much to the relief of Kahana Valley residents.  Those residents who faced eviction last October will be allowed to remain in their homes and the way is now paved for more leases.

PRINCESS ABIGAIL KAWANANAKOA’S LAWSUIT

According to a July 17, 2009 Advertiser article by Rick Daysog, a lawsuit was filed in state Circuit Court on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 by Princess Abigail Kawananakoa against the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), the Department of Health, the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) and Kawaiaha’o Church.

Princess Kawananakoa believes that Kawaiaha’o church officials and construction workers dug up and disturbed the burial plot of her ancestor Queen Kapi’olani and those of other Hawaiian families.  She also alleged that the church skirted state burial laws, with the help of state officials, to fast-track the construction of the project.  “This project is about greed, not God,” Princess Kawananakoa said in an e-mail to The Advertiser. “I must take this to court because I cannot allow the desecration of Hawaiian graves to continue.”

In April, church officials denied that the Kapi’olani plot had been impacted.  However, a month later, they said they were unsure whether construction work had dug into the Kapi’olani plot.

George Van Buren, an attorney for Princess Kawananakoa, wrote in the lawsuit that the church and DLNR officials should have known it would find human remains because the property used to be part of the cemetery.  Van Buren also stated that church officials and the DLNR disregarded the advice of the church’s archaeological consultants, who recommended a “subsurface archaeological study for iwi, or bones, and other cultural artifacts” before beginning construction.  “Kawaiaha’o Church was concerned that any archaeological inventory survey would discover a concentration of human burial remains in the graveyard that could hinder and/or perhaps halt construction of the multipurpose center,” Van Buren said.

DLNR officials would not comment, saying they have not yet reviewed Kawananakoa’s lawsuit. 

SECOND KAWAIAHA’O LAWSUIT

The Advertiser also reported that Dana Naone Hall, former chairwoman of the Maui-Lana’i Island Burial Council, also plans to sue DLNR and church officials over their handling of the matter.  Naone Hall, who has relatives buried within the church’s cemetery ground, said that state law requires Kawaiaha’o officials to do an environmental assessment of the property since the church is a “designated historic site.” 

In her July 2, 2009 letter to DLNR, the Department of Health, and the Oahu Island Burial Council, Naone Hall has brought up the following serious concerns:

(1) The necessity to be clear about burial sites and cemeteries on Kawaiaha’o Church properties;

(2) The history of repeated disinterment of Native Hawaiian burials should not continue without any standards;

(3) DLNR has not conducted the Historic Preservation Review required by its own rules;

(4) Kawaiaha’o is not a cemetery as defined in HRS Chapter 441 and HRS 6E-41;

(5) The burials that were identified during construction were known about beforehand not “inadvertent discoveries.”

(6) DLNR and DOH do not possess the legal authority to disinter burials at Kawaiaha’o Church in the manner suggested in DLNR’s June 11, 2009 letter to Kawaiaha’o Church; and

(7) The agencies cannot permit any further construction on the Kawaiaha’o Church property until the Environmental Assessment is lawfully concluded.

Until the next time.  Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Culture, Government, Land, OHA

Layoffs vs. furloughs

Saturday, August 15th, 2009

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, August 2009

Everyone knows our state economy is suffering. Despite this fact, the Governor plans to lay off as many as 2,500 state employees to try and balance the state budget. Although OHA is autonomous from the Governor’s control, OHA still plans to lay off as many as 24 employees. In order for our economy to recover, it is important for people to have jobs.

MORE OHA NEWS

* Thirty Meter Telescope on Sacred Mauna Kea

On June 30, 2009, our Administrator sent a letter to the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) Observatory Project at the University of Hawaii (UH) at Hilo regarding their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Here are some of his many concerns:

(1) The TMT would be the largest telescope on Mauna Kea. It will be 180 feet high and take up 5 acres. They also need to build an access way to the observatory and major renovations to the Hale Pohaku Mid-Level Facility.

(2) OHA believes the Draft EIS is premature because the state Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) has not yet received or approved the following four sub-plans it required of UH in April of 2009: a Cultural Resources Management Plan, a Natural Resources Management Plan, a Decommissioning Plan, and a Public Access Plan.

(3) Past subleases for other Mauna Kea observatories have been issued at a reduced rate of $1 per year with UH getting “in-kind” viewing time at the observatories. This only benefits UH and prevents both the state Department of Land and Natural Resources and OHA from receiving substantial amounts of money that is sorely needed during these difficult times. Public Education is only one of the five purposes of Ceded Lands established by the Hawaii Admission Act.

(4) The Draft EIS needs to stress that there are alternative sites available, such as the Chilean site at Cerro Armazones.

(5) Finally, the Administrator wrote that the cultural resource analysis of the Draft EIS is “wholly flawed” and does not properly examine the impacts of siting what would be the largest telescope on Mauna Kea.

Despite these serious concerns, instead of OHA suing the University of Hawaii for mismanagement of sacred ceded lands, on July 2, 2009, the board of trustees voted in favor of an OHA resolution supporting the selection of Mauna Kea as the site for the proposed TMT project. The question is why?

Trustees Cataluna, Waihee and I were excused from the meeting and did not vote for the measure.

* Quid pro quo for San Diego Charter School?

On May 27, 2009, a proposal to give a San Diego Charter School, Pacific American Academy (PA’A), $100,000 as a pilot project for supporting mainland charter schools with Hawaiian students was included on page 12 of the OHA Fiscal Biennium 2010-2011 Budget Realignment #1 action item. I found this deceptive since there was no way for the trustees to know from reading the board agenda that this proposal would be considered.

The whole idea of trying to sneak what should have gone through OHA’s grant program into our budget was totally inappropriate. One of OHA’s deputy administrators explained that they recommended giving assistance to the Charter School since the group had helped the administration when they traveled to San Diego for Kau Inoa sign-ups. This explanation was defended by the Chairperson, Haunani Apoliona.

Due to serious concerns from trustees, including the fact that the grant request did not go through proper procedures for consideration and the fact that too many critical details were missing from the proposal, the trustees removed it from consideration. I was personally assured that this $100,000 grant would not find its way back to the board.

However, less than a month later on June 24, 2009, the grant was listed on the board agenda as one of the Fiscal Year 2009 Grant Recommendations. The trustees approved giving the San Diego-based Pacific American Academy a $100,000 grant. Trustees Cataluna and I were excused from the vote. Trustee Mossman voted against the proposal.

There are a hundred reasons why this grant should have been deferred indefinitely. This is a pilot program. It was never clearly identified as to how many Hawaiian children would be enrolled. No itemized budget was submitted. This was certainly not a prudent decision to make in these tough economic times. Grants should be judged on its sustainability. This grant had none.

This San Diego grant was able to rush through the grants process, within 30 days while other local grant applicants are sometimes forced to wait for years due to “lack of funds.” Fast-tracking the grant is especially baffling to me since there wasn’t $100,000 left in the grants budget at the time. Trustees need to be concerned that this sends a very misleading message to future grant applicants – That a grant application can be fast-tracked if you have helped certain OHA personnel or trustees in the past.

* The Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. Giveaway

Without regard to Trust Assets, OHA transferred $863,361.77 from OHA’s Fiscal Reserve Account to the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. (NHLC) for the balance of attorney’s fees collected, including interest, originally paid to OHA regarding the Hokulia case.

Trustees voted to approve this at our June 24, 2009, board meeting. Trustees Cataluna and I were excused from the vote. In a written memo to the BOT, I opposed the transfer for the following reasons:

(1) The NHLC is not entitled to the $863,361.77 since OHA is not a client of the NHLC and therefore should not have to pay “attorney’s fees.”

(2) A large portion of the NHLC’s operating budget comes from OHA. For many years, NHLC was actually listed by name within OHA’s budget bill passed by the Legislature. Currently, the OHA budget bill that was recently singed by Governor Lingle includes $491,981 in general funds and $491,981 in OHA trust funds for fiscal year 2009-2010 that can be used by NHLC to provide legal services for our beneficiaries. For fiscal year 2010-2011, the amount is $473,080 in general funds and $473,080 in OHA trust funds. In other words, we pay their salaries. If they win a case, then we are entitled to half of the award.

(3) The NHLC has not paid their share of funds from the Hokulia case to the State of Hawaii, which claims they were entitled to half of the award. Instead, OHA paid over $1 million to the state, which included NHLC’s portion.

(4) Unlike other organizations that OHA funds, the NHLC was never forced to make any sacrifices to their budget, unlike other nonprofits that had to suffer a 20 percent budget reduction.

(5) The OHA Fiscal Reserve is to be used for unforeseen emergencies ONLY and not to “seed an endowment,” as NHLC plans to do with the money. I am certain our investment policy has no such provision for that kind of expenditure.

Finally, it makes little sense to release employees because of budget cuts and yet be able to give $100,000 to a group in San Diego, and another three-quarters of a million dollars to another organization at the same time.  Until the next time.  Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, OHA, Political, Sovereignty

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »