Archive for the ‘OHA’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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

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

Thanks for trying, Senators Hanabusa & Hee

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: July 2009 Ka Wai Ola Column

I want to send out a Big Mahalo to all of the state senators who tried to resolve the ceded land revenue issue once and for all, especially Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and Senator Clayton Hee. 

Senator Hee introduced Senate Bill 995, 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.

SB995 would have given OHA the right to choose from the following properties, among many others:

(1)  Kaka’ako Makai;

(2)  Kahana Valley and Beach Park;

(3)  La Mariana and Pier 60;

(4)  Heeia meadowlands;

(5)  Mauna Kea: Mauna Kea Scientific Reserve;

(6)  Waikiki Yacht Club;

(7)  Ala Wai Boat Harbor Complex;

(8)      Kalaeloa Makai; and

(9)      Any and all other lands, together with the State’s interest in any and all improvements thereon, 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. 

OHA can never be a self-sufficient organization as long as our leadership is content with begging the legislature for a 20% share of ceded land revenues every year – funds which can be taken away from us at anytime.  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, this opportunity has once again slipped away from OHA’s hands.  AUWE!

So why did SB995 fail to pass during the last days of the legislature?  According to an article written by Advertiser Staff Writer Gordon Y. K. Pang on May 2, 2009, “key House members” declined to support the bill, but everyone knows that all of these key members are directed by House Speaker Calvin Say.  It doesn’t surprise me that Speaker Say killed the bill since he has not supported many Hawaiian issues.  Rumor has it that he had help from certain Hawaiians who conducted some hard, backdoor lobbying.  Speaker Say has also told OHA’s administration that he doesn’t want to see another settlement bill next year.

Pang’s article also stated that the OHA trustees were “lukewarm” in their support of SB995.  I am baffled by this statement since the board voted unanimously to support the bill with a few technical changes by our attorney, Bill Meheula.  When I later spoke with Pang, he said that Trustee Stender told him that the board did not formally support the bill, which is funny, since I remember Stender voting for it.  The lack of any coherent vision offered by our current leadership has been a set-back for OHA for the last seven years.  The mixed signals that are given on the boards’ behalf have also been less than honest.

I believe that if SB995 passed, the Governor would have vetoed it.  For all the praises she sang about helping the Hawaiian Community, at best it appears the Governor and her Attorney General have done everything they could to limit their support for OHA and its beneficiaries.

The Attorney General’s latest betrayal to Native Hawaiians is to remove his support for the Akaka bill if the original version from the year 2000 is introduced.  According to him, it is unconstitutional.  This has forced our congressional delegation to pullback the 2000 version and re-introduce last year’s bill that Republicans in Congress bastardized.  I say why rush this bill through now?  The Lingle administration will be gone next year.  At the same time, the democratic controlled Congress and a President who has pledge to sign the bill when it reaches his desk should be a better fit for us.

ON ANOTHER NOTE:

The Kawaiaha’o Church Multi-Purpose Center Construction Project

In early May of 2006, OHA contributed $1 million to help rebuild Likeke Hall at Kawaiaha’o Church.  However, reconstructing Likeke Hall has now turned into a “Multi-Purpose Center,” which will house offices, a nursery, archives, meeting space and a kitchen.

As many of you have certainly heard in the media, construction of the Multi-Purpose Center was put on hold in April after 69 sets of human remains were discovered by workers.  On May 27, 2009, OHA sent a letter to the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) regarding our serious concerns about the ongoing discovery of remains and the treatment of unmarked burial sites on the Kawaiaha’o Church property. (NOTE: At the time of this writing, we have not heard from SHPD).

State law requires that any discovered skeletal remains that appear to be over 50-years-old cannot be moved without the state Department of Health’s (DOH) approval.  However, since the church didn’t have names for the deceased, which DOH requires, the issue fell under the jurisdiction of SHPD.

OHA feels that a “good faith interpretation of the law” would require inventory level testing of any area proposed for construction.  OHA also stresses that if any remains are identified, that they be treated in accordance with the law as in previously identified burial sites.  The Oahu Island Burial Council also needs to be allowed to determine the ultimate disposition of the remains in consultation with identified lineal and cultural descendants; and this time, be given AN ACCURATE MAP of where the graves are located.

Since the area of Kawaiaha’o Cemetery and the surrounding area headed makai hold hundreds of unmarked ancestral Native Hawaiian burial sites, OHA strongly advised against removing or redesignating portions of Kawaiaha’o Church Cemetery just to make the Multi-Purpose Center easier to build.

OHA also reminded SHPD that construction workers need to remember that the surrounding soil contains fragments of our iwi kupuna that are too small to be noticed or properly recovered.  Given the powerful reverence for iwi kupuna within our Native Hawaiian community, the soil should also be treated with the utmost respect.  There should also be no utility lines, sewer lines or grease trap within the vicinity of human burial sites.

I strongly believe that construction should have been halted as soon as the first group of iwi was unearthed.  A REPUTABLE archeologist should have immediately contacted the Oahu Island Burial Council.  Instead, what seems to have occurred is that many of the iwi kupuna were placed in lauhala baskets and stored under the church.  The workers then destroyed all of the caskets, making the iwi almost impossible to identify.  This is a flagrant act of desecration no matter what culture a person comes from and it is unbelievable that it was allowed to occur at Kawaiaha’o Church.  The people responsible for this egregious act should be called upon to explain how this could have happened.

It is also unfathomable to me that a construction firm could possibly get a permit to desecrate such a sacred burial site in this manner without proper authorization.  One has to question if they even had all of the proper permits to proceed.  It is my understanding that the graves were unearthed with only a grading permit!  I believe that all of this could have been prevented if they had simply taken the time to do things right before construction started.  Now they are forced to work backwards to fix their mistakes after the damage has been done.

This project must not be allowed to continue until a plan can be agreed upon by all parties, including lineal descendants.  Let us pray that all sides can work together to care for the iwi kupuna in a pono way.  Aloha Ke Akua.

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

The State’s obligation to all Hawaiians

Monday, June 15th, 2009

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: June 2009 Ka Wai Ola Column

Towards the end of this past legislative session, the OHA general funds budget was completely cut by the Senate Ways and Means (WAM) committee chair Senator Donna Mercado Kim.  While it is still possible that the funding will be at least partially restored (the legislative session will not be over at the time of this writing), I was disappointed to hear the reasons why the WAM Chair felt the cuts could be justified.

The WAM Chair argued that: (1) OHA has $300 million in its trust fund; (2) OHA has $15 million in its fiscal reserve fund; (3) OHA receives $15.1 million a year in ceded lands payments; and (4) OHA received $2.03 million for a legal settlement from the Hokulia case from the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (NHLC).  However, the WAM Chair did not take into consideration other circumstances such as:

  • OHA’s trust fund has lost almost $150 million, or 30% of its value, from its peak in late 2007.
  • OHA’s Spending Policy puts an annual cap of 5% on withdrawals from our trust fund, so there can be no further withdrawals.
  • OHA had already agreed to reduce its budget by 20%, like all other state agencies, at the legislature’s request.  Now they are proposing to cut 100% of our budget.  Where is the fairness in that?
  • The OHA Fiscal Reserve Fund is not a “rainy day” fund and is actually part of our trust fund.  It was never meant to be used to make-up budget shortfalls.
  • OHA’s matching funds for the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation only entitles us to about half of the total $2.03 million the NHLC received for the Hokulia settlement.  Therefore, OHA will only receive about $1 million.

In addition, the $15.1 million ceded land payments that OHA receives annually are part of the state’s legal obligation to pay OHA for its 20% pro rata share of income from ceded lands.  The Attorney General has made it clear that the Hawaii Constitution makes OHA trustees, not the legislature, responsible for determining how the Native Hawaiians’ portion of ceded land revenues is spent.  The Attorney General has also stated that OHA’s share of ceded land revenues belongs to Hawaiians and is not “public money.”

The WAM Chair also ignores the fact that the OHA budget was designed more than 16-years ago by the Governor and the State Legislature to contain both general funds and trustee approved matching trust funds so that it can better the condition of all classifications of Hawaiians:  (1) those with at least 50% blood quantum under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 and (2) any descendants of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778.  This blending of funds was thought to be the most effective way to allow OHA to serve the entire Hawaiian population, estimated at the last census to be 400,000 nation-wide.  OHA will not be able to provide the same level of services to such a large population without the assistance of additional general funds from the state.

The WAM Chair needs to realize that OHA funds a wide range of programs relating to Education, Health, Human Services, Housing, and Economic Development, just to name a few.  For the sake of comparison, while OHA may have $300 million in its trust fund, Kamehameha Schools spend more than that in just one year — only on education!

OHA has also subsidized the loss of legislative funds to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, which by law must be funded by the Governor’s budget.  Other state departments that have been funded by OHA include the state departments of Education and Health.

Finally, cutting the funding to Na Pua No’eau is simply cruel and would destroy a leader in Hawaiian culture-based education.  The WAM Chair needs to think about the 1,500 Hawaiian students, their families, 80 teachers that will be adversely affected.

The actions by the WAM Chair shows why OHA needs to constantly educate the legislature on Hawaiian history and culture and Hawaiian rights.  But it wasn’t always this way — There was time when legislators made it a point to be educated on Hawaiian issues and were all well aware of why OHA was created during the 1978 Constitutional Convention. 

It was very clear to the legislators and the governors who served from 1978 to 2000 that the legislative funds that OHA was to receive were to serve the Hawaiian population with less than 50% blood quantum.  This promise was made because the law, Chapter 10 of the Hawaii Revised Statues, made it clear that the ceded land revenues are to serve Hawaiians with a 50% blood quantum.  The law ended up creating two classifications of OHA beneficiaries, but funded only one of those beneficiaries.  This is why legislative funds have been sought since 1980.

It is clear that the across the board “slash & burn” of OHA’s budget by Senator Donna Mercado Kim is without conscious or careful thought regarding the special circumstances that governs the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.  If you are outraged by this action, please write to Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and your state senators and representatives.  Aloha Ke Akua.

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »