Source: May 2010 Ka Wai Ola Column

More than 50 years after statehood, the long-awaited reconciliation between the Native Hawaiian people and the United States Federal Government took a major step closer to reality as the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved H.R. 2314 on February 23, 2010.

This was the third time that former-United States Representative Neil Abercrombie has passed such a bill out of the U.S. House of Representatives since he was first elected to Congress on November 6, 1990.

H.R.2314 makes it clear that Native Hawaiians will have the inherent powers and privileges of a native government, including self-determination, with the exception of the right to conduct gaming.

Hawaii’s congressional delegation has strongly supported negotiating at the federal level for a resolution on Hawaiian issues which remain after the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani.

Since the year 2000, United States Senator Daniel K. Akaka has introduced legislation, now popularly known as the “Akaka bill,” to provide a structured process for all Hawai’i residents to come together and begin the process of bringing about meaningful reconciliation and healing within the Native Hawaiian community.

On February 22, 2010, the Hawaii Congressional Delegation released the final text H.R.2314, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2010, which was fine-tuned in consultation between the Hawaii’s congressional delegation and the White House, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Interior, the State of Hawaii and stakeholders in the Native Hawaiian community.

The changes to H.R.2314 clarify the authority and powers of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity prior to negotiations, while ensuring that the final bill is legally sound and consistent with U.S. policy toward indigenous people and their native governments.

These clarifications represent a genuine effort to address the State of Hawai’i’s concerns while maintaining the original purpose of the bill, which is to establish federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.

H.R.2314 provides Native Hawaiians with an opportunity for self determination and cultural preservation, while empowering them to be an equal partner with the state and federal government.

H.R.2314 does not alter the sovereign immunity of the United States or the State of Hawaii nor does it transfer any lands to the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

Hawaii’s entire Congressional Delegation, Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, former-Congressman Neil Abercrombie, and Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, along with Hawaii’s Lieutenant Governor James Duke Aiona, have all proclaimed their support for recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity, demonstrating the high priority of this issue for the people of Hawaii and its importance over and beyond any political party affiliations.

Failure to secure the passage of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians would result in continuing legal challenges to Hawaiian programs and the loss of millions of dollars the state currently receives from the federal government for programs that perpetuate the Native Hawaiian culture, language and traditions.

Until the next time.  Aloha pumehana.

Source: December 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

Congratulations to all of the public servants elected in 2008. Campaigning can be a grueling process. I look forward to working with all of you in what is certain to be a historic year for Native Hawaiians. During this holiday season we can finally look forward to the passage of the Akaka Bill in 2009.

The time has come for all of us to come together in spirit and give the Akaka Bill the final push it needs to become law. The bill will provide powerful protection from the constant threat of lawsuits to all of our Hawaiian trust assets. This is the reason why I have always supported the bill.

The Akaka Bill has never been in a better position for passage, although it must be reintroduced in the 2009 Congress. The nation has elected Senator Barack Obama to be our next president and he is on record as supporting the Akaka Bill. The Democrats have also increased their majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate.  We nearly got the Akaka Bill passed in the Senate just a few years ago with significantly less Democrats in office. 

This time around it should be relatively easier – so much so that we could probably do without the “help” from our high-paid lobbyists. I believe we can get the bill passed on our own. Given the current state of the economy, we should seriously consider saving our beneficiary dollars wherever we can. Our congressional delegation certainly doesn’t need our current lobbyists just to count votes.

What we face today as Hawaiians is no different than what occurred over the past 100 years. We are still fighting off assaults on our culture, the deterioration of our rights to our lands, and attacks from racist organizations. 

Let us begin to work together for the cause of recognition. Let us begin to agree on the things that we can agree to and set aside the things we differ on and move forward together for the future generations of Hawaiians yet to come.

As many of you already know, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to consider the State of Hawai‘i’s appeal of a lower-court injunction against the sale or transfer of ceded lands until our claims have been settled. This inexplicable action by the Lingle administration highlights the fact that the future of OHA, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and all of the Hawaiian Trusts continue to be perilously at risk.

The state’s appeal can be traced all the way back to 1994, when OHA and four Native Hawaiians sued the state to prevent it from selling or transferring any portions of ceded lands. We argued that the state must first settle Native Hawaiian claims to the ceded lands.  

In 2002, a circuit judge ruled in favor of the state, but a 2008 ruling by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, which cited the 1993 Apology Bill, ruled in our favor.  Now, with the latest appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the state is once again trying to sell ceded lands without resolving Native Hawaiian ceded land claims. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the state could lead to the transfer or sale of ceded lands without any oversight by Native Hawaiians.

Therefore, we must work together and combine our influence so that we can do what is necessary to finally pass the Akaka Bill. The fate of 1.2 million acres of ceded lands, the legacy of our once great kingdom, hangs in the balance.

May I wish each and every one of you a very blessed Christmas and a sincere wish of good health and best wishes for a wonderful New Year.  Aloha Ke Akua.

Source: March 2008 Ka Wai Ola Column

‘Ano‘ai käkou… OHA is currently lobbying the Legislature to pass a bill that will settle our claims against the State from 1978 to the present. For those who do not remember, former Gov. Ben Cayetano’s second settlement offer in 1999 was a better deal than the current proposal.

The 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. We also discussed a prospective offer of 20 percent, 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 we would be entitled to.

OHA couldn’t consider Cayetano’s second offer because five Trustees, including Trustees Haunani Apoliona and Colette Machado, suddenly voted to end all negotiations. OHA’s attorney at the time, James E. Duffy Jr., now a Hawai‘i 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 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 (former Trustees Clayton Hee and Mililani Trask and myself). They thought they could negotiate their own deal, but nine years later all they could come up with is a watered-down version of our previous deal. 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 Hawai‘i Supreme Court threw out Act 304 and suggested that the remedy must now be sought at the Legislature. I believe this decision was due to OHA walking away from the negotiating table after the Hawai‘i Supreme Court had asked OHA and the state to negotiate a settlement.

Please note that all of my statements can be verified by Gov. Cayetano, his chief negotiator Sam Callejo, Sen. Clayton Hee, or Justice James Duffy. I also have documents that support my statements regarding OHA’s 1999 negotiations with the state.

In 1980, the state legislature amended HRS chapter 10 by adding HRS 10-13.5, which provided that “twenty percent of all funds derived from the public (ceded) land trust shall be expended by OHA…”  The Hawai‘i Supreme Court quoted HRS 10-13.5 verbatim when it recently issued an injunction preventing the state from any future sale or transfer of ceded lands until the claims of Native Hawaiians have been resolved.  In light of this, OHA should really consider whether deleting the twenty percent provision in HRS 10-13.5 would hurt OHA’s standing with the Hawaii Supreme Court.  We should also consider whether we could negotiate a better deal with the state now that we are in a much stronger negotiating position.

Kau Inoa updates

Also, in a memo dated Jan. 31, Administrator Nämu‘o submits that our leader for Kau Inoa registrations on the continent, Chairperson Apoliona’s sister Aulani, is “…sometimes slow in gathering paperwork and submitting documentation for P-card payments.” Because of this, her OHA credit card was taken away and given to another staff person to manage (right?). Is it any surprise that our Kau Inoa program on the continent is so ineffective and no one knows for sure how much OHA funds are being spent? The Administrator announced that as of Feb. 7, the total number of Kau Inoa registrations is 80,625. There were 67,684 in Hawai‘i (84 percent) and 12,941 on the continent. As of Oct. 22, 2007, there were 29,574 registrants who needed to be verified as Native Hawaiian through the Department of Health.

Source Ka Wai Ola o OHA, November 2007

‘Ano’ai kakou… According to a poll conducted by Ward Research for OHA, 70% of residents surveyed favored the Akaka Bill, while nearly two-thirds of those polled also believe that the issue of race should not be a reason to deny federal recognition to Hawaiians.

However, anti-Akaka bill groups like the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (with a membership of a handful of people) and some of the members of the newly formed Hawaii Civil Rights Advisory Committee are trying to re-write our Hawaiian history. Like other racist groups who say the Holocaust never happened, the Grassroots Institute would not be happy until Native Hawaiians no longer exist or are driven out from our Aina. They keep hoping that, if they keep repeating the same non-truths over and over again, people will start believing their nonsense.

The poll was conducted by telephone from August 15-27, 2007 from a sampling of 380 residents statewide. The sample is representative of the Hawaii population by age, ethnicity, and island of residence and carries a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 5 percent.

Those surveyed were asked, “Do you think that Hawaiians should be recognized by the U.S. as a distinct indigenous group, similar to the recognition given to American Indians and Alaska Natives?” A solid seventy percent responded, “Yes,” while 18 percent said, “No” and 12 percent didn’t know.

I have always had faith that the people of Hawaii truly understand the issue of federal recognition for Hawaiians and could not be easily fooled by all the negative doomsday rhetoric of the anti-Akaka bill naysayers. The poll showed that 84% of those surveyed heard of the Akaka bill and 79% were aware of the lawsuits against OHA, DHHL and Kamehameha Schools.

Sixty-seven percent of those polled also said that Hawaiians have the right to make decisions about their land, education, health, cultural and traditional practices, and social policies. Eighty-three percent of those surveyed believe that over 100-federally funded programs for Hawaiians should continue.

The vast majority of Hawaii residents want organizations such as the Kamehameha Schools, DHHL and OHA, which are under the constant threat of lawsuits, to be protected through federal recognition. They believe in the fundamental question of fairness and that Hawaiians should be treated equally like other indigenous people, including American Indians and Native Alaskans.

So, to the naysayers, I say – Stop embarrassing yourself and wasting your time, energy, and money on fruitless efforts. You cannot change or re-write history. OHA only has to educate 18% of Hawaii residents on the merits of the Akaka bill, while opponents need to somehow mislead a whopping 64%. It takes so much more energy to confuse and mislead people, while it is much easier to just speak the truth.

All these years of spreading lies and misleading people haven’t gotten people like H. William Burgess anywhere. People of Hawaii know what is right, fair and just. After all, isn’t fairness and justice the American way?

Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, October 2007

‘Ano’ai kakou… As impossible as it sounds, the anti-Akaka racists have reached a new low. As most of you may have heard, the Hawai’i State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (HISAC) has begun hearing testimony on the proposed Akaka bill.In a move that shows just how ignorant the Bush administration is about Hawaiian history and culture, new members of the advisory committee include H. William Burgess, James Kuroiwa Jr., and lawyer Paul Sullivan – all of whom have publicly stated their strong opposition to the Akaka bill. These bozos are now using the Commission to give their preposterous arguments the illusion legitimacy. The fact that the Civil Rights Commission is against the Akaka Bill is an irony of the highest order. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement who bled for equal rights in the ’60′s must be rolling in their graves!

HISAC had a public briefing in the state capitol auditorium on August 20th. State Attorney General Mark Bennett spoke in strong support of the Akaka bill, while Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Virginia spoke in opposition. Bennett must be commended for his expertise on the issues and using his quick wit to make Clegg look like a fool.

Clegg kept insisting that the Akaka bill is unconstitutional, as if saying it over and over would make it a reality, but Bennett made it clear that Congress has the (plenary) power to pass the bill into law.

Clegg, admitted (several times) that he wasn’t familiar with Hawaiian history and culture and it showed. He argued that the “one drop rule” for Hawaiians to be considered Hawaiian wasn’t enough to qualify them to help rebuild a Hawaiian Governing Entity. He clearly didn’t know that the United States Congress created the blood quantum percentage in the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Act to limit the number of Hawaiians who qualified for homelands. It had nothing to do with defining whether a person can be considered Hawaiian or not.

Clegg also argued that the islands were not united as a single distinct nation prior to the arrival of Europeans and, therefore, don’t qualify to rebuild their government. This statement is also mistaken since the islands were still occupied by Native Hawaiians who were governed by a feudal system of Island Chiefs. Bennett had to remind him again that the argument is moot since Congress clearly has the power to make it happen.

Clegg argued that Hawaiians can’t rebuild their government under the process set-up for Native American tribes because the Hawaiian government hasn’t continued to function over the 100+ years since the overthrow. Bennett responded that it is ridiculous for the United States, who helped to overthrow the Hawaiian Government, to now say that Hawaiians can’t rebuild their government because it doesn’t exist today.

Finally, Clegg argued that if the Akaka bill passed, it could encourage other people to ask for nationhood, such as the Native peoples living in Texas. Bennett said it best when he reminded the audience that people usually go to “slippery slope” and “what if” arguments once they run out of good ones. This got more than a few chuckles from the audience.

I believe Clegg showed his true intentions when he mentioned that Hawaiians number more than 400,000 people across the nation and asked whether it would be wise to give so much power to such a large group within the U.S. He stressed that no American Indian or Alaska Native tribe even comes close to our numbers. If he had done his research, he would have known that the Navaho, the largest Native American tribe, have close to 500,000 members.

Clegg and the racists that invited him here to speak obviously fear that the Akaka bill would give us the power to finally help ourselves to forge a brighter future. They obviously want to keep Hawaiians and other native peoples from being self-sufficient. We need to fight harder now to preserve, not only our rights as natives of this land, but to show these racists Americans that we are not just poor Hawaiians but savvy Americans as well. We will attain sovereignty no matter how long it takes.

Dan Boylan of Midweek said it best: “The GOP Insults Hawaii’s Host Culture,” by stacking the deck of the Civil Rights Commission with Republican ideologues.

Imua e Hawai’i nei

Source: September 2007 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  Honolulu attorney Walter Schoettle must like beating a dead horse.  The Day v. Apoliona lawsuit against OHA is just another chapter in his long legal battle with OHA over the Hawaiian blood quantum percentage of beneficiaries.  This war in the courts goes back 20 years.  For example:  Price v. Akaka (1993); Price v. Hawaii (1991); Price v. Akaka (1991); Price v. Hawaii (1990); and Price v. Hawaii (1985).  (http://lp.findlaw.com/).

When I was first elected to OHA 17 years ago, Walter Schoettle was the attorney for The Hou Hawaiians (Nui Loa Price and Kamuela Price).  They sued several federal and state officials, including OHA trustees.  The district court denied the Hou’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed their complaint against all defendants.  But that didn’t stop Schoettle.

Now Schoettle has a new strategy with Virgil Day, Mel Ho’omanawanui, Josiah Ho’ohuli, Patrick Kahawaiola’a and Samuel Kealoha (all of whom are 50 percent Hawaiian or more), to revisit blood quantum again.  Their lawsuit argues that OHA’s $28 million annual budget should go to those with at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood.  In essence, they don’t want to “share the wealth.”  Let us not forget that blood quantum was never an issue with the Hawaiian Kingdom.  It was the United States Congress who created the blood quantum percentage in the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Act.  It was created to limit the number of Hawaiians who qualified for homelands, not to preserve our race.  It is sad that even after 100 years, some Hawaiians don’t recognize when they are being used.

They also challenge OHA’s right to partially fund the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (NHLC), which provides Hawaiian families with affordable legal representation.  Thousands of people who might not otherwise have been able to obtain legal advocacy have held on to valuable lands or received fair compensation for their lands.  NHLC also helped others to obtain Hawaiian Homestead leases, water for taro farming, and access to shoreline areas for fishing.  NHLC is the only non-profit, public interest law firm specializing in Hawaiian land and traditional rights.

Other groups that are threatened by the lawsuit include Alu Like, a non profit that funds Kupuna programs and assists Hawaiians with job training, and Na Pua No’eau, a Hawaiian language and culture program established at the University of Hawaii at Hilo.  It is important to point out that all of these programs are also funded through matching funds by the legislature.

The lawsuit also objects to OHA’s use of trust funds to lobby the Akaka Bill in Congress.  They seem to miss the point that without the Akaka bill, we may lose all of our Hawaiian Trusts and programs to lawsuits.

Walter Schoettle may be misleading his clients by telling them that unless they stop OHA, they will have to share their benefits, if the Akaka bill passes, with those with less than 50% Hawaiian blood.  I say, “What benefits?”  The only thing people with 50% or more Hawaiian blood are entitled to now are Hawaiian Home Lands.

On the other hand, all 1.4 million acres of Ceded Lands belong to all Hawaiians, regardless of their blood quantum.  The Native Hawaiian Trust Fund is much bigger than the acreage under the control of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL).  There is no need to be selfish.  Their self-serving attitude will only end up dividing Hawaiians.

Another reason that some homesteaders listed in the lawsuit probably don’t want the Akaka bill to pass is that they only want sovereignty on DHHL Lands.  How small-minded can these people be?  Do they honestly believe that hundreds of thousands of Native Hawaiians are going to go along with such a terrible idea?

We all need to realize that if we fight over the entitlements we receive then we all end up losers.  The only ones who end up winning are the Twigg-Smiths of the world.  Virgil Day and the other 50% Hawaiians need to wake up and realize that they are only being used to divide us.  Who wins if the Schoettles and the Burgess’ succeed?  Certainly not the Hawaiians.

“I appeal to you… that there be no division among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.”  I Corinthians 1:10

Source: August 2007 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

On July 9, OHA received a letter written by H. William Burgess, a local attorney who over the years has filed two lawsuits attacking Hawaiian programs. His first suit resulted in the elimination of the requirement that candidates for the OHA Board of Trustees have Native Hawaiian ancestry. His second lawsuit unsuccessfully sought to dismantle OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The interesting thing about these two cases is that the majority of the plaintiffs are the same.

Mr. Burgess, in the past three years, has spent a lot of time and energy lobbying in Washington, D.C., against the Akaka Bill. He has lobbied both senators and congressmen against the bill, calling it racist. His zeal and enthusiasm to spread the wrong message about this bill has been unrelenting. No one works for free. The question should be: “Who is paying Mr. Burgess to lobby against the Akaka Bill and to file these lawsuits against Hawaiians?”

In his latest letter, which was sent to Hawai‘i Maoli, Mr. Burgess is requesting that Hawai‘i Maoli put five of his non-Hawaiian clients – Patricia Ann Carroll, Toby Michael Kravet, Garry Paul Smith, Earl F. Arakaki, and Thurston Twigg-Smith – on the Kau Inoa registration list. Of these people, Garry Paul Smith is the only one who is not named as a plaintiff in any of Burgess’s previous cases challenging Hawaiian programs.

The last name on the list should be viewed with great interest. Thurston Twigg-Smith’s ancestors played a prominent role in the overthrow of our Hawaiian government. This fact has been documented in our history. Now, more than 100 years later, we still see efforts to deny Hawaiians their sovereignty and their right to seek reparations for lands taken in 1893 without compensation. What could Mr. Twigg-Smith be so afraid of that he is willing to lend his name in lawsuits against OHA, DHHL and the State of Hawai‘i? My question to Mr. Twigg-Smith is this: Why hide behind these other plaintiffs? At least his ancestors were right up front about what they did to our kingdom.

Hawaiians, press on, no matter that it has been over 119 years that we have waited for the United States to rectify the injustice done to our nation by some of its citizens.

We have achieved, under the Clinton administration, the acknowledgment of the complicity of the United States with some of its citizens playing a role in the overthrow of our kingdom in the passage of the Apology Bill. This bill sets up the process for recognition and reparations from the federal government for the taking of lands without compensation. This bill – along with the report filed in 1999 in a joint effort by the Interior and Justice departments called “From Mauka to Makai: The River of Justice Must Flow Freely,” which calls for the federal government to address the unfair taking of the lands from the Hawaiian nation and also acknowledges the complicity of the federal government – gives us hope that the Akaka Bill will one day pass.

The passage of the Akaka Bill is the next step in beginning to address the wrongs committed by the United States against the Hawaiian people. We cannot and will not let Mr. Twigg-Smith and his attorney, Mr. Burgess, or anyone else defeat the Hawaiian people again. We have survived as a people over 119 years, and we will remain here on our ancestral lands until the end of time. We will prevail against all odds.

Source: July 2007 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  In light of the Akaka bill’s impending passage in the United States Senate, I think it’s a good time to review the process towards Hawaiian sovereignty.

The three key elements of nationhood are sovereignty, self-determination and self-sufficiency.  In order for Hawaiians to exercise control over their lands and lives, they must achieve self-determination by organizing a mechanism for self-governance.  Hawaiians must create a government which provides for democratic representation before they can begin to interrelate with the State and the Federal governments who control their lands and trust assets.  The ultimate goal of nationhood is to become self-sufficient and self-supporting.

REGISTERING ALL HAWAIIANS.  Most people agree that the first step in this process should be to determine who will participate in the creation of the Hawaiian government.  This would involve the establishment of a roster or “roll” of all (interested) Hawaiian adults.

CHOOSE OUR ‘ELELE (Representatives).  Those on the roll will then have the opportunity to choose who will represent them in drafting governing documents.  Everyone is encouraged to participate in this process so that those elected will best reflect the needs and will of the people.

CONVENE AN ‘AHA.  Calling an ‘aha (constitutional convention) is critical in providing an open and democratic forum to develop the governing documents.  This is where the ultimate form of the Hawaiian government will be debated, considered, and reflected.

APPROVE A CONSTITUTION.  The governing documents drafted during the ‘aha must be voted on and approved by the Hawaiian people before they can be implemented.  The Hawaiian people will have the opportunity to examine the documents before deciding whether to accept, reject, accept them in part, or reject them in part.  The documents which are not accepted are returned to the ‘aha for reconsideration by the ‘elele (Representatives).

IMPLEMENTATION.  Once the articles or provisions of the governing documents are ratified by the Hawaiian people, they can be implemented.

ELECTION OF OFFICIALS.  Before the provisions of the governing documents can be fully implemented, the officers and legislative arm of the nation must be selected by the Hawaiian people again with a new election.

Many Native governments have been formed under the federal government through the US Department of the Interior.  There are hundreds of recognized Native American nations within the territorial United States.  Why should Hawaiians be excluded? Failure to do so would, in fact, be discrimination against Hawaiians.

We must not confuse the forms of government that Native Americans or Native Alaskans have with what Hawaiians will develop as their governing documents.  Nor, can anyone assume that the relationship that Hawaiians will have with the Federal Government will be the same as that of the relationships between Native American Tribes and the Federal Government.  Developing our governing documents to insure that our relationship with the United States is beneficial to us will be determined by the delegates in the ‘aha.

As indigenous people, Hawaiians are seeking recognition of their right to sovereignty and self-determination from the federal government.  Hawaiians have no desire to be dependent on the state or federal government.  If Hawaiians had control of their lands and trust resources, we could take care of our people without assistance from anyone.  Hawaiians have waited over 100 years to be compensated for the illegal taking of their lands.  Now is the time for our government to finally address the issue.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Source: December 2006 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  Let me begin by expressing my warmest Mahalo to all those who supported me in the General Election.  Your kokua has allowed me to return to OHA to serve you for another four-year term.  A very special Mahalo nui to Ke Akua for his divine guidance and love that he has bestowed upon me and my family.  I would also like to recognize and bid a fond Aloha to Trustee Carpenter, who has served OHA’s beneficiaries well on the board and who will be sorely missed.

This was an unusually difficult race with so many people running for the three at-large seats.  As I traveled around the state, I listened to many complaints that people had about the OHA organization.  Here is a list of the most asked questions and concerns: 

1. When will we see some changes in the leadership at OHA?
2. Why aren’t trustees more visible? 
3. Why isn’t OHA in the communities more often? 
4. Why is OHA planning for Nationhood without us?
5. Why is the administration of OHA speaking for the trustees?  Where are the trustees?  Why aren’t the trustees in the communities speaking to the people themselves instead of sending staff people to talk for them?
6. How is Nationhood going to impact me?  What does it mean?
7. I did not sign up for the Kau Inoa because I don’t know what it will mean.  Will it mean that I will be a registered member of the Nation?

There were so many questions about what OHA was doing with regard to Nationhood that I could only conclude that we (OHA) were not doing enough to educate the people in our own home state about sovereignty.  What would sovereignty mean to Hawaiians and, just as importantly, how or will it affect the non-Hawaiians.  OHA has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars educating and enrolling many Hawaiians on the mainland but has yet to make any meaningful impact on Hawaiians in Hawaii.  This situation has got to change.  Trustees are going to have to speak up and make this happen. 

I believe that before any federal legislation is written again, OHA must do much more to help the Hawaiian communities and the general public to understand what Nationhood would or could mean to them.  I also believe that with the Democrats now back in the driver seats in Congress, a Hawaiian recognition bill that would mirror the Apology bill can be written and passed.  This would satisfy and address the many concerns that so many of us had with the Republican inserted amendments that changed the original bill’s intent.

I assure all of you that, after listening to your concerns, I will do everything that is humanly possible to address those concerns.  What is also needed is your participation.  You must challenge EACH TRUSTEE to be accountable to you.  It is unfortunate that you cannot assume that trustees will do this on their own.  Like any governing entity, from time to time, especially when one faction has been in power for too long like it has been at OHA, “the people” need to become actively involved.  Otherwise, complacency occurs and the abuse of power is inevitable.

As we close out the year of 2006, I would like to wish each of you a very safe and happy holiday season, and may the lord in his grace bless each of you and your families and take you safely into 2007.  Have a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.

Source: November 2006 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  In light of the Akaka bill’s mistreatment in the United States Senate, I’d like to set the record straight regarding the rampant misconceptions about Hawaiian sovereignty.  It should be said that the majority of the Hawaiian people do not aspire to secede from the U.S. or give up their American citizenship.  It should also be said that gaining federal recognition as a native people would allow Hawaiians to negotiate with the state and federal governments for the return of some of their ceded lands that the state holds in trust.  Despite the hysterical rhetoric being touted by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, recognition would not mean the taking of private lands, kicking the military out of Hawaii, secession from the U.S., or that Hawaiians would be exempt from paying state or federal taxes.

There is nothing scary or threatening about the process.  The three key elements of nationhood are sovereignty, self-determination and self-sufficiency. In order for Hawaiians to exercise control over their lands and lives, they must achieve self-determination by organizing a mechanism for self-governance. Hawaiians must create a government which provides for democratic representation before they can begin to interrelate with the State and the Federal governments who control their lands and trust assets. The ultimate goal of nationhood is to become self-sufficient and self-supporting.

REGISTERING ALL HAWAIIANS. Most people agree that the first step in this process should be to determine who will participate in the creation of the Hawaiian government. This would involve the establishment of a roster or “roll” of all (interested) Hawaiian adults.

CHOOSE OUR ‘ELELE (Representatives). Those on the roll will then have the opportunity to choose who will represent them in drafting governing documents. Everyone is encouraged to participate in this process so that those elected will best reflect the needs and will of the people.

CONVENE AN ‘AHA. Calling an ‘aha (constitutional convention) is critical in providing an open and democratic forum to develop the governing documents. This is where the ultimate form of the Hawaiian government will be debated, considered, and reflected.

APPROVE A CONSTITUTION. The governing documents drafted during the ‘aha must be voted on and approved by the Hawaiian people before they can be implemented. The Hawaiian people will have the opportunity to examine the documents before deciding whether to accept, reject, accept them in part, or reject them in part. The documents which are not accepted are returned to the ‘aha for reconsideration by the ‘elele (Representatives).

IMPLEMENTATION. Once the articles or provisions of the governing documents are ratified by the Hawaiian people, they can be implemented.

ELECTION OF OFFICIALS. Before the provisions of the governing documents can be fully implemented, the officers and legislative arm of the nation must be selected by the Hawaiian people again with a new election.

Many Native governments have been formed under the federal government through the US Department of the Interior. There are hundreds of recognized Native American nations within the territorial United States. Why should Hawaiians be excluded? Failure to do so would, in fact, be discrimination against Hawaiians.

We must not confuse the forms of government that Native Americans or Native Alaskans have with what Hawaiians will develop as their governing documents. Nor, can anyone assume that the relationship that Hawaiians will have with the Federal Government will be the same as that of the relationships between Native American Tribes and the Federal Government. Developing our governing documents to insure that our relationship with the United States is beneficial to us will be determined by the delegates in the ‘aha.

As indigenous people, Hawaiians are seeking recognition of their right to sovereignty and self-determination from the federal government. Hawaiians have no desire to be dependent on the state or federal government. If Hawaiians had control of their lands and trust resources, we could take care of our people without assistance from anyone.  Hawaiians have waited over 100 years to be compensated for the illegal taking of their lands.  Isn’t it time for our government to address this issue?  If not now, when?