Archive for the ‘Sovereignty’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Support Senate’s OHA Settlement Bill

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legislative Update: OHA versus UH for control over Mauna Kea

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: March 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  I call out in a kahea for all Hawaiians and the people of Hawaii to oppose the University of Hawaii’s management of Mauna Kea and to support Senate Bill 995, SD2, which would give OHA ownership of our sacred mountain.

SB995 SD2 attempts to resolve claims and disputes relating to the portion of income and proceeds from the lands of the public land trust for use by OHA between 11/7/1978 and 7/1/2009.  This bill also conveys Mauna Kea to OHA, along with other parcels of land.  The House version of the above bill (HB901 HD2) does not include Mauna Kea.  It passed third reading on 3/10/2009 and has crossed over to the Senate.  At the time of the writing of this article, the board has not taken an “official” position on SB995 SD2. 

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 those members are still on the OHA board.  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.

Efforts to Transfer Total Control of Mauna Kea to UH

HB1174 HD3 would allow the University of Hawaii’s Board of Regents (BOR) to adopt administrative rules to regulate public and commercial activities on Mauna Kea lands that UH leases from the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR).  The bill, in its current form does the following: (1) It requires the BOR to establish procedures to enforce these rules; (2) allows UH to collect administrative fines for violations of these rules; and (3) Establishes the Mauna Kea Management Special Fund for the deposit and use of these revenues.

KAHEA, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Sierra Club Hawaii Island Chapter, Royal Order of Kamehameha I, and numerous concerned individuals opposed this measure.  OHA originally opposed the first version of the bill, but now supports the bill with amendments.

In her February 3, 2009 testimony to the House Committee on Higher Education, KAHEA Program Director Marti Townsend strongly opposed HB 1174 for the following reasons:

  • “Mauna Kea lands leased by the University are ‘ceded’ lands.  Granting this authority to the University will violate the Supreme Court’s ruling in OHA v. HCDCH.  With this bill, the Lingle Administration is seeking to transfer ceded land protected by the public lands trust from the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to the University of Hawaii.”
  • “Mauna Kea lands are public trust lands that must be managed by the landlord (BLNR), not the University, who is a mere lease-holder. State law requires that public trust lands be leased at fair market value for the benefit of the people of Hawaii, not the lease-holder.” 
  • “According to current state law, ceded lands are managed and administered by DLNR. See, HRS sec. 171-3. This bill seeks to transfer the ceded lands of Mauna Kea from DLNR to the University by granting the University ‘authority to manage and control public activities on the Mauna Kea lands.’ This is the exact same type of agency-to-agency transferred deemed illegal by the Supreme Court in OHA v. HCDCH and therefore should not be allowed by the state Legislature.” 
  • “The University’s activities on Mauna Kea have exploited, destroyed, and desecrated irreplaceable natural and cultural resources on the summit.  Mauna Kea’s Hawaiian alpine desert is unlike any other place in the world.  It is home to many Hawaiian endemic species some are found only on Mauna Kea!  Multiple reports, audits, and lawsuits have confirmed that the University’s telescope activities have violated the law and continue to destroy the natural and cultural resources of Mauna Kea.” 
  • “In multiple reviews of the University’s activities on the summit, the Hawaii State Auditor found that UH’s management of Mauna Kea is ‘inadequate to ensure the protection of natural resources’ and ‘neglected …the cultural value of Mauna Kea.’ Their report stated that UH’s Institute for Astronomy ‘focused primarily on the development of Mauna Kea and tied the benefits gained to its research program,’ and that its focus on telescope construction has been ‘at the expense of neglecting the site’s natural resources.’” 
  • “The University will use this authority to limit public access to the summit, regulate when and how Hawaiians worship on the summit, and expand telescope construction on the summit.” 
  • “For 30 years, the University has failed to pay the fair market rent to the State for its subleases to foreign countries and corporations that own telescopes atop Mauna Kea, as required by HRS sec. 171. This means the University owes the people of Hawaii back rent for the numerous telescope and support structures on the sacred summit.” 
  • “Unfortunately, the University has never accounted for the profits it has gained from its destructive use of Mauna Kea. According to a report to the UH Board of Regents in 1994, however, the University enjoyed at least $60 million annually in benefits from its use of Mauna Kea. In 2001, the University admitted to the Legislature that the work conducted on Mauna Kea earned $8 million a year just from the patent-lease contracts with defense contractors like Raytheon.” 
  • “Surprisingly, during this time of debilitating economic crisis, the University is not paying this back-rent to the State. Instead in this bill it is proposing to establish a special fund that would allow it to pocket all of the profits from the use of Mauna Kea lands, bypassing the general fund altogether. The University is literally seeking the Legislature’s approval to rob the people of Hawaii.”

On March 10, 2009, it passed third reading in the House with eleven (11) Representatives (Belatti, Berg, Brower, Carroll, Hanohano, C. Lee, Luke, McKelvey, Saiki, Shimabukuro, and Thielen) voting no and has crossed over to the Senate.

I will continue to keep you updated on these bills as they make their way through the second half of the legislative session.  In the meantime, I encourage each of you to call your elected officials and let them know how you feel about these important pieces of legislation.  Aloha Ke Akua.

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

Looking forward to the New Year (2009)

Monday, December 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

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.

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

Lingle is wrong on ceded lands

Monday, December 8th, 2008

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apoliona Sells Out Hawaiians

Saturday, November 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: November 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIG BULLY

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

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

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

VINDICTIVE

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

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

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

MORE THINGS TO CONSIDER

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

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

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

CHOOSE WISELY

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

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

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

Leave Mauna Kea Alone

Wednesday, October 15th, 2008

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter sent to newspaper editors, October 2008

I fully support Chile’s bid to be the site for the proposed $1 billion Thirty Meter Telescope being built by U.S. and Canadian Universities instead of Mauna Kea.

Both sites offer the same clarity of atmosphere that the telescopes need, but Mauna Kea is a sacred mountain and should not be further desecrated.

Mauna Kea has already been irreparable damaged by existing telescope facilities and it can never be restored to its original, pristine state.

I say, stop the devastation and let the Chileans have it.

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

Programs need to be self-sufficient

Monday, September 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: September 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employee Exodus to Date for 2008

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

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

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

Fiscal Irresponsibility

Friday, August 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: August 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  Here is an update on OHA’s recent spending:

OHA OWNED BUSINESSES

On January 17, 2008, the BOT approved a realignment of the OHA budget appropriating $4,567,511 from OHA’s Fiscal Reserve Fund to be distributed over 3-years to the Hi’ilei Aloha LLC for the operation of its subsidiaries Hi’ipaka LLC and Hi’ipoi LLC.  The operating budget for all three businesses for the July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 fiscal year was $2,276,882, of which we have already spent $614,809.70 as of March 31, 2008.

MASSIVE GRANTS

The OHA budget was realigned again at our board meeting on June 5th to accommodate the huge Board Initiative grants which were also approved at the same meeting.  The grants include:  (1) $1,000,000 to Kanu o Ka Aina Learning ‘Ohana; (2) $750,000 to the Lana’i Cultural Center; (3) $500,000 to Kaumakapili Church; (4) $500,000 to the Malama Learning Center; (5) $150,000 to Hawaii Maoli; (6) $300,000 to Na Maka Walu; (7) $300,000 to Papahana Kuaola; and (8) $150,000 to La’i’opua 2020.  The grand total for all of these grants is $3,650,000!

Hawaii Maoli is a permanent fixture in our budget as they are contracted by OHA to collect Kau Inoa registrations.  However, there is no accounting for all of the funds that are being spent through this organization, especially monies given to grantees that do not have a 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax status.  How much more money is Hawaii Maoli getting through fees or charge-backs from these organizations?  The trustees have no idea.

LONG-TERM DHHL LOAN

On June 5th, the board authorized the Administrator to enter into an agreement with the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to cover their debt service on a loan of $35 to $41 million for a period of 30 years starting on July 1, 2008 with an amount not to exceed $3 million annually.

DHHL is a government agency under the Governor’s budget.  The state has long neglected its obligations to house Hawaiians and it should, therefore, be the state’s responsibility to guarantee the DHHL loans – not OHA.  It is the only fair thing to do since the state receives 80% of ceded land revenues while OHA has to survive on only 20% of those revenues.  As advocates for Hawaiians, OHA should be holding the state accountable instead of funding their shortfalls.

Trustee Mossman asked whether the timing for this proposal had anything to do with the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly’s (SCHHA) recent opposition to OHA’s negotiated settlement bill at the state legislature.  Trustee Heen assured the trustees that there was no “quid pro quo.”  However, I agree with Trustee Mossman that the timing is awfully suspicious.  Not to mention the fact that Haunani Apoliona is running for re-election this year.  Make no mistake, I am NOT against giving grant money away.  However, in order to stay within our budget, we must cut costs elsewhere.

At present, our budget is approximately $41 million.  Add to that all of the recent budget realignments and the budget will probably climb to well over $50 million a year.  This is a ridiculous figure.  Besides all this, OHA is too top heavy with “special assistants” who are getting contracts to work on “special projects” that are taking up a great deal of our inflated budget. 

The scariest thing of all is that Apoliona is supporting the increase in spending all the way through 2012.  In other words, these realigned budgets are being approved using money that we have yet to receive.  With the economy in the “drink,” our people struggling with high gas prices and unable to drive to work or losing their homes and being forced to live under freeway overpasses and beaches, OHA continues to spend money like “drunken sailors.”  The question is why?  At present, we are already $5 million overspent in our current budget.  Wouldn’t our people understand if we explained how important it is to tighten our belts at this time?  We should be leading by example.

“Making a lot of nonprofits happy now by offering them a lot of money into 2012 and then taking that money away after the November elections because we are not able to meet these commitments is cruel, irresponsible, and a terrible way to get votes.”

EXPENSIVE ATTORNEY’S FEES

One of OHA’s attorneys for our failed ceded lands negotiated settlement with the state and the OHA v. State II case was paid a total of $414,533.84 in attorney’s fees.  A second attorney was paid a total of $423,840.16.  As you may recall, the ceded lands negotiated settlement was shot down by the state senate and OHA lost the OHA v. State II case.

OHA’s Washington D.C. law firm that was hired to lobby for the passage of the Akaka bill was paid over $2,000,000 (that we know of, a request for a monthly billing statement would be much more accurate – these numbers are conservative).  A special consultant for the Akaka bill was paid an additional total of up to $450,000.  That is a total of up to $2,450,000 (conservatively) which have been paid to lobbyists who have not been able to deliver the votes.  Make no mistake, I support the passage of the Akaka bill, but I have also suggested many times that we hire people who are able to deliver.

OHA INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DROPS

 The Native Hawaiian Trust Fund portfolio has lost 10% of its value (approximately $39 million) in these tough economic times, and probably more at the time of this printing.  National consumer and prognostic indicators say that investors should have at least 20% of their investments in cash that can be liquidated and moved quickly.  Unfortunately OHA currently has less than 10% or $25 million of its portfolio in cash

According to a June report from one of our money managers, global equity markets fell by more than 8%, with US and European equity markets returning -8.4% and -11.7% respectively.  As of July 9, 2008, the estimated preliminary return for their share of OHA’s portfolio in the month of June was –4.95% compared to benchmark performance of –4.48%.  They also stated that the growth outlook for the US economy remains weak, as increased unemployment, a weak dollar, and further pressure on the financial markets contribute to expectations of higher inflation over the next year, with expectations beyond that more restrained.  Given all of this bad news, it is now more important than ever to bring our spending under control.

TRUSTEE HEEN’S MEMORY

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

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

I hope that Heen will make sure that OHA has lined up its “ducks” next time for the 2009 legislative session since he is now part of the negotiating team.  Further, I question why OHA’s negotiating team is still negotiating with the Governor’s office when she has publicly stated that she will not reconsider her proposal – a proposal that our beneficiaries have overwhelmingly rejected.  Why not just work with the legislature?

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

Blaming others…

Sunday, June 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: June 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  I wasn’t surprised when I opened the May issue of the Ka Wai Ola to see that fellow trustee Haunani Apoliona listed me first among those that she felt killed her negotiated settlement bill (HB266 HD2).  I guess I could see it as a compliment that she thinks I have such powerful influence, but once again, Apoliona misses the point.  The truth is, if Apoliona wants to look for someone to blame for the fiasco during this past legislative session, she needs to remember the phrase “the buck stops here,” or at least that is what good leaders presume.

It is obvious to me what killed OHA’s ceded land settlement legislation with the governor on the past due ceded land revenues that are owed to OHA.  It was Haunani Apoliona’s sheer arrogance.  Apoliona believed that she could just ram her legislation down everyone’s throat, including the legislature. 

She also completely misses the obvious fact that we needed to get the legislature’s approval for the settlement.  No one likes surprises, least of all politicians.  Apoliona also criticizes the five Senators who killed the bill, but what do you expect them to do when nearly a hundred OHA beneficiaries show up and testify against the bill for almost five hours?  Her “my way or the highway” attitude doomed the bill from the very beginning.

 For The Record

I opposed HB266 HD2 because the bill, if passed into law, would have bound our beneficiaries to a settlement agreement that was signed between OHA and the State on January 17, 2008.  The agreement contained language that would forever extinguish all rights afforded to Native Hawaiians under section 4 and 6 of Article XII of the State Constitution.  When I questioned OHA’s leadership about this language, they basically told me to not worry about it.  Then, after the fact, Senate President Colleen Hanabusa revealed in the May 6, 2008 Honolulu Advertiser that, “OHA leaders told her and other senators that the idea of eliminating future claims in exchange for $15.1 million annually in the future was (attorney general) Bennett’s idea and that they reluctantly agreed.  They had to agree to go along with it or the AG would no longer negotiate.”  OHA’s negotiating team deceived beneficiaries, the legislature, and fellow trustees by saying the agreement was mutual and that the amended language meant nothing.

Ka Wai Ola Now a Mouthpiece for OHA Leadership

I am truly disappointed with the direction that our Ka Wai Ola newspaper has taken ever since we lost 75% of our newspaper staff last year.  There is no longer any sense of fairness or balance in what is being reported to our beneficiaries and, in my opinion, it is now nothing more than a propaganda rag.  Nothing critical of OHA’s leadership is ever printed.  I have also received complaints from beneficiaries that their letters-to-the-editor are not being printed.  This is the first time in the many years I’ve been at OHA that the Ka Wai Ola has been reduced to a publication that, to some extent, is being censored.  For example, when an issue is deemed too controversial, somehow, thousands of copies of the newspaper seem to get lost and are not delivered to beneficiaries.  Also, as retribution for my past criticisms, you can now find my articles in the back of the paper.

Employee Exodus Continues in April

Three employees left OHA in April.  Two were accountants and one of them wrote a letter to trustees saying she felt she was unfairly terminated.  The other accountant resigned.  I have asked the Administration to discuss these departures at the next Board meeting.  The third employee that left was the high-profile manager of Hi’ipaka LLC.

Final Thoughts

The fact that there was no settlement between OHA and the State is very unfortunate.  Especially since Ms. Apoliona has claimed that she and the Governor’s office have been negotiating for three years.  This statement, on its face, appears less than truthful when you factor in the fact that the state offered up a couple of pieces of land and wrote language in the settlement document that HAD TO BE ACCEPTED BY OHA or there would be no deal.  These actions make it clear that THERE WAS NO NEGOTIATIONS going on at all!  There were only “take it or leave it” offers by the state which OHA’s negotiating team finally agreed to.

What is crystal clear now is that the state had every intention to keep all of the best ceded lands and had decided to appeal our Hawaii State Supreme Court decision not to allow the state to sell ceded lands until Hawaiian land claims could be settled.  The appeal by the State to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse that decision makes the state’s efforts to settle with OHA and the Hawaiian people disingenuous.  To add insult to injury, the state has hired the former U.S. Solicitor General under President Clinton (who represented the state and OHA in the Rice v. Cayetano case) to represent the State of Hawaii in their appeal against OHA in the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is time for all Hawaiians to rally together for justice and to replace leaders who do NOT represent their interests in the November 4, 2008 General Election.  For more information on how to register to vote or to be a candidate in the OHA election, please call the Office of Elections at 453-8683 (Oahu) or toll free at 1-800-422-8683 for the neighbor islands.  Imua e Hawaii nei…

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

OHA beneficiaries demand accountability

Thursday, May 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: May 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  Here are a few recent developments at the legislature and at OHA:

SCHHA REQUESTS BASIC INFORMATION 

On March 27th, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homeland Assembly (or SCHHA, formerly the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations) called on the legislature to audit OHA.  They argued that OHA did not provide them with the basic information they needed to review OHA’s settlement agreement with the Lingle Administration for back-payments of ceded land revenues due from 1978-2008. 

The SCHHA specifically asked: (1) How the $200 million dollar amount was determined, including whether the revenues considered included disputed and undisputed income sources; (2) How $187 million of the total $200 million was determined to be provided in lieu of cash; (3) How the annual minimum payment of $15.1 million a year to OHA was determined; and (4) What native rights are being waived.  The SCHHA also said the State and OHA need to conduct a meaningful consultation with them as required by law since they are native Hawaiian beneficiaries. 

None of this would have happened if Chairperson Apoliona properly informed our beneficiaries about what this kind of settlement would mean to our future.

FORMER STAFF CLAIMS GROSS MISMANAGEMENT 

Also in March, a recent former OHA employee testified to State senators that he had “witnessed a great many outrageous acts” at OHA.  He wrote that, “OHA staff morale has plummeted, programs implemented to benefit Native Hawaiians have been circumvented, and gross mismanagement has been apparent from the very top.”  He also said that, “Today, OHA is a self serving organization only interested in acquiring money and power for itself and is so hamstrung by politics that it has failed in its mission to help all Native Hawaiians…”

He explained that one reason for the low moral at OHA is that “…the employees who have either chosen to leave OHA or who have been fired are the most competent at what they do professionally… and have the passion and drive to create successful projects for the community.  Initiative is rewarded by reprimands and/or termination from OHA by its top Administrators.” 

He also supported my earlier statements in the December 2007 Ka Wai Ola that staff members are not allowed to speak directly with Trustees.  He said that, “OHA staff are forbidden to speak with any of the Trustees for fear that they will ‘complain’ to them about the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator.  If a request is granted to speak with a Trustee, a manager accompanies staff to monitor what is being discussed.” 

Like the SCHHA, he also called for a financial and management audit of OHA, but his reason was due to “gross mismanagement.” 

FOUR-MONTH RESPONSE TIME TO INFORMATIONAL REQUESTS

Here is an example of my experience, even as a Trustee, of how hard it is to get any information out of OHA.  On January 4, 2008, I put in a request for specific information regarding the money being spent on sponsorships by OHA in Washington D.C.

I sent a follow-up memo on February 28th asking what happened since I had not heard back from them. 

I sent another follow-up memo to the administration on March 10th asking why they had not responded. 

I was finally forced to ask the Office of Information Practices (OIP) for help on March 11th. 

On March 12th, my office received a memo from the administration apologizing for the delay and promising that the report will be completed by the end of the month and circulated to all Trustees.

On March 14th the OIP sent a letter to the Administration saying that they had ten days to provide the information I requested or provide a reason why they were denying my request.

On March 31st, I had my staff follow-up with the administration (17 days after the OIP letter) to see what was causing the delay.  The administrator assured me that the report will be coming shortly.

Finally, on April 2nd, almost four months later, I received the information I requested.

Clearly, there is a lack of wisdom and foresight in OHA’s leadership.  Mrs. Rubin, the senior aide for Chairperson Haunani Apoliona, has been way out of line with her attack ads against me.  The recent incidents that I’ve described above only prove what I’ve been saying all along.  Instead of addressing the problems to make things better at OHA, the Chairperson and her staff continue to deny that there are serious problems within the organization.  Our beneficiaries have made their voices heard at the legislature this year, asking legislators to make OHA more transparent by sharing information and by demanding an audit.

NEW/OLD LAWSUIT – MUST FOLLOW THE MONEY

On April 3, 2008, attorney William H. Burgess, filed another lawsuit against OHA (Kuroiwa v. Lingle).  Burgess is representing six people with a history of filing lawsuits against Hawaiians, including James Kuroiwa, Earl Arakaki (from the previous lawsuit Arakaki v. Lingle), and former Advertiser publisher Thurston Twigg-Smith.  These people are still using the same tired arguments from Arakaki v. Lingle that have been thrown out by both Hawaii and Federal courts.

I have always said that what we need to do is follow the money and ask, “Who could be paying for this?”  What is Burgess’ motivation?  No one sues someone for nothing.  While some people may think that a lot of people are suing us, this is not the case.  All of these lawsuits are being filed by the same people and among them is Thurston Twigg-Smith, a man that has unlimited resources.  One has to be asking why?  What is Twigg-Smith’s real motivation?  At some point, the courts need to realize that these complaints need to be thrown out permanently.  There should be a limit to the nonsense.  Perhaps what we need to do is sue these people for harassment.  Maybe then common sense can prevail.

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »