Posts Tagged ‘Akaka Bill’

« Older Entries

Supporting the Passage of H.R. 2314, Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act Of 2010

Saturday, May 15th, 2010

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

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.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Sovereignty

Setting the record straight about the sale of ceded lands

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: November 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 OHA

Recent Polls show people of Hawaii believe in fairness for Native Hawaiians

Thursday, November 15th, 2007

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

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…

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Sovereignty

Hawai’i's Hijacked Civil Rights Advisory Committee

Monday, October 15th, 2007

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

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

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Sovereignty

Divide & Conquer

Saturday, September 15th, 2007

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

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

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Legal, Sovereignty

Now is the time to Kau Inoa

Sunday, July 15th, 2007

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

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…

Tags: ,
Posted in Sovereignty

Response to supporters of Clarence Ching

Wednesday, November 15th, 2006

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
November 2006

Source: Letter to the Editor, Ka Wai Ola o OHA

My letter is addressed to Gwen Burrows and Vaasiliifiti Tauo Taumasaosili who wrote letters to the Ka Wai Ola complaining about the content of my August 2006 trustees’ column. Both writers were specifically critical of my comments referencing Clarence Ching, a former OHA trustee who went to Washington D.C. to lobby against the Akaka Bill along with William Burgess, who has consistently filed law suits against OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to remove any Hawaiian-only preferences to any and all benefits set aside by law for the Hawaiian people.

Let me say that I certainly do not view myself or other trustees as “whores” who are “in bed with the enemy,” whomever that may be (as Ms. Burrows suggests). I am sorry that they took a personal offence to my comments regarding Mr. Ching’s seating arrangement.

I believe that both of them missed my point entirely. People like Burgess have successfully used Hawaiians against other Hawaiians in the past. Burgess is obviously not in agreement with Mr. Ching’s views about Hawaiian Sovereignty. Burgess wants the Akaka Bill to fail so that entitlements for Native Hawaiians can be eliminated. Clarence, on the other hand, probably just doesn’t believe the Akaka Bill is the way to achieve Hawaiian Self-Determination. In any case, it is my view that Hawaiians should not allow Non-Hawaiians to manipulate or use them against other Hawaiians. That was my point.

It is absolutely appropriate for Hawaiians to disagree among themselves about what kind of self-determination we should eventually have. It is not appropriate for us to let Non-Hawaiians lead our way down a path we have not chosen for ourselves.

Nowhere in my article do I suggest that Hawaiians must follow OHA’s path. It is, and always will be, the right of every Hawaiian to seek independence or any other form of government that they choose.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Political

« Older Entries