Tag: Censorship

Blaming others…

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…

Taking the High Road

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: April 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

‘Ano‘ai käkou… I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the beloved Aunty Genoa Keawe, a genuinely warm and gentle person that was truly one of Hawai‘i’s greatest treasures. All of Hawai‘i wishes you Godspeed.

OHA UPDATES

Since my December KWO column about the mass exodus of OHA employees, the “lock-down” security measures taken by the leadership to track employee whereabouts, and the low morale, etc., I have been locked in a war of words with Chairperson Apoliona’s chief of staff, Mrs. Winona Rubin, who placed a full-page ad in our January issue of the OHA newspaper trying to negate my comments. The ad was so ridiculous that I chose to answer it with a full-page ad of my own in the February issue (that many people said they never received through the mail) that went directly to the heart of my accusations. I asked Mrs. Rubin to explain the following: 

  • Perhaps Mrs. Rubin can explain in detail, the expenses for legal advice from attorneys who have not been able to deliver in any success in moving federal legislation forward.
  • Perhaps Mrs. Rubin can justify why there was no evaluation done on their performance before extending their contract for the past three years?
  • Perhaps Mrs. Rubin can justify all of the millions of trust dollars spent on our Kau Inoa registration done on the mainland where OHA spent money on nonprofit groups and others to sign up people, and paid for each person they signed up. There has been no accurate account distributed to OHA Trustees who have requested this information, estimated to be about $10 a signature for mainland registrations, which cannot possibly justify the millions of dollars that we have spent trying to collect those signatures.
  • Perhaps Mrs. Rubin can explain why for the past two years more effort has been spent getting signatures on the continent instead of focusing on Hawai‘i, where 80 percent of the Hawaiian population reside.
  • Perhaps Mrs. Rubin can explain why Haunani Apoliona’s sister has been put in charge of the mainland registrations and flying first class each time.
  • Perhaps Mrs. Rubin can explain how Chairperson Apoliona’s sister received a charge card from OHA and accumulated $10,000 in charges before the card was taken away.
  • Perhaps Mrs. Rubin can explain how, when the charge card was taken away from the Chair’s sister, she continued to charge expenses for travel, receptions and various other charges on her personal charge account, then was allowed to submit for reimbursement for those charges even though in some instances she had no receipts.
  • Perhaps Mrs. Rubin can explain why this employee was not fired for these egregious actions. If she were not the Chair’s sister, would she have been fired?

Instead of a serious response, Mrs. Rubin chose to place another childlike and amateurish ad in the March issue of the Ka Wai Ola which was filled with colorful cartoons. Her ad also misleadingly displayed the OHA logo and implies that OHA sanctioned the ad. Mrs. Rubin has, to this day, never seriously addressed any of the concerns I raised. It is because of her adolescent attitude that I decided to take the high road and not dignify her ad with another response. However, I remain steadfast in my convictions that OHA has some serious internal problems that need to be addressed.

I was also surprised that Trustee Walter Heen devoted his entire February column in the Ka Wai Ola to justify how OHA awards grants to organizations that really shouldn’t be getting them. OHA has been subsidizing the state Department of Education with educational programs since 1993, even though they already receive more than half of the state budget. We need to be advocating for our beneficiaries as state law requires. It’s time we made the DOE accountable for their neglect of their kuleana.

Heen also disagrees with my claim that certain nonprofits are savvier and better staffed than Native Hawaiian nonprofits and therefore are able to capture more OHA grants. I see the same organizations coming back to OHA for money year after year, while small nonprofits are left behind. I believe as the senior member of the Board, serving 18 consecutive years, I have the historical and institutional memory that can bear my comments out. 

On Jan. 18, 2008, OHA’s leadership and the governor announced that they had reached a $200 million settlement to our dispute with the state over ceded land revenues that remained to be paid to OHA from 1978 to 2008. 

I raised several questions with our leadership regarding OHA’s proposed legislation to remove sections 4, 5 and 6 from Article XII of the state Constitution, which spoke to OHA’s 20 percent pro rata share of ceded land revenues and rights to natural resources and minerals, and replacing the language with a guarantee of at least $15.1 million going forward into the future. 

I also asked if this meant that we would lose all rights to minerals and natural resources in the future. The answer was NO??? But if you read the committee report for the settlement bill, HB 266 HD2, it specifically provides that the property conveyed by the bill to OHA does NOT include the minerals or surface or ground water rights! The state retains all of these rights!!!

I also brought up inflation and whether $15.1 million would be sufficient even five years from now? As the U.S. dollar continues to decline, what will a dollar really be worth? While OHA’s attorneys have tried to assure us that this is an OK deal, there has been no real explanation for not factoring in inflation to the $15.1 million going forward or the fact that the leases of ceded lands will be re-evaluated over time.

The fact that this is an election year for Chair Apoliona leads me to believe that this settlement agreement is being rushed through the Legislature in an attempt to give her a “leg up” for her upcoming re-election. It finally took the Legislature passing a concurrent resolution to force OHA to take the agreement out into the community for public input. Otherwise, it would have only been decided by OHA’s leadership, the governor’s administration and the Legislature. I believe that there is still time to let your legislators know your mana‘o regarding the settlement bill.

THE EXODUS OF MORE EMPLOYEES CONTINUES…

  • As I write this column, OHA’s division officer in charge of grants has suddenly quit without a reason being given and without even a goodbye.  Oddly enough, Trustees Apoliona and Stender seemed happy about the change.

CENSORSHIP & MISCHIEF

  • I am currently investigating widespread reports from beneficiaries that they have not received their February issue of the Ka Wai Ola. Please call my office at 594-1860 if you have not received your copy and I will have one sent to you right away. This issue contains my controversial column that is critical of OHA’s settlement deal with the state, which may be seen as threatening to the passage of OHA’s settlement bill.
  • Beneficiaries have informed me that their letters to the Ka Wai Ola editor that criticized Mrs. Rubin for her negative ads were not published. While this is of no surprise to me, it is a confirmation that only what the leadership wants published gets published.

These tireless game being played by OHA’s leadership may delay information flowing from our office to the beneficiaries, but the truth will always come out in the end. And as time goes by, it only reaffirms the comments I made in my December ’07 column about the excessive security, “lock-down” mentality and why there continues to be an exodus of OHA personnel.

Proposed changes to board policy amount to censorship

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: May 2005 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  As most of you who consistently read my monthly columns know, I never shy away from telling beneficiaries the truth about what is going on at OHA.  However, that may soon all come to an end.

On March 15th, the Assets & Resource Management Committee held a workshop to review proposed changes to OHA’s Board of Trustees Policy Manual.  Most of the proposed changes were not earth shattering, except for the following proposed language that was added to the Ka Wai Ola Editorial Policy:  “No libelous or defamatory material will be published.  Questions on libel and/or defamation will be resolved in consultation with the editor of the Ka Wai Ola, the Public Information Officer, and OHA’s in-house counsel.”  If this policy passes, our newsletter might not just get one, but two new censors!  Not to mention a slap-in-the-face to free speech.

OHA currently has a policy in place that ensures all articles are written responsibly and meet the standards of good taste.  Trustees have never needed a censor since we are all personally liable for our comments.  Each of us can be sued individually for any slanderous or libelous remarks.  Any of us could be taken to court if we were to write something that wasn’t true.  To my knowledge, no Trustee has ever been sued for public comments in our newsletter.

Giving two members of OHA’s administrative staff the power to censor trustees will, for all intents and purposes, give that power to the Chairman.  First of all, the Chairman of the Board has enormous power and influence over all staff, not to mention their boss the administrator.  The Chairman could easily make their work life miserable if they dared to defy her.  I know of several staff members who have already left because they fell into disfavor.

It is simple for any Chairman to control the flow of information to trustees once he or she has had enough time to place his or her “people” into important OHA staff positions.  If and when a dissenting trustee receives any information requested, it is only months later and with the crucial information missing.  This amounts to an ongoing “silent censorship” within OHA.  Therefore, there is really no need for an additional policy to make sure that only glowing accomplishments appear in our newsletter.

The trustees’ monthly columns are one of the few remaining opportunities we have to communicate honestly with our beneficiaries.  If this policy passes, dissent will be silenced and all you will ever hear is how wonderful things are going and how it is all thanks to the Chairman’s leadership.  The Ka Wai Ola will simply be reduced to a propaganda rag. 

Freedom of communication is crucial for a healthy democracy.  Instead of putting up barriers, we should be tearing them down.  It is impossible for all people at all times to agree on the value of all ideas.  However, how can we grow as an organization if there is no room for dissent?

Restricting what our beneficiary can or cannot read is simply unacceptable.  It amounts to a dictatorship and will only lead to political and intellectual repression.  It will force our people to consider only a narrow view.

Censorship is an assault on the rights of all of us.  We must fight with all our strength for the freedom to read, to see, to know, and to think for ourselves.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

OHA proposal is censorship

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letters to the Editor, The Honolulu Advertiser, Posted on: Friday, May 6, 2005

As anyone who has consistently read my monthly OHA newsletter columns knows, I never shy away from telling beneficiaries the truth about what is going on at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. However, that may soon come to an end.

On March 15, the Assets & Resource Management Committee held a workshop to review proposed changes to OHA’s board of trustees policy manual. Most of the proposed changes were not earth-shattering, except for the following proposed language that was added to the Ka Wai Ola editorial policy: “No libelous or defamatory material will be published. Questions on libel and/or defamation will be resolved in consultation with the editor of the Ka Wai Ola, the public information officer, and OHA’s in-house counsel.”

If this policy passes, our newsletter might not just get one but two new censors — not to mention a slap-in-the-face to free speech.

OHA currently has a policy in place that ensures all articles are written responsibly and meet the standards of good taste. Trustees have never needed a censor since we are all personally liable for our comments. Each of us can be sued individually for any slanderous or libelous remarks. Any of us could be taken to court if we were to write something that wasn’t true.

To my knowledge, no trustee has ever been sued for public comments in our newsletter.

Giving two members of OHA’s administrative staff the power to censor trustees will, for all intents and purposes, give that power to the chair. First of all, the chair of the board has enormous power and influence over all staff, not to mention their boss, the administrator. The chair could easily make their work life miserable if they dared defiance. I know of several staff members who have already left because they fell into disfavor.

It is simple for any chair to control the flow of information to trustees once he or she has had enough time to place his or her “people” into important OHA staff positions. If and when a dissenting trustee receives any information requested, it is only months later and with the crucial information missing. This amounts to an ongoing “silent censorship” within OHA. Therefore, there is really no need for an additional policy to make sure that only glowing accomplishments appear in our newsletter.

The trustees’ monthly columns are one of the few remaining opportunities we have to communicate honestly with our beneficiaries. If this policy passes, dissent will be silenced, and all you will ever hear is how wonderful things are going. OHA’s newsletter will simply be reduced to a propaganda rag.

Freedom of communication is crucial for a healthy democracy. Instead of putting up barriers, we should be tearing them down. It is impossible for all people at all times to agree on the value of all ideas. However, how can we grow as an organization if there is no room for dissent?

Restricting what our beneficiaries can or cannot read is simply unacceptable. It amounts to a dictatorship and will only lead to political and intellectual repression. It will force our people to consider only a narrow view.

Censorship is an assault on the rights of all of us. We must fight with all our strength for the freedom to read, to see, to know and to think for ourselves.