Governor Lingle | Rowena Akana

Perreira’s Opinion Shared By Many

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Lettter to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser, April 22, 2010

The editorial opinion shared by Randy Perreira in your paper speaks for the many thousands of people who share the same sentiments (“DHS proposal will increase social calamity,”April 14).

What on earth can the Lingle administration be thinking?

It is so unfortunate that when government mis-spends our tax dollars, it is always the school children and the less fortunate who suffer.

Perhaps it is time for our local people to start our own “Tea Party Group” and tackle real-life issues instead of political philosophies.

Layoffs vs. furloughs

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, August 2009

Everyone knows our state economy is suffering. Despite this fact, the Governor plans to lay off as many as 2,500 state employees to try and balance the state budget. Although OHA is autonomous from the Governor’s control, OHA still plans to lay off as many as 24 employees. In order for our economy to recover, it is important for people to have jobs.

MORE OHA NEWS

* Thirty Meter Telescope on Sacred Mauna Kea

On June 30, 2009, our Administrator sent a letter to the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) Observatory Project at the University of Hawaii (UH) at Hilo regarding their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Here are some of his many concerns:

(1) The TMT would be the largest telescope on Mauna Kea. It will be 180 feet high and take up 5 acres. They also need to build an access way to the observatory and major renovations to the Hale Pohaku Mid-Level Facility.

(2) OHA believes the Draft EIS is premature because the state Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) has not yet received or approved the following four sub-plans it required of UH in April of 2009: a Cultural Resources Management Plan, a Natural Resources Management Plan, a Decommissioning Plan, and a Public Access Plan.

(3) Past subleases for other Mauna Kea observatories have been issued at a reduced rate of $1 per year with UH getting “in-kind” viewing time at the observatories. This only benefits UH and prevents both the state Department of Land and Natural Resources and OHA from receiving substantial amounts of money that is sorely needed during these difficult times. Public Education is only one of the five purposes of Ceded Lands established by the Hawaii Admission Act.

(4) The Draft EIS needs to stress that there are alternative sites available, such as the Chilean site at Cerro Armazones.

(5) Finally, the Administrator wrote that the cultural resource analysis of the Draft EIS is “wholly flawed” and does not properly examine the impacts of siting what would be the largest telescope on Mauna Kea.

Despite these serious concerns, instead of OHA suing the University of Hawaii for mismanagement of sacred ceded lands, on July 2, 2009, the board of trustees voted in favor of an OHA resolution supporting the selection of Mauna Kea as the site for the proposed TMT project. The question is why?

Trustees Cataluna, Waihee and I were excused from the meeting and did not vote for the measure.

* Quid pro quo for San Diego Charter School?

On May 27, 2009, a proposal to give a San Diego Charter School, Pacific American Academy (PA’A), $100,000 as a pilot project for supporting mainland charter schools with Hawaiian students was included on page 12 of the OHA Fiscal Biennium 2010-2011 Budget Realignment #1 action item. I found this deceptive since there was no way for the trustees to know from reading the board agenda that this proposal would be considered.

The whole idea of trying to sneak what should have gone through OHA’s grant program into our budget was totally inappropriate. One of OHA’s deputy administrators explained that they recommended giving assistance to the Charter School since the group had helped the administration when they traveled to San Diego for Kau Inoa sign-ups. This explanation was defended by the Chairperson, Haunani Apoliona.

Due to serious concerns from trustees, including the fact that the grant request did not go through proper procedures for consideration and the fact that too many critical details were missing from the proposal, the trustees removed it from consideration. I was personally assured that this $100,000 grant would not find its way back to the board.

However, less than a month later on June 24, 2009, the grant was listed on the board agenda as one of the Fiscal Year 2009 Grant Recommendations. The trustees approved giving the San Diego-based Pacific American Academy a $100,000 grant. Trustees Cataluna and I were excused from the vote. Trustee Mossman voted against the proposal.

There are a hundred reasons why this grant should have been deferred indefinitely. This is a pilot program. It was never clearly identified as to how many Hawaiian children would be enrolled. No itemized budget was submitted. This was certainly not a prudent decision to make in these tough economic times. Grants should be judged on its sustainability. This grant had none.

This San Diego grant was able to rush through the grants process, within 30 days while other local grant applicants are sometimes forced to wait for years due to “lack of funds.” Fast-tracking the grant is especially baffling to me since there wasn’t $100,000 left in the grants budget at the time. Trustees need to be concerned that this sends a very misleading message to future grant applicants – That a grant application can be fast-tracked if you have helped certain OHA personnel or trustees in the past.

* The Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. Giveaway

Without regard to Trust Assets, OHA transferred $863,361.77 from OHA’s Fiscal Reserve Account to the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. (NHLC) for the balance of attorney’s fees collected, including interest, originally paid to OHA regarding the Hokulia case.

Trustees voted to approve this at our June 24, 2009, board meeting. Trustees Cataluna and I were excused from the vote. In a written memo to the BOT, I opposed the transfer for the following reasons:

(1) The NHLC is not entitled to the $863,361.77 since OHA is not a client of the NHLC and therefore should not have to pay “attorney’s fees.”

(2) A large portion of the NHLC’s operating budget comes from OHA. For many years, NHLC was actually listed by name within OHA’s budget bill passed by the Legislature. Currently, the OHA budget bill that was recently singed by Governor Lingle includes $491,981 in general funds and $491,981 in OHA trust funds for fiscal year 2009-2010 that can be used by NHLC to provide legal services for our beneficiaries. For fiscal year 2010-2011, the amount is $473,080 in general funds and $473,080 in OHA trust funds. In other words, we pay their salaries. If they win a case, then we are entitled to half of the award.

(3) The NHLC has not paid their share of funds from the Hokulia case to the State of Hawaii, which claims they were entitled to half of the award. Instead, OHA paid over $1 million to the state, which included NHLC’s portion.

(4) Unlike other organizations that OHA funds, the NHLC was never forced to make any sacrifices to their budget, unlike other nonprofits that had to suffer a 20 percent budget reduction.

(5) The OHA Fiscal Reserve is to be used for unforeseen emergencies ONLY and not to “seed an endowment,” as NHLC plans to do with the money. I am certain our investment policy has no such provision for that kind of expenditure.

Finally, it makes little sense to release employees because of budget cuts and yet be able to give $100,000 to a group in San Diego, and another three-quarters of a million dollars to another organization at the same time. Until the next time. Aloha pumehana.

U.S. Supreme Court, legislative update

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, May 2009

At the writing of this column, 15 days before it goes to print, Senate Bill 1677 is the only surviving bill that would provide any protection to ceded lands from being sold or exchanged. While it does not provide the complete moratorium that we wanted, it does require a majority vote of both the House and Senate to disapprove the sale or exchange of ceded lands. It also requires that the community be briefed regarding the location of the lands prior to its sale or exchange.

Unfortunately, State Attorney General Mark Bennett and House Speaker Calvin Say are now holding the bill hostage in an attempt to browbeat the OHA trustees into dropping our lawsuit to stop any further sale of ceded lands. SB 1677 has been deferred from the final vote on third reading for four days in the House. Governor Linda Lingle has made it clear that she will not sign the bill unless we drop our case.

Both Lingle and Bennett do not have any interest in doing what is right for Native Hawaiians. If the Lingle administration truly won the recent Supreme Course case, like Bennett has bragged about in the media, why do they want us to drop the case while it’s being reconsidered by the Hawaii Supreme Court? Also, if they really don’t intend to sell or exchange any ceded lands in the near future, why won’t they just pass SB 1677 instead of threatening to kill it? So much for the Governor’s commitment to Native Hawaiians.

There is NO reason for OHA to drop the case at this point because the Senate will most likely not accept the House’s changes to SB 1677 and we would just end up dropping the case for nothing. And settling the case with the Lingle administration without a moratorium on the sale of ceded lands would only anger our beneficiaries. We would also be sending the wrong message to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

THE RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION

In its recent decision on March 31, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the ceded-lands case back to the Hawaii Supreme Court for further deliberations. Many assertions have been made in the media, and I want to clarify all of the misinformation out there. Here is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said:

1) The federal Apology Resolution did not impose a duty on the State of Hawaii to refrain from selling ceded lands.

2) OHA had argued that the Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling relied mainly on state law and only referred to the Apology Resolution for its facts concerning the ongoing reconciliation process. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with OHA and concluded that the Hawaii Supreme Court did in fact rely on the Apology Resolution when it prohibited the sale of ceded lands.

3) However, the U.S. Supreme Court did recognize that existing state laws could serve as the basis for the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision to prohibit the sale of ceded lands.

4) The Court also recognized that the Hawaii State Legislature has the authority to resolve the status of the ceded lands.

5) They also said that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to decide whether, as a matter of state law, Native Hawaiians have rights related to ceded lands. In other words, they said they don’t have the right, under Hawaii Constitution, to prohibit the sale of ceded lands until the status of those lands is definitively resolved through the state political process.

It is difficult for me to understand how the State Attorney General can claim this decision is a victory for the Lingle administration. If the Hawaii Supreme Court decides that state law provides an independent basis for the prohibition on the sale of ceded lands, and I am confident they will, there will be no reason for us to go back before the U.S. Supreme Court and this lawsuit will finally come to an end ñ with OHA and its beneficiaries winning in the end.

SETTLEMENT BILLS

In my last column, I wrote about Senate Bill 995 and House Bill 901, 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. I wrote that I favored the Senate’s version of the bill because it would convey Mauna Kea to OHA, along with several other parcels of land. The House version did not include Mauna Kea. At the time of this writing, is seems that HB 901 has died and only SB 995 will survive to the final conferencing stage of the legislative process.

House Settlement Proposal

On March 18, 2009, the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs amended the Senate’s bill by (1) deleting the conveyance of all parcels to OHA except those in Kaka’ako Makai; and (2) inserting $200 million as the amount owed by the State to OHA.

On March 23, 2009, the joint House Committees on Water, Land & Ocean Resources and Judiciary amended this bill by deleting the requirement to transfer the management and control of the conveyed parcels to a sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the United States and the State.

Senate Settlement Proposal

On March 27, 2009, the Senate Committee on Water, Land, Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs amended the House’s version of the bill by adding language that 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.

Please note that a global settlement DOES NOT include natural resources, water and gathering rights or any other rights. The settlement would include both land and money. In my view, it would be a great opportunity for us to finally have the resources to build a strong nation.

The Senate’s “global settlement” offer includes: (A) Monetary payment to OHA of $251 million; (B) 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 (C) The suspension of the $15.1 million in annual payments to OHA effective upon a date to be agreed upon in good faith between the State and OHA.

OHA has to make a decision to accept or reject the “global settlement” (which means land and money only ñ this does not include rights to natural and mineral resources, gathering rights, etc.) and notify the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of its decision in writing on or before Jan. 1, 2010. Any failure to properly and timely respond to the “global settlement” offer shall be deemed to be a rejection of the “global settlement.”

If a “global settlement” cannot be reached, Part II of the measure sets forth the Legislature’s approach to alternatively address the issue regarding past obligations only. The dollar value of $200 million represents the amount agreed to between OHA and Governor Lingle regarding the resources that should be provided for the period between Nov. 7, 1978, and July 1, 2008. The Committee felt that $200 million for the past obligations is a fair and reasonable payment.

At the discretion of OHA, payment of the $200 million may be accomplished by either: (A) A $200 million monetary payment; (B) Conveyance of properties in the public land trust with a combined tax assessed value of $200 million; or (C) A combination of cash payments and conveyance of properties totaling $200 million.

If OHA chooses to accept a $200 million monetary payment, it must notify the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of its decision in writing by Jan. 1, 2010. Failure of OHA to respond to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House by Jan. 1, 2010, shall be deemed to be a rejection of OHA’s right to accept the $200 million monetary payment option.

The current $15.1 million in annual payments from the State to OHA shall remain uninterrupted for FYs 2009-10 and 2010-11.

In either settlement option, the specific public lands that are to be conveyed by the State to OHA is to be determined by negotiation between the Governor and OHA with reasonable diligence, in good faith, and shall be completed on or before Jan. 1, 2015, unless mutually extended by the State and OHA. OHA and the Governor’s Office are required to submit a report on the status of the negotiations to the Legislature no later than 20 days prior to the convening of the 2010 regular session.

CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS

While the legislative session will be over by the time of printing, I still encourage all of you to let your elected officials know that you support Senate’s version of the settlement bill and that you want a complete moratorium on the sale or exchange of ceded lands. The legislative process is a long one and if the bills fail to pass this year, they will still be alive and will come up again next year. It is truly unfortunate that some of our elected officials need to be constantly reminded about doing the right thing. Aloha Ke Akua.

Governor trying to strongarm ceded land deal

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter to the Editor, The Maui News, April 18, 2009

Senate Bill 1677 is the only surviving bill that would provide any protection to ceded lands from being sold or exchanged. While it does not provide the complete moratorium that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs wanted, it does require a majority vote of both the House and Senate to approve the sale or exchange of ceded lands. It also requires that the community be briefed regarding the location of the lands prior to its sale or exchange.

Unfortunately, state Attorney General Mark Bennett and House Speaker Calvin Say are now holding the bill hostage in an attempt to browbeat the OHA trustees into dropping our lawsuit against any further sale of ceded lands. At this writing, SB1677 has been deferred from the final vote on third reading for four days in the House. Gov. Linda Lingle has made it clear that she will not sign the bill unless we drop our case.

There is no reason for OHA to drop the case at this point because the Senate will most likely not accept the House’s changes to SB 1677 and we would just end up dropping the case for nothing. Settling the case with the Lingle administration without a moratorium on the sale of ceded lands would only anger our beneficiaries. We would also be sending the wrong message to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Lingle is wrong on ceded lands

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.