Posts Tagged ‘Ka Wai Ola’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Setting priorities and developing a plan should be our goal for 2006

Sunday, January 15th, 2006

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, January 2006

‘Ano’ai kakou… In her State of OHA speech this past December, Trustee Apoliona highlighted what OHA has done for our beneficiaries in 2005. She proudly stated that OHA handed out millions of dollars in grant money, defended itself against lawsuits, and worked vigorously to pass the Hawaiian Federal Recognition (Akaka) bill. While she may feel that this is all well and good, I would like to offer my views.

OHA has completely changed from just a few years ago. Instead of a proactive agency with a variety of programs to help our beneficiaries, OHA now operates more like a charitable foundation that just hands out grants. While the grants that were awarded last year did go to worthwhile causes, I can’t help but feel that OHA is just passing the buck. I’m not saying that OHA should or could do everything, but I do believe that OHA can do much more for our beneficiaries in terms of programs and services. We have nine trustees and over a hundred staff members who are eager to make a difference. The problem is that OHA doesn’t seem to promote initiative.

Currently, we just wait for problems to come to us and then throw money at it. Just look at the words that Apoliona used to describe what OHA has done in the past year: We “awarded” grants, we “maintained” programs, we “distributed” funds, we “responded” to requests, and we “defended” against lawsuits. When is OHA going to start building or creating something?

Many of our people are forced to live on the beach because of the lack of affordable houses and rentals. OHA should be setting up programs to help our homeless beneficiaries get into shelters and transitional housing. What’s happened to OHA’s housing division? Apoliona’s speech mentions the OHA 103 Home Loan program administered by First Hawaiian Bank and Bank of Hawaii but OHA has done nothing to improve the program after both banks told us a year-and-a-half ago that only a few people have taken advantage of the program. I should also mention that you can’t just distribute a bunch of business loans and call it “economic development.”

The biggest problem with handing out grants to deal with long-term problems is that grant monies eventually run out and services get cut. That’s why we need on-going programs that are properly funded and monitored by the trustees. So why isn’t OHA developing any new programs? It should be obvious to anyone who was listening to Trustee Apoliona’s speech – that OHA focused more on lobbying Congress than on anything else.

One issue shouldn’t be allowed to overshadow everything else we do. Perhaps it is time for OHA to start seriously rethink its priorities, vision, and strategy for the future. I supported the previous versions of the Akaka bill, warts and all, because I believed that it would help us form a strong Hawaiian nation. I still think that federal recognition is crucial for us to begin the process of nationhood.

However, over the past year, Republican Senators and members of the administration have managed to change our bill significantly and we haven’t gotten anywhere with the White House. All of this happened despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars that we have paid to a powerful and well-connected Washington D.C. lobbying firm to get the bill passed. My personal opinion is that we may need to wait for a friendlier administration to take office before the bill goes anywhere.

Handing out millions of dollars in grants is just a band-aid solution to the many problems that we need to address in a serious manner. Developing good programs won’t be quick or easy, but they will do much more to serve the needs of our beneficiaries over the long haul. Setting priorities and developing a plan to meet those priorities is desperately needed at OHA. This should be our goal for 2006.

Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Tags: , , ,
Posted in OHA

Wrapping-up 2005

Thursday, December 15th, 2005

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, December 2005

‘Ano’ai kakou… Another challenging year for OHA has comes to an end. As we look forward to the coming year, I’d like to take this time to reflect on issues and events from the past year.

STATE LEGISLATURE

Although OHA was able to help Na Pua Noeau, the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, and Alu Like, Inc. boost their budgets, several of our most important bills ended up dying. For example, ever since 2001, we’ve tried unsuccessfully to pass legislation that would reestablish the continued funding of OHA from ceded land revenues. The Legislature needs to define, once and for all, the revenue stream from public trust lands that is to be given to OHA for the benefit of Hawaiians.

We must also do something to save our Kuleana Lands. For the past two years, I have submitted bills that would exempt Kuleana lands from real property taxes if the land has been continuously occupied by the descendants of the original titleholder. I am determined to give struggling Hawaiian families living on kuleana lands the tax relief they desperately need to hold on to their homes and legacy.

FISCAL

I brought up two concerns when Goldman Sachs and Frank Russell were hired to serve as OHA’s two financial managers on January 16, 2003. First, I felt that their fees were too high. Secondly, I argued that we should hire an independent consultant to make sure they were doing their jobs. Unfortunately, OHA’s leadership at the time didn’t agree with me and the contracts were approved. I finally got some vindication when State Auditor Marion Higa came out with her April 2005 audit of OHA and found that our money managers’ fees were too high and that we should have hired an independent consultant to help us evaluate them (which still has not occurred).

OHA POLICY

For years now, I have been calling for OHA to create a Land Division to be headed by a “Land Konohiki,” an expert specializing in land acquisition, management, and investment and ceded land claims. The Land Konohiki would be able to quickly consider private lands for acquisition. The Administration is now beginning to look at addressing this concern.

Also, back in April, I strongly opposed a proposal to establish two censors to control what trustees could print in their Ka Wai Ola columns. Thankfully, this threat to free-speech was quickly dropped after I brought up my concerns in an editorial to the Honolulu Advertiser and in my Ka Wai Ola Column. While the Chairman has publicly stated that there was no attempt to implement the censors, I have a copy of the written recommendation that was given to the trustees.

LAWSUITS

We made some progress in the Arakaki Lawsuit. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ denied the Arakaki plaintiffs any standing regarding the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and ceded land revenues. That just leaves OHA’s matching funds from the state, which I feel is pretty ridiculous since we are a state agency.

I was most disappointed by the October lawsuit filed by Virgil Day, Mel Hoomanawanui, Josiah Hoohuli, Patrick Kahawaiolaa, and Samuel Kealoha, Jr. against OHA. They want OHA to stop serving Hawaiians with less than 50% blood through programs such as Na Pua No’eau and the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation. They also want us to stop supporting the Akaka bill. When will we learn that a people divided cannot stand? The only people that will gain from our bickering are those who do not want to see Hawaiians prosper in their own homeland.

FEDERAL RECOGNITION

We learned in late July that the previously unheard of Grassroot Institute of Hawai’i, led by Richard Rowland, had joined Thurston Twigg-Smith and H. William Burgess in opposing the Akaka bill. These people fed Congress false and misleading information in an effort to confuse the issue. They say that they are fighting for equality, but I believe they are really motivated by racism.

Urgent matters, such as Hurricane Katrina, ended up postponing the Akaka Bill. As of this writing, OHA is planning to lobby the Senate in the week before Thanksgiving. I believe it will be our last chance to get the bill passed this year.

ELDER CARE

On a positive note, I was very pleased that on June 23, 2005, the Board of Trustees approved a grant of $300,000 to help fund the Kupuna Continuing Care Assurance Program which will be administered by Lunalilo Home over the next two years. The program is designed to help make residential care, respite care, adult day care, and outreach nutritional services more affordable for Native Hawaiian kupuna.

Your prayers and guidance, for those of us in hardship in 2006, will help to make our journey successful. May the Lord bless and keep you all safe this holiday season. Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Government

A non-Hawaiian who appreciates the Aloha of the host culture

Saturday, October 15th, 2005

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source Ka Wai Ola o OHA, October 2005

‘Ano’ai kakou… While the Arakaki plaintiffs may see the recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision regarding their lawsuit as a victory, we here at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs were pleased that the 9th Circuit actually denied them any standing regarding the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and ceded land revenues. That just leaves OHA’s matching funds from the state, which I feel is a pretty ridiculous argument since OHA is a state agency and uses those funds to operate — just like any other state agency.

I believe the Arakaki lawsuit is just another one of a long series of challenges that Hawaiians have had to overcome since 1893. As with those many hurdles in the past, so shall the Hawaiian community come together once again and work diligently to overcome it.

In these challenging times, I truly appreciate the non-Hawaiians who have had the courage to step forward and speak in support of their Hawaiian friends and neighbors. People like Robbie Alms, who thoroughly impressed me with his speech during the Kamehameha Schools’ Unity Rally on Saturday, August 6, 2005 at ‘Iolani Palace.

Alms spoke from the heart when he said that he has never felt deprived because he could not attend the Kamehameha Schools. He sincerely felt that his friends who were able to attend were blessed, but their blessing involved no loss on his part. He knew that there were plenty of other options available to him.

Alms talked about how he was taught by his parents that “we all receive gifts but not necessarily the same gifts, and that we should celebrate the gifts we receive, not covet the gifts of others.” I feel it is a real shame that none of the Arakaki plaintiffs seem to have learned this from their parents. Alms felt that the 9th Circuit Court decision forces Kamehameha Schools to give him a very special gift that he was not intended to receive. He emphatically said that he does not need or want it.

Alms stressed that he does not feel “trammeled” by the Kamehameha Schools admissions policy; but he does feel trammeled when such legalisms “take precedence over the health of our islands’ social fabric.”

Alms also showed great insight when he said that laws designed to “lift the yoke of slavery from black Americans” are now being used as weapons to harm Native Hawaiians. I absolutely agree with his point that the law is being used to condemn our special heritage with the harsh and ugly words of “civil rights violation.” Another excellent point he made is that the 9th Circuit seems to erroneously think that diminishing Native Hawaiians will somehow build a healthy and pono society.

Alms ended his speech by encouraging Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians to call upon our court system to live up to its highest purposes and values, and to call upon our community to stand up for Kamehameha Schools. He said that our very future depends upon honoring our unique history and the very special institutions that that heritage has given us. In his words, “We all need to honor the Princess’ gift just as she meant it to be honored.”

I would like to send out a warm mahalo nui loa to all of the non-Hawaiians out there, like Robbie Alms, who continue to speak out for the Hawaiian community in its time of need. As for the Arakaki lawsuit, make no mistake, none of the programs currently working to assist disadvantaged Native Hawaiians will ever fall victim to its terrorization by the likes of Thurston Twigg-Smith, H. William Burgess, and their ilk. Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Racism

Auditor’s report: OHA needs an outside consultant to watch over money mangers

Friday, July 15th, 2005

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, July 2005

‘Ano’ai kakou… On January 16, 2003 the Board of Trustees voted to hire two investment companies, Goldman Sachs and Frank Russell, to handle all of OHA’s investment decisions. I abstained from the vote because I felt that it would be dangerous for the Board of Trustees to give up their direct oversight over the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund.

I had further doubts after I read the contracts OHA’s administration signed with Goldman & Russell. Our past contracts specifically stated that OHA, its trustees, and employees would be protected from all actions, suits, claims, damages, and expenses that arise out of a contractor’s errors, omissions, or acts. As you may recall, I wrote in my August 2003 article that since the contracts OHA signed with Goldman and Russell had no such language, OHA trustees are liable for any mistakes that they make, even though we don’t have any direct control over investment decisions.

In March of 2003, OHA hired R.V. Khuns & Associates, Inc. to come up with recommendations for OHA’s Investment Policy. One of their recommendations was that the Board should hire a separate and independent consultant to monitor both Goldman and Russell. I strongly fought for this when it was discussed at the Board table. Unfortunately, the budget committee rejected the idea.

While the budget committee may have disagreed with R.V. Khuns & Associates’ recommendation, State Auditor Marion Higa supported the idea of an independent consultant in her April 2005 audit of OHA. Here are a few of her findings:

(1) OHA has failed to create an independent function to oversee investment advisors. According to the auditor, basic things such as performance reporting, ensuring compliance with guidelines, and risk management were not being done because OHA doesn’t know how. The auditor wrote that OHA doesn’t have enough knowledge, experience, and expertise when it comes to overseeing investments. She stressed that OHA needs to hire someone (either in-house or an outside consultant) with experience in institutional investment oversight to make up for this deficiency.

(2) OHA’s lack of a standard report format has resulted in inconsistent reporting by the advisors. The auditor wrote that OHA did not create a standard format for Goldman and Russell to report how they were investing our money. The auditor said that this was because OHA did not know what information it needed to properly evaluate them. The auditor also pointed out that it was fundamentally flawed to depend on Goldman and Russell to decide what should be reported. Goldman and Russell are just as liable as OHA trustees for any losses (that come from not following OHA’s investment policy) so why would they report any violations to OHA? To solve this problem, the auditor recommended that OHA consider hiring outside experts to design the performance reports.

(3) Investment advisor compliance with certain guidelines cannot be verified. According to the auditor, OHA can barely make sure that Goldman and Russell are following OHA’s investment policy because we aren’t getting enough information from them. OHA doesn’t even have the computer software needed to screen important information. The auditor recommended that, for OHA’s protection, both Goldman and Russell should be required to sign a disclosure statement, on a regular basis, saying that they are following OHA’s investment policy. I believe her recommendation is added confirmation that the contracts our administration signed with Goldman and Russell did not contain proper safeguards for OHA.

I hope this proves, once and for all, that OHA needs an independent consultant to watch over our two investment managers.

Imua Hawaii Nei…

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Legal, OHA

Auditor’s report: OHA’s money-managers come at a high cost

Wednesday, June 15th, 2005

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, June 2005

‘Ano’ai kakou… On January 16, 2003 the Board  hired Goldman Sachs and Frank Russell to serve as OHA’s two financial managers. Each company was given half of OHA’s Native Hawaiian Trust Fund, which at the time amounted to $125,000,000.

In my March 2004 article, I wrote that while both companies made about the same amount of money for us, there was a glaring difference in what they charged us for their services. Frank Russell charged OHA $64,663 for their first quarter of service in 2003, while Goldman Sachs charged us $74,998 – a difference of $10,335. In the second quarter, Frank Russell charged us $200,712 for their services, while Goldman Sachs charged us $244,255 – a difference of $43,543.

While some people may argue that the $53,543 more Goldman Sachs charged OHA (for the 1st & 2nd Quarters) was not a significant amount, I argued that we could have helped many needy beneficiaries with that money.

Not long after my article was published, Goldman Sachs reviewed their fee schedule, and gave OHA an annual savings of $50,000. I can’t say for certain whether my complaints had any impact on their decision, but I was pleased that Goldman Sachs quickly matched Frank Russell’s lower fees.

While OHA’s leadership at the time may have disagreed with me about how high the fees were, I finally felt some vindication when State Auditor Marion Higa came out with her April 2005 audit of OHA. Not surprisingly, she backed up what I had been saying all along. Here are a few findings from her audit:

1. Frank Russell averaged 0.57 percent in fees, in total, for all traditional assets managed, excluding real estate. Goldman Sachs averaged 0.74 percent of the assets it managed, excluding real estate and hedge funds.

2. The average investment management fee paid by all reporting funds (1,032 reporting funds in 2002) was 0.274 percent in 2002. Smaller funds (such as the Native Hawaiian trust fund) with assets below $500 million had higher average fees of 0.351 percent. OHA pays an average fee for investment management and oversight for the trust fund of 0.65 percent.

3. The “manager-of-managers” strategy employed by OHA has led to higher fees than fees incurred by its peers. In addition, OHA’s use of investment advisors to select investment managers, perform due diligence, and monitor the investment managers, has the effect of increasing the total fee, since the total fee represents more than just investment management fees. In other words, we paid less fees under our old financial management plan.

4. If OHA’s passive assets were in line with its peer median, fees would be reduced by 11 basis points, saving OHA more than $300,000 annually.

5. OHA has begun to review the investment management fees being paid, realizing that Goldman Sachs represents a premium cost for its services.

The auditor recommended that OHA continue to evaluate the returns it receives, net of the fees paid, and explore alternative means of investing portions of its portfolio – all of which I will continue to do on behalf of our beneficiaries.

The auditor also noted that OHA should recognize the inherent conflict of interest within the existing manager-of-managers structure and conduct its own evaluation of whether their investments fulfill OHA’s fiduciary duties and achieve prudent investor standards. Due to space constraints, I will have to take this issue up in another month’s column. Stay tuned.

Imua Hawaii Nei…

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Legal, OHA

OHA proposal is censorship

Friday, May 6th, 2005

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.

Tags: ,
Posted in OHA

OHA needs a Land Konohiki

Friday, April 15th, 2005

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, April 2005

‘Ano’ai kakou… On August 19, 2004, The Honolulu Advertiser ran an article titled “OHA gets offer of free Puna land.” Six months later, the offer was withdrawn because OHA took too long to finalize the deal. Sound familiar? It should.

The same thing happened in late-2002 when a mainland company named PH Industries offered to donate 198 acres of land in Maili to OHA, 80 to 90 acres of which were developable. The company was leaving Hawaii and wanted to donate its land. OHA waited too long to respond and the company sold it to someone else for almost nothing. Trustee Oswald Stender, the budget chair at the time, said he did not see the urgency of the deal and failed to take it up in his committee in a timely manner.

There were so many possibilities for the Maili property. It was cleared of environmental hazards and zoned for agriculture and conservation use. At the very least, OHA could have sold it to a developer. The land was valued at $3,000,000 and it was sold for a measly $100,000. It was unconscionable to let such a huge opportunity slip through the cracks. Unfortunately, history tends to repeat itself.

On August 18, 2004, Joe Wedeman made an offer to donate 66.4 acres of Puna land to OHA on behalf of his wife, Harriet, who had inherited the land from her mother. About 35 acres contained no archaeological sites and could be developed. Trustee Boyd Mossman said the gift was a “tremendous opportunity” and could be an educational and cultural resource for students.

Trustee Carpenter and I immediately sent a memo to Trustee Stender after the offer was made, and asked him to bring it to the Board of Trustees for a vote as soon as possible. Trustee Carpenter wrote that “time is of the essence.” I specifically reminded Trustee Stender about the Maili debacle.

On September 1, 2004, Trustee Stender responded that he asked the OHA Administrator and his staff to ensure that a “due diligence” study is done before the issue could be presented to his committee. On September 29, 2004, the Administration reported to the Board that the consultants they hired, MN Capital Partners, LLC, needed three-weeks since they needed to visit the site.

Ten-weeks later, on December 17, 2004, my staff checked with the ARM committee to see whether the due diligence study was done or not. It was not. The Administration finally presented the due diligence study to the Board of Trustees on February 16, 2005. Unfortunately, it was too late. Mr. Wedeman had already sent a fax to OHA two days earlier, withdrawing the offer (the entire fax was just one sentence).

All this could have been avoided if OHA followed a May 2002 recommendation from the Land Committee’s (back when OHA had five subject-matter committees) to create an OHA Land Division to be headed by a “Land Konohiki,” an expert specializing in land acquisition, management, and investment and ceded land claims. The Land Konohiki could quickly look at and consider private lands for acquisition or even partner with other Hawaiian agencies to acquire land.

The first step in the Land Konohiki plan was to hire a land consultant to review prior land studies and make recommendations to the Board. The plan was passed by the Board on October 30, 2002.

Unfortunately, despite my numerous inquiries, nothing was done about the issue for months. On April 4, 2003, the Administration reported that they were still looking for a consultant. The Administration’s slow pace can only be blamed on the lack of direct Trustee oversight. When the current leadership took over in late-2002, they got rid of the Land Committee and there was no one to keep their feet to the fire.

It is sad to think of all the lost possibilities. If we had a Land Konohiki in place, our beneficiaries would now be in control of 264.4 acres of land. It is a supreme irony that OHA spends millions to lobby for federal recognition and yet continues to refuse free land. What good is a sovereign nation without a homeland?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Land

Building a consensus with Board members eliminates mistrust

Wednesday, December 15th, 2004

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, December 2004

‘Ano’ai kakou… OHA’s spending policy was recently changed and now all of the Ceded Land revenues we get from the state will go straight into our operating budget. In other words, instead of depositing our income into a savings account, we’ll be putting it straight into our checking account to spend. OHA’s budget chairman wanted to find a way to get OHA to spend more money, so he called a committee meeting on August 18, 2004 and had high-powered experts do a presentation to the Board. These experts argued that the OHA’s spending policy favored future beneficiaries over current beneficiaries by allowing Ceded Land revenues to grow in the Trust. They explained that we were unfairly saving the money for future beneficiaries and not spending enough on today’s beneficiaries.

The presentation worked and on September 15, 2004, the Board passed a new spending policy. Now the $9,446,922 in Ceded Land revenues OHA will get from the state in 2005 will be spent and not saved. Theoretically, OHA should now be able to fund many new programs and help many more beneficiaries with that money.

Unfortunately, not all of the money is going directly to our beneficiaries. It appears leadership will use some of the $9.45 million to cover massive budget short-falls, which mostly included lawyers’ fees and costs relating to our lobbyist for the federal recognition campaign.

As you can imagine, the Trustees had many questions about what exactly the $9.45 million was going to be spent on. These questions finally forced the budget chair to hold a workshop on October 12th & 13th. Even after the two-day workshop, not all of the Trustees were convinced that the $9.45 million was being spent for its intended purpose – helping our beneficiaries. Despite our concerns, the revised Budget finally passed with the minimum required six-votes on November 1, 2004.

Budget workshops should be made mandatory to avoid problems like this in the future. Past budget committee chairs always held workshops before bringing a new budget to the Board. Workshops would give Trustees the time needed to have their questions answered in detail before they had to vote in committee. Right now, all of OHA’s committee chairs distribute materials for their meetings just a few days in advance. This hardly gives Trustees enough time to meet with administrative staff and ask questions, much less receive the answers we need to make prudent decisions.

The current regime could have shown true leadership if they had spent the time necessary to justify their proposal to spend the $9.45 million instead of hiring an attorney and high powered presenters to make their case and rush it through for a vote. Building a consensus with Board members eliminates mistrust and in the end, everyone is more comfortable with the decision they made, decisions based on current information and not hype artists.

I pray that the New Year will bring constructive and meaningful change, despite the fact that the Board remains unchanged after the November election. It is my hope that we will no longer need to engage in political gymnastics to get things done. We shouldn’t have to duel with leadership in order to make sure we are working in the best interest of our beneficiaries.

If leadership can work towards building a consensus and abandons its “win-at-all-cost” mentality, I feel that a more positive and productive Board will emerge. Perhaps my sentiments can best be summed up by St. Paul, who in a letter to Timothy wrote:

“We know the law is good if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but those who are lawless, the ungodly, the immoral, liars… and whatever else that is contrary to sound teaching.”
- Timothy, 1st Verse

Have a happy and safe holidays and God bless!

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in OHA

Which is it? Build the Trust for the New Nation or Spend it All?

Tuesday, June 15th, 2004

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, June 2004

‘Ano’ai kakou… I hate to admit it, but the current leadership of OHA has me a bit confused. I’m sure you have heard Chairman Apoliona say on many occasions that OHA is a “temporary” organization that will someday be dissolved and its assets transferred over to the new Hawaiian Nation. So her position is clear – OHA is temporary and its money will go to fund the new Hawaiian nation.

Here’s where everything turns as clear as mud. In April Trustee Stender, the chair of her money committee, informed the Trustees that he has asked for a legal opinion that will allow OHA to spend more of the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund. OHA currently has a spending limit that prevents any group of Trustees from spending the Trust like drunken sailors.

I’m sure that handing out a check to every one of the hundreds of organizations that are asking for grants would certainly make OHA very popular, but what about the long-term health of the Trust? We have carefully rebuilt the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund to over $300 million. I would hate to see it evaporate again in a shortsighted spending spree.

And as for how the Trust funds are spent, let’s not forget that four years ago OHA conducted a survey that clearly stated the beneficiaries wanted the Trustees to focus on four priorities – (1) Return of the land; (2) Education; (3) Housing; and (4) Health. The Board has not taken any action to change our focus on these areas and Trustee Stender should keep that in mind before making any decisions on his own.

I also question why the present administration can’t just follow established procedures and take the matter up in an open Board meeting. Unilateral decisions made by the Chairman and the Budget Chair must stop! All that’s needed to change the spending limit is six votes. If OHA’s leadership is too afraid to take the matter up in public at an open Board meeting, maybe that should tell you something.

I wrote several letters to the law firm that is drafting the legal opinion for Stender and shared my strong concerns about breaking the Board’s spending limit. They responded that Trustee Stender has every right to request such an opinion. I wasn’t surprised by their reply since they want to get paid for it. What is shocking is that the spending policy is not the only thing they are looking at. Trustee Stender also wants to know whether it’s even appropriate to build the Trust at all!

To even question whether we should grow the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund is just ludicrous. People like Thurston Twigg-Smith would like nothing better than to see the Trust disappear. And it’s not just the anti-OHA people either. Even our “friends” in state government are trying to cut the money coming into OHA. Governor Cayetano already cut OHA’s airport revenues and if the current state legislature had its way, OHA would probably get a lot less than it does now.

So which path will OHA’s leadership take? Will it be Chairman Apoliona’s “temporary” OHA that will turn over its assets to a new Hawaiian Nation or Trustee Stender’s OHA, which spends freely and shrink the Trust? I hope they realize that it will be difficult to do both.

My prediction is that Chairman Apoliona will flip-flop on her position and go along with Trustee Stender, unless of course, she gets enough calls telling her to do otherwise. I encourage all of you who share my concerns to call her and ask where she’s leading us.

I will continue to fight, by every means necessary, any attempt to allow the shortsightedness of OHA’s current leadership to endanger the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund or shortchange the coming Hawaiian Nation.

Imua Hawaii Nei…

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in OHA

Reaching out to Hawaiians on the mainland

Thursday, April 15th, 2004

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, April 2004

‘Ano’ai kakou… On March 6-7, 2004, OHA sponsored a successful Hawaiian governance event in Las Vegas. The affair featured OHA’s Hawaiian Registry Program; workshops on Hawaiian culture, genealogy, and history; and a “Kau Inoa” registration drive. Kau Inoa is a separate program from OHA, and is the first step in identifying indigenous Hawaiians who want to be a part of the formation of a Hawaiian governing entity.

We have now established many valuable contacts within Nevada’s Hawaiian community, estimated to be 80,000 strong, and have made an important contribution to our goal of registering 100,000 Hawaiians nationwide.

This event would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the following OHA staff and volunteers:

* Administrator Clyde Namu’o who strongly supported the event from the beginning. I commend the Administrator for the latitude he afforded staff to explore new territories and gain new skills. His consistent positive attitude and encouragement of staff made the event a true pleasure.

* Public Information Officer Manu Boyd, who conducted workshops on hula, ka’ao, genealogy, and Hawaiian history. His command of the Hawaiian language and his musical talent are an invaluable resource to OHA.

* Luci Meyer, who conducted workshops on mo’oku’auhau (genealogy). I was impressed by the quality, depth, and insight of her presentations.

* Staff members Jennifer Chiwa, Lani Hoomana, Ruby McDonald, Gladys Rodenhurst, and Francine Murray.

* Las Vegas Volunteers Jeannie Wong, Ransen & Lehua Borges, Ladd Haleloa, Bruce Willingham, Lucille Calario, Lorna Andrade, and Paul Meyer.

* Special thanks to the Makaha Sons, Moon, John and Jerome who performed in concert and virtually assured a huge turnout.

This experience has left me very encouraged about coordinating future events and activities. I also appreciate Trustees Waihe’e, Dela Cruz, and Apoliona for making the trip and sharing their mana’o.

On another note regarding the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund…

Trustee Mossman wrote in his article last month that he did not believe OHA has ever been in a better financial position and that it was all thanks to Trustee Stender. Before we begin to sing the praises of someone, perhaps we should first put things in their proper context.

OHA’s portfolio was over $400 million in 2000 and then took a nosedive in the following year to $250 million. Who was the chair of the Budget & Finance committee for most of that time? You guessed it, Trustee Stender. I pleaded with Trustee Stender for months to stop the bleeding, but nothing happened. OHA’s Chief Financial Officer finally came up with the idea of hiring “managers-of-managers” to do our investing. This was finalized by February 2003, but and by then, the damage to the Trust had long since been done.

The new managers-of-managers, Goldman Sachs and Frank Russell, make all of our day-to-day investment decisions and choose which money managers to hire. The Board’s role now is to simply set the investment policy and listen to quarterly report presentations.

There is no doubt that the growth of the Trust has more to do with our two manager-of-managers than any particular Trustee. The problem now is that OHA is forced to pay higher fees for Goldman Sach’s services even though they have consistently underperformed the Frank Russell Group.

While the total Native Hawaiian Trust Fund is still far shy of the $400 million OHA once enjoyed in its heyday, at least it is growing again.

Imua Hawaii Nei…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Culture

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »