Posts Tagged ‘Settlement with the State’

Newer Entries »

Blaming others…

Sunday, June 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: June 2008 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

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

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

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

 For The Record

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

Ka Wai Ola Now a Mouthpiece for OHA Leadership

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

Employee Exodus Continues in April

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

Too little, too late

Saturday, March 15th, 2008

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: March 2008 Ka Wai Ola Column

‘Ano‘ai käkou… OHA is currently lobbying the Legislature to pass a bill that will settle our claims against the State from 1978 to the present. For those who do not remember, former Gov. Ben Cayetano’s second settlement offer in 1999 was a better deal than the current proposal.

The Board voted to reject Cayetano’s first offer, which was much less than the $251 million he later offered, for the past due amounts owed to OHA from 1980. We also discussed a prospective offer of 20 percent, or 365,000 acres of ceded lands, if OHA would settle on all land claims against the State in the future.  This offer would not have included any ocean resources, or any other resource, that we would be entitled to.

OHA couldn’t consider Cayetano’s second offer because five Trustees, including Trustees Haunani Apoliona and Colette Machado, suddenly voted to end all negotiations. OHA’s attorney at the time, James E. Duffy Jr., now a Hawai‘i Supreme Court justice, repeatedly advised the Trustees to continue the negotiations, but they rejected his advice.

The $251 million that Cayetano offered in 1999 would be worth more than double today and the 365,000 acres of ceded lands would have meant economic self-sufficiency and a better negotiating position for the Akaka Bill.

I believe that Apoliona and Machado wanted to end negotiations because they did not want any credit to go to our negotiating team (former Trustees Clayton Hee and Mililani Trask and myself). They thought they could negotiate their own deal, but nine years later all they could come up with is a watered-down version of our previous deal. Their short-sightedness caused OHA to pay dearly a year later when the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Rice decision.

Later, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court threw out Act 304 and suggested that the remedy must now be sought at the Legislature. I believe this decision was due to OHA walking away from the negotiating table after the Hawai‘i Supreme Court had asked OHA and the state to negotiate a settlement.

Please note that all of my statements can be verified by Gov. Cayetano, his chief negotiator Sam Callejo, Sen. Clayton Hee, or Justice James Duffy. I also have documents that support my statements regarding OHA’s 1999 negotiations with the state.

In 1980, the state legislature amended HRS chapter 10 by adding HRS 10-13.5, which provided that “twenty percent of all funds derived from the public (ceded) land trust shall be expended by OHA…”  The Hawai‘i Supreme Court quoted HRS 10-13.5 verbatim when it recently issued an injunction preventing the state from any future sale or transfer of ceded lands until the claims of Native Hawaiians have been resolved.  In light of this, OHA should really consider whether deleting the twenty percent provision in HRS 10-13.5 would hurt OHA’s standing with the Hawaii Supreme Court.  We should also consider whether we could negotiate a better deal with the state now that we are in a much stronger negotiating position.

Kau Inoa updates

Also, in a memo dated Jan. 31, Administrator Nämu‘o submits that our leader for Kau Inoa registrations on the continent, Chairperson Apoliona’s sister Aulani, is “…sometimes slow in gathering paperwork and submitting documentation for P-card payments.” Because of this, her OHA credit card was taken away and given to another staff person to manage (right?). Is it any surprise that our Kau Inoa program on the continent is so ineffective and no one knows for sure how much OHA funds are being spent? The Administrator announced that as of Feb. 7, the total number of Kau Inoa registrations is 80,625. There were 67,684 in Hawai‘i (84 percent) and 12,941 on the continent. As of Oct. 22, 2007, there were 29,574 registrants who needed to be verified as Native Hawaiian through the Department of Health.

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

Too Little, Too Late

Friday, February 8th, 2008

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter sent to Star Bulletin Editor on February 8, 2008

I am writing to correct the errors that were made by the Chairperson of the Office of Hawaiian Affiars and other trustees in their Feb. 7th letter. 

First, the letter twists the facts by stating that I rejected former Governor Cayetano’s offer in 1999 while I was serving as the Chairperson of OHA. 

What really happened is that the full board voted to reject Cayetano’s first offer, which was much less than the $251 million he later offered, for the past due amounts owed to OHA from 1980.

OHA and the state were also discussing a prospective offer of 20% or 365,000 acres of ceded lands, if OHA would settle on all land claims against the state in the future.  This offer would not have included any ocean resources, or any other resource, that the Hawaiian people would be entitled to.

OHA was not able to consider Cayetano’s second offer because five trustees, who include currently serving trustees Haunani Apoliona and Colette Machado, voted to end all negotiations.  OHA’s attorney at the time, James E. Duffy, Jr., now a Hawaii Supreme Court Justice, repeatedly advised the trustees to continue the negotiations, but they rejected his advice.

The $251 million that Cayetano offered in 1999 would be worth more than double today if it were properly invested and the 365,000 acres of ceded lands would have meant economic self-sufficiency and a better negotiating position for the Akaka bill.

I believe that Apoliona and Machado wanted to end negotiations because they did not want any credit to go to our negotiating team, which was made up of myself and former trustees Clayton Hee and Mililani Trask.

Apoliona and Machado thought they could negotiate their own deal, one that would serve as their legacy, but nine years later all they could come up with is a watered-down version of our previous deal that we now see before the legislature.  Their short-sightedness caused OHA to pay dearly a year later when the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Rice decision.

Later, the Hawaii Supreme Court threw out Act 304 and suggested that the remedy must now be sought at the legislature.  I believe this decision was made by the court because OHA walked away from the negotiating table after the Hawaii Supreme Court had asked OHA and the state to negotiate a settlement.

Also, in light of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s recent injunction preventing the state from any future sale or transfer of ceded lands until the claims of Native Hawaiians have been resolved, OHA should really consider whether a better settlement can be negotiated than the one we now have before the legislature.

I encourage anyone who would like to dispute my statements to speak directly to Governor Cayetano, his chief negotiator Sam Callejo, Senator Clayton Hee, or Hawaii Supreme Court Justice James Duffy.  I also have signed documents from the 1999 negotiations to back up what I have written.

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

Cayetano offered better ceded land deal

Monday, February 4th, 2008

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
Monday, February 4, 2008

Source: Honolulu Star Bulletin

I am writing to confirm former Gov. Ben Cayetano’s statement in the Star-Bulletin’s Jan. 22 article that his ceded lands settlement offer to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, while he was in office, was a better deal for native Hawaiians than the proposal now before the Legislature. I was the chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 1999 when he offered OHA $251 million plus 20 percent of the ceded lands, which is estimated at 365,000 acres.

Following OHA’s victory in the Heely court case, the state of Hawaii appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which then ordered the state and OHA to negotiate a settlement.

After only a few months, Haunani Apoliona, Colette Machado, Frenchy DeSoto, Louis Hao and Mililani Trask voted to halt the negotiations because they didn’t understand that the $251 million was for the past due revenues to OHA and the 20 percent of the ceded lands was to settle future claims.

While it would have been a final settlement, imagine how great that would have been for our people if we had received the 20 percent of all of the ceded lands back then. Not only that, Gov. Cayetano was willing to consider many of the lands that OHA wanted. Our intention was to take the offer out into the community for input, but we never had the chance because of the shortsightedness of those trustees. As a result of OHA walking away from the table, the Supreme Court ruled the Heely act void, and told OHA to go back to the Legislature for a remedy.

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

Response to OHA Trustee Heen’s June 13th Letter

Friday, July 13th, 2007

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter-to-the-Editor, Star Bulletin, July 13, 2007

I was surprised to read OHA Trustee Walter Heen’s June 13th letter where he wrote, “I do not recall Akana ever dissenting from any of the terms 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 (see attached).

I hope that Heen will make sure that OHA has lined up its “ducks” for the 2009 legislative session since he is now part of the negotiation 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 reconsidering her proposal.  Why not work with the legislature?

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

The Most Critical Issues Facing OHA Today

Friday, November 22nd, 2002

By Rowena Akana
November 22, 2002

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA

As the most senior member of the Board of Trustees serving three consecutive terms, I believe I have the historical knowledge necessary to deal with some of the most critical issues facing OHA today.

1. Loss of ceded land revenues
2. Legal challenges to our Trust
3. Federal recognition
4. Negotiations with the State on a ceded land settlement.

While there are other challenges that we must address at OHA, those listed above are the most critical. As Hawaiians, the indigenous people of our lands, what we face today is no different than what occurred over 100 years ago. We are still fighting off assaults on our culture, rights to our lands and racism. Only now, we are being called racists because we want to protect our entitlements. Times have not changed much, people are still the same and greed is still the motivation behind the move to relieve us of whatever entitlements we have left. The only thing that has changed is the sophistication used to manipulate us and the law.

The future of OHA and other Hawaiian trusts are certainly at risk. Hawaiian leaders will have to work together and use whatever resources that are necessary to protect existing Hawaiian Trusts.

It is my opinion that in these critical times for OHA and all Hawaiian trusts, it is very important to have experienced leadership to help steer our canoe.

The unresolved issues of a permanent revenue stream for OHA and the failure of the Legislature to address the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s direction to them to “fix” Act 304 by defining what ceded land revenues constitute revenue for OHA was devastating to our Public Land Trust. For the first time in OHA’s 22 year history we have had to use our principal investments to fund programs and operations.

In 1991, OHA’s trust assets totaled $11 million. In 1993, our negotiating team settled with the State, on a partial settlement of approximately $129 million for back due payments owed to OHA from ceded land revenues. In 1999, as chair of the OHA Board, our investments had grown to nearly $400 million. In today’s market OHA’s assets are worth considerably less.

As a trustee who has always believed that the needs of our people should come first, the following are some of the programs that I have initiated:

1. FANNIE MAE Loan commitment of $135 million for home loans for ALL Hawaiians. This is a partnership between the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, FANNIE MAE, Bank of Hawaii and First Hawaiian Bank to provide low interest loans to all Hawaiians for home ownership;

2. The purchase of Quality Homes/Prefabricated Housing. OHA recently bought half ownership in this manufacturing plant which can produce homes that are steel constructed for approximately $50,000 each. This home loan program now adds a new dimension to OHA’s Commitment to home ownership;

3. Hawaiian Registry Program. The Hawaiian registry will not only show proof of Hawaiian ancestry, but sports a new look as a photo I.D.;

4. $350,000 commitment to annual scholarships for higher education;

5. Kupuna Health Program identifying elderly who are not covered by existing programs.

In the next few years, because of the challenges we face, experienced leadership will play a key role in our ability to deal with these issues as they present themselves.

I am very grateful to the Hawaiian community for having believed in my devotion and ability to lead, and for their continued support throughout my years at OHA. I am asking for your support again on November 5th, Election Day.  Mahalo ia ‘oe.

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

How Can We Build A Nation When We Have Negative Leaders?

Friday, November 22nd, 2002

By Rowena Akana
November 22, 2002

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA

In the last issue of Ka Wai Ola o OHA, Trustees Apoliona and Machado combined their column to write a fictional piece on me to influence votes against me in the up-coming election. Judging from that article, I am certain you are clever enough to see through it. While I consider it to be petty and a waste of energy, I do believe you, the beneficiaries, are entitled to hear the truth. The truth is that from that article our readers should have a very good idea of what kind of trustees they have been while serving on this Board–full of negativity, criticizing the hard work and efforts of others while contributing nothing.

How can we build a nation with negative leadership?

The negotiating team that they spoke about worked very hard to try and resolve the Heely case. What we presented to the Board was an offer that we could begin serious negotiating with. Trustees Apoliona and Machado, along with three others no longer on this Board, voted to end all negotiations with the State leaving OHA’s fate to be decided by the Hawai’i Supreme court. On September 12, 2001, the Hawai’i Supreme Court ruled that Act 304 was flawed and referred the Act back to the legislature. The result of that decision has meant zero revenues for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs since July 2001.

For the first time in 22 years, OHA has no income from which to draw to provide funding for existing and new programs and operations. The trust corpus is now at a dismal $244 million with no guidance from the budget chair since February. We are now dipping into the trust to fund all programs and operations. With the stock market in a downward spiral since November 2000, and OHA losing much of the corpus in the market, it is amazing to me that just when you think things are terrible and they couldn’t get any worse, we find ourselves with a leadership that has taken absolutely no action to remedy either situation. Adding to this already grave problem is the fact that OHA along with other Hawaiian Trusts, continue to be challenged in our legal system.

I find it extremely sad and in very bad taste that Apoliona and Machado waste precious time writing negative things and tearing down the hard work of others instead of concentrating on critical issues facing OHA.

How can we build a nation with negative leadership?

I look forward to the elections in the hope that we will have new faces on the OHA Board that will bring new and positive energy to give us all hope for the future. OHA is the only Hawaiian public trust left that all Hawaiians are beneficiaries of. We must at all cost keep that in mind, and work together to overcome the ‘alamihi crab syndrome that is always present among us.

Let us keep our eyes on the prize and keep our focus. We must settle the ceded lands claims so that we will have a land base to build our nation upon. The 1.4 million acres of ceded lands that are inclusive of the DHHL, 250,000 acres, is what we must look at in totality. We must not settle only for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. To do this would mean the rest of the Hawaiian community would be left without a land base. Finally, we must have recognition for all Hawaiians, not just for a few.  Malama pono!

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

Legislative Session 2002 a vital “next step”

Saturday, December 15th, 2001

By Rowena Akana
December 2001

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA

As chairman of the Legislative and Government Affairs Committee, my primary focus in the next legislative session will be to work with legislators to resolve the 20-year old dispute over the ceded land revenue due Hawaiians. We do not intend to address issues which will extinguish any future claims including fishing, gathering, or sea mining rights. The focus is to reassert Hawaiian rights and entitlements that were settled in previous negotiations.

Hawaiian rights have been whittled away by a series of court cases. The United States Supreme Court decision in RICE invalidated the Hawaiians-only vote for OHA. The Hawai’i Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Act 304 invalidates the basis for trust income. This puts OHA in a crisis situation. With the clarifying section of Act 304 invalidated, the court has no statutory guidance, and the income stream of OHA has been crippled. On the horizon is a possible damaging rule in the anticipated challenge to the constitutionality of entitlements for Native Hawaiians. Staying under the aegis of the state has and will run Hawaiian entitlements into the ground. The Hawai’i Supreme Court has emphasized that the state still has an obligation to the Hawaiians. Yet the income stream for OHA has trickled to a stop. The best thing for OHA would be to gain independence from the state and to run the affairs of Hawaiians for Hawaiians. This would remove the stain of unconstitutionality from Hawaiian programs and would allow us to economically develop the lands agreed upon in settlement to make Hawaiians once and for all self-sufficient. Further, it would be the beginning of the building of a nation.

If the state and OHA cannot come to a decision as to a settlement, OHA may have to revisit Act 304 and come up with a formula for payments due to the Hawaiian. However, it must be remembered that after the World Trade Center attacks, our state coffers have less monies and may not be able to offer Hawaiians enough. We must also remember that Act 304 only entitled Hawaiians to a 20 percent revenue share of land fees. This has been a source of great irritation towards the state for the past 20 years. OHA has tried to collect the 20 percent formula since 1980 which has also been the cause of the disputes resulting in several lawsuits. Resolving the land issue once and for all will be beneficial to all concerned. We must not call a settlement on land a global settlement. The term global is far-reaching and really has no meaning between OHA and the state on any kind of settlement.

Several years ago, OHA was in negotiations with the state for a land and cash settlement. Forces in OHA were against this, thus scuttling the negotiations. The misunderstanding of the term “settlement” in the negotiations was considered a settlement offer from the state as a global one. The term “global” was loosely bantered around so that it scared people into thinking it was forever on all issues. They failed to understand that a settlement with OHA over land issues would be beneficial to Hawaiians because we would be able to develop programs for Hawaiians without the worry of whether the state would continue to contest the 20 percent formula or disagree with OHA over what kinds of state income on leases should be exempt from the formula, such as the University of Hawai’i.

I look forward to working with the legislature and constituents as the legislative chair to try to resolve some of the critical issues that have beleaguered OHA for 20 years. I urge you to continue to lend your support towards this goal.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Government, Political

Newer Entries »