Posts Tagged ‘Sovereignty’

Response to supporters of Clarence Ching

Wednesday, November 15th, 2006

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
November 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: , ,
Posted in Political

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 OHA

Why does the concept of Sovereignty divide us?

Friday, November 15th, 2002

By Trustee Rowena Akana

November 2002

SOVEREIGNTY—The word hangs in the air like an uncertain new friend to all who attempt to understand its encircling arms.

Why does the concept of sovereignty, that which should unite our people, divide us into fragmented shards? It has been a goal of mine to use the issue of sovereignty to bring together the many grassroots groups in the community over the past several months. Yet, like a delicate spider’s web, the unity is fragile and unsure as the elements that affect it. It’s easy enough to get the many people I’ve worked with to agree, in concept, to the need for the study, education and understanding of sovereignty. The State Legislature is considering six separate bills dealing with sovereignty this session alone It’s easy enough to get many people to admit sovereignty is a necessary first step toward the Hawaiian nation. But the unity and understanding seems to stop there.

Perhaps, we need to start at the beginning again and again…as many times as it takes to grasp the elementary foundation of the very word. To define “sovereignty” is to place the concept in a known variable category. One of the best definitions I have come across comes from the group, Ka Lahui Hawaii:

“Three key elements of nationhood are sovereignty, self-determination and self sufficiency.

—SOVEREIGNTY—is the ability of a people who share a common culture, religion, language, value system and land base, to exercise control over their lands and lives, independent of other nations. In order to do this, they must be self-determining.

—SELF-DETERMINATION—is realized when the native people organize a mechanism for self-governance. Only when the Native Hawaiian people create a government which provides for democratic representation of their members and begin to interrelate with the State and Federal Trustees who control their lands will they be able to gain control over their trust assets and their future.

—SELF-SUFFICIENCY–is the goal of nationhood. Self-sufficiency means the people are able to be self-supporting, capable of feeding, clothing and sheltering themselves.”

I like this definition. It seems to be all encompassing and obtainable too. Perhaps, once this tangibility has been created, we can begin to dissect the various components that make up the whole.

One thing I have definitely found to be true, the study of sovereignty must be carried out by an impartial, independent agency. I have recently presented testimony at several Senate hearings to voice this exact concern. It is important for the study group to be able to feel free to research the issue of sovereignty without undo pressure from any state agency.

Currently, there are three different proposals in the Legislature attempting to create some form of group to study the issue of sovereignty. Senate bill 3444 and companion House bill 3513 attempt to amend existing Act 301, which created the Sovereignty Advisory Council (SAC). The amendments basically clarify the independence of the group by transferring the funding for the group into the Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS). Senate Bill 2407 attempts to create a commission outside of SAC, to be appointed by the Governor, to study the sovereignty issue. House Bill 3662 proposes to create a sovereignty task force with sixteen members to be appointed by the legislature, including four non-Hawaiians.

In summary, I support the idea of an independent group whether it be the SAC, the commission or the task force. I believe that this group must be independent of any state agency so that the group’s findings and ultimate report to the Legislature will be unbiased and will encompass input from all sectors of the community.

Tags: ,
Posted in Sovereignty

Hands Off Ceded Land Revenues

Saturday, February 10th, 1996

By Trustee Rowena Akana
February 10, 1996

Source Star Bulletin Viewpoint

A wide variety of legal principles and historical events cloud the state’s title as trustee of Hawaiian ceded lands. Even if, purely for the sake of argument, the state were to hold clear title to these lands, countless examples showing a breach of trust responsibilities can be found. These issues, pending court cases, and the future status of ceded lands in a Hawaiian sovereign entity, have yet to be settled. Until then, the state has no right to add another chapter to the long, sad history of Hawaiian land alienation.

Gov. Ben Cayetano has made it clear that he considers Hawaiian entitlements a burden on the state treasury. While ceded land revenues are a mere drop in the bucket in the overall state budget, these revenues are certainly not his to touch in any event. Hawaiians have a right to these revenues, as affirmed and reaffirmed by a variety of laws and legal instruments.

Although it is often stated that we receive 20 percent of state income from ceded lands, our agreement with the state actually gives us much less. Imagine not one but two pools of ceded land revenues — sovereign income and proprietary income. Sovereign income includes the big ticket items like airport landing fees, Duty Free Shop income, income generated by the University of Hawaii, etc. The state holds onto all of this income; the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and its native Hawaiian beneficiaries don’t get a cent of it.

The second pool, proprietary income, involves a considerably smaller amount of money, drawn from land leases and rents of ceded lands. It is this pool from which OHA draws its 20 percent to service the needs of native Hawaiians, as required by the 1959 Admission Act.

It represents not 20 percent of our Hawaiian entitlements but 10 percent (or less) of these two revenue sources.

The state assumed fiduciary obligation upon being admitted as a state in 1959 and Section 5(f) of the Admission Act stipulated that proceeds from the sale or other disposition of ceded lands would be held by the state as a public trust for the support of betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, public schools, agriculture, parks, recreational areas and other lands for public use, and capital improvement projects.

In 1995, Rep. Calvin Say introduced a bill that would have diverted the ceded land revenues of OHA to state capital improvement projects. This would have crippled OHA’s ability to deliver crucial services to the Hawaiian community.

It also would have amounted to double dipping by the state, which already gets 20 percent (the same amount OHA receives) specifically for capital improvement projects. To add insult to injury, Hawaiians already pay their fair share of taxes to pay for such building programs!

Fortunately OHA’s trustees and Hawaiian organizations mobilized quickly and gained the support necessary to kill Say’s bill. Hawaiian entitlements are too vital for us to wait until another crisis situation spurs us to action. Now that the state legislative session is under way, it is in the interest of Hawaiians and Hawaii’s general public not to allow our legislators to take away what little funds OHA and Hawaiians receive.

Say and House Speaker Joe Souki have helped drive our state into the present fiscal fiasco. They try to deflect blame away from themselves with a lot of smoke and hot air. They don’t address the real issues; they invent new ones. They pit Hawaiians against non-Hawaiians by creating an atmosphere of distrust based upon unwarranted fears.

Hawaiians aren’t the only ones at risk here. Every tax-paying citizen of Hawaii will be directly affected by the decisions of lawmakers in 1996. Already there’s talk of increasing our general excise tax. Already there’s talk again of taking away OHA’s funding to pay for capital improvements. Can we allow the state to continue mismanaging our ceded land funds and our hard-earned tax dollars? I think not.

We must protect what little we have, before we all end up like the state — dead broke.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government