Posts Tagged ‘State Legislature’

« Older Entries

Looking Back at 2009 and Looking forward to 2010

Friday, January 15th, 2010

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: January 2010 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

Last year started out with the whole world caught up or affected in some negative way by America’s recession.  Economists said it would probably last through to 2010 and they were right. 

During the 2009 session, I found it embarrassing to sit through OHA’s budget briefing to the state legislature and listen to Senators and Representatives ask about OHA’s budget.  Questions included things like “Where are OHA’s priorities for spending?” and “How much was being spent on Kau Inoa registrations and OHA’s Washington D.C. office?”

They basically scolded us for not making any sacrifices and were reluctant to give us any more money.  At least that was my impression of their message to us.  However, it is important to note that the approximately $3 million that we receive annually from the state helps us to serve the less than 50% Hawaiian beneficiaries that we are also mandated to serve.

SETTLEMENT WITH THE STATE

I supported Senate Bill 995, introduced by Senator Clayton Hee, which attempted to resolve the claims and disputes relating to OHA’s portion of income from the public land trust between 11/7/1978 and 7/1/2009. 

Senator Hee’s proposal offered OHA $251 million in cash and 20 percent of the 1.8 million acres of ceded lands to be determined in negotiations between the agency and the Lingle administration.  During the Cayetano administration, OHA was offered 20% of all ceded lands and $150 million in cash.  Five OHA board members refused the offer; two of which are still on the OHA board (Trustees Haunani Apoliona & Colette Machado).  In Governor Cayetano’s recent book, he speaks to the foolishness of those board members and refers to the events as a “missed opportunity” for OHA.  SB995 SD2 offers OHA another opportunity to redeem itself.

SB995 would have given OHA the right to choose from the following properties, among many others: Kaka’ako Makai; Kahana Valley and Beach Park; La Mariana and Pier 60; Heeia meadowlands; Mauna Kea: Mauna Kea Scientific Reserve; Waikiki Yacht Club; Ala Wai Boat Harbor Complex; Kalaeloa Makai; and any and all other lands that the State may agree to convey to OHA.

Even a few of these properties could generate all of the revenue OHA needs to operate indefinitely and would have given our future nation the concrete assets it needs to serve the Hawaiian population.  SB995 would have made Native Hawaiians self-sufficient (the very essence of sovereignty) and relieved the State of Hawaii of a large burden on their budget. 

Unfortunately, SB995 failed to pass during the last days of the legislature because according to Advertiser Staff Writer Gordon Y. K. Pang, “key House members,” no doubt let by Speaker Calvin Say, declined to support the bill.  Let us hope that we can convince them this year.

SAINT DAMIEN

It is fitting that we closed the year with the celebration of the sainthood of Father Damien, a non-Hawaiian who unselfishly gave his life to care for Hawaiians.

On October 1, 2009, I traveled along with a Hawaii delegation on a pilgrimage to Belgium and to Rome to honor Father Damien.  We visited Father Damien’s hometown of Tremelo where the people of the town embraced us.  I can now truly understand where the kindness and compassion that father Damien had for our Hawaiian people came from. 

In a ceremony led by Pope Benedict XVI in St. Peters Basilica in Vatican City, Rome, we witnessed the canonization of Father Damien on October the 11, 2009.

To Father Damien, people were people, and his service to his God meant that he must serve all of God’s people.  We would undoubtedly have a more peaceful world if we could all embrace the compassion for others that was exemplified by Saint Damien.  Let us think of these good thoughts and deeds as we move forward into this New Year.

My best wishes to all for a happy and successful 2010.  Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , ,
Posted in OHA

Setting the record straight about the sale of ceded lands

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: November 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

On July 15, 2009, OHA, three individual Native Hawaiian Plaintiffs, and the State jointly filed a motion to dismiss the 14-year-old OHA v. HHFDC case, which involves a tract of former crown (ceded) land on Maui, now known as the “Leiali’i parcel.”  OHA sued the state to stop the state from selling the ceded land.  Fellow plaintiff Professor Jonathan Kamakawiwo’ole Osorio was the only plaintiff who did not join the motion to dismiss the case.

OHA only agreed to dismiss the 14-year-old case after Act 176 (2009) became law after this past legislative session.  The new law will make it extremely difficult for the state to sell ceded lands.  While Act 176 is not as all inclusive as a full moratorium, it nonetheless provides a high bar for the sale of any ceded lands.

There is now a process for the state to follow to get permission to sell ceded lands.  Act 176 assures that Native Hawaiians will have many opportunities to participate in that process, including community meetings.  There is also a higher standard of 2/3 legislative vote (of each house) for any ceded lands to be sold.

While OHA simply asked that the case be dismissed without prejudice, the State, represented by Attorney General (AG) Mark Bennett, filed a Motion to Dismiss that went much further. 

AG Bennett argued that Professor Osorio does not have standing because he is not a Native Hawaiian as defined by the term is used in § 5(f) of the Admission Act and Art. XII, § 4 of the Hawaii Constitution.  OHA does not agree with this and explained to the AG that this type of argument should not be made.  However, the AG did not change his position.  The danger with making this argument in this case is that even if the Hawaii Supreme Court does not dismiss Professor Osorio’s claim on standing grounds, other people may use these statements against OHA and the State in other cases.

OHA also does not agree with the assertions made by AG Bennett that the “Newlands Resolution” gave all of our lands to the United States.  AG Bennett wrote that:

  • “Pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, the Republic of Hawaii ‘cede[d] absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind’ and further ‘cede[d] and transfer[red] to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining’ (hereinafter ceded lands). Ibid. The Newlands Resolution further provided that all ‘property and rights in the ceded lands ‘are vested in the United States of America.’”
  • “The Organic Act reiterated the Newlands Resolution and made clear that the new Territory consisted of the land that the United States acquired in ‘absolute fee’ under that resolution.”
  • “The Newlands Resolution and subsequent federal enactments foreclose any theory that native Hawaiians may have legal title or claims to the ceded lands that must necessarily (or can) be protected by injunction.”
  • “In the Newlands Resolution, Congress extinguished any such title or claims as a matter of federal law, by accepting the Republic of Hawaii’s cession of these lands and by vesting absolute title to (and ownership of) these lands in the United States.”  (NOTE: They of course do not mention that the Republic of Hawaii was an illegal government that had no right to cede any lands.)
  • “The Newlands Resolution annexed Hawaii to the United States. It recognized the Republic of Hawaii, accepted the cession ‘and transfer to the United States [of] the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government [and] Crown lands, and declared that all ‘property and rights’ in the ceded lands had become ‘vested in the United States of America.’”
  • “Congress thereafter confirmed that the United States had assumed perfect title to the ceded lands and could use or dispose of them as it deemed appropriate.”

On August 6, 2009, Professor Osorio submitted a Memorandum in Opposition to the motion to dismiss the case.  In it, Professor Osorio asserts that:

  • OHA “has breached its fiduciary duty to beneficiaries by abandoning the lawsuit.”
  • That “[u]ndisputedly, the ideologies of race and eugenics are the genesis of the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act’s division of the Native Hawaiian people into those of 50% blood or more Hawaiian blood, and those without… It would appear the State’s memorandum that those ideological constructs necessary to reduce the number of potential beneficiaries are alive and well.”
  • That during the many years of litigation, there has never been a distinction between Native Hawaiians and that is and should be the law of this case.
  • That the Akaka bill will pass and the State will use arguments similar to the ones in this case to contend that Native Hawaiians have no claims to the ceded lands and that a “dismissal in this case will undermine the legal and historical bases upon which Native Hawaiians will rely in those negotiations.”

My hope is that the above information will help to clarify all of the different positions regarding the OHA v. HHFDC case.  The State and Osorio have made very negative statements against each other in the media.  OHA has not been involved in the “name-calling” other than refuting Osorio’s accusation that OHA breached its fiduciary duty.  OHA’s continuing position is to dismiss the case without prejudice.

The danger in Professor Osorio continuing this case is the possibility that the Hawaii Supreme Court might rule that he has no standing to pursue this case because he does not have a 50% native Hawaiian blood quantum.  This would seriously damage all of the progress that has been made to establish that there is no difference in a 50% blood quantum Hawaiian and those of us with less that 50%.  Until the next time.  Aloha pumehana.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Land, Legal

Thanks for trying, Senators Hanabusa & Hee

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: July 2009 Ka Wai Ola Column

I want to send out a Big Mahalo to all of the state senators who tried to resolve the ceded land revenue issue once and for all, especially Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and Senator Clayton Hee. 

Senator Hee introduced Senate Bill 995, which attempted to resolve the claims and disputes relating to OHA’s portion of income from the public land trust between 11/7/1978 and 7/1/2009.  Senator Hee’s proposal offered OHA $251 million in cash and 20 percent of the 1.8 million acres of ceded lands to be determined in negotiations between the agency and the Lingle administration.

SB995 would have given OHA the right to choose from the following properties, among many others:

(1)  Kaka’ako Makai;

(2)  Kahana Valley and Beach Park;

(3)  La Mariana and Pier 60;

(4)  Heeia meadowlands;

(5)  Mauna Kea: Mauna Kea Scientific Reserve;

(6)  Waikiki Yacht Club;

(7)  Ala Wai Boat Harbor Complex;

(8)      Kalaeloa Makai; and

(9)      Any and all other lands, together with the State’s interest in any and all improvements thereon, that the State may agree to convey to OHA;

Even a few of these properties could generate all of the revenue OHA needs to operate indefinitely and would have given our future nation the concrete assets it needs to serve the Hawaiian population. 

OHA can never be a self-sufficient organization as long as our leadership is content with begging the legislature for a 20% share of ceded land revenues every year – funds which can be taken away from us at anytime.  SB995 would have made Native Hawaiians self-sufficient (the very essence of sovereignty) and relieved the State of Hawaii of a large burden on their budget.  Unfortunately, this opportunity has once again slipped away from OHA’s hands.  AUWE!

So why did SB995 fail to pass during the last days of the legislature?  According to an article written by Advertiser Staff Writer Gordon Y. K. Pang on May 2, 2009, “key House members” declined to support the bill, but everyone knows that all of these key members are directed by House Speaker Calvin Say.  It doesn’t surprise me that Speaker Say killed the bill since he has not supported many Hawaiian issues.  Rumor has it that he had help from certain Hawaiians who conducted some hard, backdoor lobbying.  Speaker Say has also told OHA’s administration that he doesn’t want to see another settlement bill next year.

Pang’s article also stated that the OHA trustees were “lukewarm” in their support of SB995.  I am baffled by this statement since the board voted unanimously to support the bill with a few technical changes by our attorney, Bill Meheula.  When I later spoke with Pang, he said that Trustee Stender told him that the board did not formally support the bill, which is funny, since I remember Stender voting for it.  The lack of any coherent vision offered by our current leadership has been a set-back for OHA for the last seven years.  The mixed signals that are given on the boards’ behalf have also been less than honest.

I believe that if SB995 passed, the Governor would have vetoed it.  For all the praises she sang about helping the Hawaiian Community, at best it appears the Governor and her Attorney General have done everything they could to limit their support for OHA and its beneficiaries.

The Attorney General’s latest betrayal to Native Hawaiians is to remove his support for the Akaka bill if the original version from the year 2000 is introduced.  According to him, it is unconstitutional.  This has forced our congressional delegation to pullback the 2000 version and re-introduce last year’s bill that Republicans in Congress bastardized.  I say why rush this bill through now?  The Lingle administration will be gone next year.  At the same time, the democratic controlled Congress and a President who has pledge to sign the bill when it reaches his desk should be a better fit for us.

ON ANOTHER NOTE:

The Kawaiaha’o Church Multi-Purpose Center Construction Project

In early May of 2006, OHA contributed $1 million to help rebuild Likeke Hall at Kawaiaha’o Church.  However, reconstructing Likeke Hall has now turned into a “Multi-Purpose Center,” which will house offices, a nursery, archives, meeting space and a kitchen.

As many of you have certainly heard in the media, construction of the Multi-Purpose Center was put on hold in April after 69 sets of human remains were discovered by workers.  On May 27, 2009, OHA sent a letter to the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) regarding our serious concerns about the ongoing discovery of remains and the treatment of unmarked burial sites on the Kawaiaha’o Church property. (NOTE: At the time of this writing, we have not heard from SHPD).

State law requires that any discovered skeletal remains that appear to be over 50-years-old cannot be moved without the state Department of Health’s (DOH) approval.  However, since the church didn’t have names for the deceased, which DOH requires, the issue fell under the jurisdiction of SHPD.

OHA feels that a “good faith interpretation of the law” would require inventory level testing of any area proposed for construction.  OHA also stresses that if any remains are identified, that they be treated in accordance with the law as in previously identified burial sites.  The Oahu Island Burial Council also needs to be allowed to determine the ultimate disposition of the remains in consultation with identified lineal and cultural descendants; and this time, be given AN ACCURATE MAP of where the graves are located.

Since the area of Kawaiaha’o Cemetery and the surrounding area headed makai hold hundreds of unmarked ancestral Native Hawaiian burial sites, OHA strongly advised against removing or redesignating portions of Kawaiaha’o Church Cemetery just to make the Multi-Purpose Center easier to build.

OHA also reminded SHPD that construction workers need to remember that the surrounding soil contains fragments of our iwi kupuna that are too small to be noticed or properly recovered.  Given the powerful reverence for iwi kupuna within our Native Hawaiian community, the soil should also be treated with the utmost respect.  There should also be no utility lines, sewer lines or grease trap within the vicinity of human burial sites.

I strongly believe that construction should have been halted as soon as the first group of iwi was unearthed.  A REPUTABLE archeologist should have immediately contacted the Oahu Island Burial Council.  Instead, what seems to have occurred is that many of the iwi kupuna were placed in lauhala baskets and stored under the church.  The workers then destroyed all of the caskets, making the iwi almost impossible to identify.  This is a flagrant act of desecration no matter what culture a person comes from and it is unbelievable that it was allowed to occur at Kawaiaha’o Church.  The people responsible for this egregious act should be called upon to explain how this could have happened.

It is also unfathomable to me that a construction firm could possibly get a permit to desecrate such a sacred burial site in this manner without proper authorization.  One has to question if they even had all of the proper permits to proceed.  It is my understanding that the graves were unearthed with only a grading permit!  I believe that all of this could have been prevented if they had simply taken the time to do things right before construction started.  Now they are forced to work backwards to fix their mistakes after the damage has been done.

This project must not be allowed to continue until a plan can be agreed upon by all parties, including lineal descendants.  Let us pray that all sides can work together to care for the iwi kupuna in a pono way.  Aloha Ke Akua.

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

The State’s obligation to all Hawaiians

Monday, June 15th, 2009

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: June 2009 Ka Wai Ola Column

Towards the end of this past legislative session, the OHA general funds budget was completely cut by the Senate Ways and Means (WAM) committee chair Senator Donna Mercado Kim.  While it is still possible that the funding will be at least partially restored (the legislative session will not be over at the time of this writing), I was disappointed to hear the reasons why the WAM Chair felt the cuts could be justified.

The WAM Chair argued that: (1) OHA has $300 million in its trust fund; (2) OHA has $15 million in its fiscal reserve fund; (3) OHA receives $15.1 million a year in ceded lands payments; and (4) OHA received $2.03 million for a legal settlement from the Hokulia case from the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (NHLC).  However, the WAM Chair did not take into consideration other circumstances such as:

  • OHA’s trust fund has lost almost $150 million, or 30% of its value, from its peak in late 2007.
  • OHA’s Spending Policy puts an annual cap of 5% on withdrawals from our trust fund, so there can be no further withdrawals.
  • OHA had already agreed to reduce its budget by 20%, like all other state agencies, at the legislature’s request.  Now they are proposing to cut 100% of our budget.  Where is the fairness in that?
  • The OHA Fiscal Reserve Fund is not a “rainy day” fund and is actually part of our trust fund.  It was never meant to be used to make-up budget shortfalls.
  • OHA’s matching funds for the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation only entitles us to about half of the total $2.03 million the NHLC received for the Hokulia settlement.  Therefore, OHA will only receive about $1 million.

In addition, the $15.1 million ceded land payments that OHA receives annually are part of the state’s legal obligation to pay OHA for its 20% pro rata share of income from ceded lands.  The Attorney General has made it clear that the Hawaii Constitution makes OHA trustees, not the legislature, responsible for determining how the Native Hawaiians’ portion of ceded land revenues is spent.  The Attorney General has also stated that OHA’s share of ceded land revenues belongs to Hawaiians and is not “public money.”

The WAM Chair also ignores the fact that the OHA budget was designed more than 16-years ago by the Governor and the State Legislature to contain both general funds and trustee approved matching trust funds so that it can better the condition of all classifications of Hawaiians:  (1) those with at least 50% blood quantum under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 and (2) any descendants of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778.  This blending of funds was thought to be the most effective way to allow OHA to serve the entire Hawaiian population, estimated at the last census to be 400,000 nation-wide.  OHA will not be able to provide the same level of services to such a large population without the assistance of additional general funds from the state.

The WAM Chair needs to realize that OHA funds a wide range of programs relating to Education, Health, Human Services, Housing, and Economic Development, just to name a few.  For the sake of comparison, while OHA may have $300 million in its trust fund, Kamehameha Schools spend more than that in just one year — only on education!

OHA has also subsidized the loss of legislative funds to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, which by law must be funded by the Governor’s budget.  Other state departments that have been funded by OHA include the state departments of Education and Health.

Finally, cutting the funding to Na Pua No’eau is simply cruel and would destroy a leader in Hawaiian culture-based education.  The WAM Chair needs to think about the 1,500 Hawaiian students, their families, 80 teachers that will be adversely affected.

The actions by the WAM Chair shows why OHA needs to constantly educate the legislature on Hawaiian history and culture and Hawaiian rights.  But it wasn’t always this way — There was time when legislators made it a point to be educated on Hawaiian issues and were all well aware of why OHA was created during the 1978 Constitutional Convention. 

It was very clear to the legislators and the governors who served from 1978 to 2000 that the legislative funds that OHA was to receive were to serve the Hawaiian population with less than 50% blood quantum.  This promise was made because the law, Chapter 10 of the Hawaii Revised Statues, made it clear that the ceded land revenues are to serve Hawaiians with a 50% blood quantum.  The law ended up creating two classifications of OHA beneficiaries, but funded only one of those beneficiaries.  This is why legislative funds have been sought since 1980.

It is clear that the across the board “slash & burn” of OHA’s budget by Senator Donna Mercado Kim is without conscious or careful thought regarding the special circumstances that governs the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.  If you are outraged by this action, please write to Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and your state senators and representatives.  Aloha Ke Akua.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government

OHA Budget: It’s time to bite the bullet

Sunday, February 15th, 2009

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: February 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  On January 6th, OHA’s administration briefed the State House and Senate’s money committees about OHA’s budget and funding needs for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.  After listening to the questions that the legislators asked our administrator, I couldn’t help but feel like I’ve heard them all before.

Back in August of 2008, I wrote about my concerns regarding the health of OHA’s portfolio and our out-of-control spending.  At the time, our Native Hawaiian Trust Fund portfolio had lost 10% of its value (approximately $39 million) and national consumer and prognostic indicators were saying that investors should have at least 20% of their investments in cash that can be liquidated and moved quickly.  Unfortunately OHA had less than 10% or $25 million of its portfolio in cash at the time.

I also wrote that according to a June 2008 report from one of our money managers, global equity markets had fallen by more than 8%, with US and European equity markets returning -8.4% and -11.7% respectively.  As of July 9, 2008, the estimated preliminary return for their share of OHA’s portfolio in the month of June was –4.95% compared to benchmark performance of –4.48%. 

They also stated that the growth outlook for the US economy remains weak, as increased unemployment, a weak dollar, and further pressure on the financial markets contribute to expectations of higher inflation over the next year, with expectations beyond that more restrained.  In other words, we were warned.  Given all of the bad news, it was more important than ever to bring our spending under control. 

On October 16, 2008, right before the November election, the board approved a $40,682,161 budget for Fiscal Year 2010 and a $39, 675,268 budget for Fiscal Year 2011, with no reductions.  The board also supported an increase in spending all the way through 2012.    In other words, these realigned budgets are being approved using money that we have yet to receive and probably will not receive given that our spending policy is tied to our three-year return on investments.  Since that time, our Native Hawaiian Trust Fund has fallen from $430 million to $312 million.  It is very difficult to defend and justify a budget that has expanded by over $20 million over the past six years to the legislature or anyone else.

At present, our budget is approximately $41 million.  Add to that all of the recent budget realignments and commitments made well into the future and the budget will probably climb to well over $50 million a year.

It appears that the whole world is caught up or affected in some negative way by America’s recession.  Economists say this recession will probably last through 2010.  That said, I found it embarrassing to sit through OHA’s budget briefing to the state legislature and listen to Senators and Representatives ask why OHA had not made any cuts to its budget.

Here are some of the suggestions and questions asked of us:

  • Are you willing to cut salaries if necessary?
  • Will you be able to make the necessary reductions to your budget if needed?
  • Where are OHA’s priorities for spending?
  • How much of OHA’s budget is committed to housing and health?
  • What did the Administrator mean when he said that he had spent the last seven years cleaning up OHA programs?
  • How much was being spent on Kau Inoa registrations and OHA’s Washington D.C. office?

There were many more questions but I have not included them because of space limitations. 

In this New Year of 2009, I still have great hopes that our board will come together and do what is best for our beneficiaries despite the fact that we may all differ in our opinion as to what must be done and how.  This can only occur if ALL of us look at the reality of the situation that confronts us.  We cannot, in this economy, continue to spend the way we have in past years.  We must also convey this message to our beneficiaries.

When one of our money managers late last year cautioned us about the stock market volatility, they suggested that we should consider reducing our spending policy from 5% to 3% during these uncertain times, until things get better.  I think it’s obvious that the time has come for us to take the advice of the professionals that we hired and “bite the bullet.”

It is understandable that the legislature is critical of OHA’s lack of spending restraint.  They basically as much as told us that, if you haven’t made any sacrifices and we have, why should we give you any more money?  At least that was my impression of their message to us.  Criticism like, “You obviously have enough to get by” only makes us appear arrogant.

Neither the legislature nor anyone else should have to tell us that belt tightening is necessary.  This is the responsibility of our board.  It is important to note that OHA pointed out to the legislature that the $3 million that we receive from the state helps to serve the less than 50% Hawaiian beneficiaries that we are also mandated to serve.  Aloha Ke Akua.

Tags: ,
Posted in OHA

2007 OHA legislative package needs your support

Thursday, February 15th, 2007

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: February 2007 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Article

`Ano`ai kakou…  The State Capitol is buzzing with activity so it must be that time of the year again.  As you know, last year’s elections brought significant changes to the state legislature.  There are 15 new legislators and like most freshmen many of them don’t have a clue on what OHA is about.  I attended OHA’s budget briefing for the House Finance committee on January 3rd and I was surprised at just how uninformed some of these new legislators were on why OHA exists and why we are funded by ceded land revenues.  OHA has its work cut out for it if we want to bring these legislators up to speed.  As a first step in our efforts to educate them, OHA hosted a legislative luncheon on January 18th.  The freshman legislators were given a comprehensive overview of OHA and important Hawaiian issues from our capable administrative staff.  The trustees were also able to mingle with many of the state legislators and do a little lobbying.

Hawaiian issues will now be considered by new committees in both the State House and State Senate.  For the House, a new committee has been formed called Water, Land, Ocean Resources & Hawaiian Affairs (WLH) and is chaired by Representative Ken Ito and vice-chaired by Representative Pono Chong.  On the Senate side, Hawaiian issues will fall under the purview of the Water, Land, Agriculture, and Hawaiian Affairs (WAH) Committee, chaired by Senator Russell S. Kokubun and vice-chaired by Senator Jill N. Tokuda.

I cannot stress enough the importance of all Hawaiians to participate in the legislative process.  Whether it’s visiting your senator or representative personally and sharing your mana’o on the issues or simply e-mailing them your concerns, it is imperative that you be involved.  Legislators are lobbied by many people and organizations and it is easy for those who do not voice their opinions to be ignored and forgotten.  We must be vigilant and make sure the issues near and dear to us do not fall by the wayside.  As they say, “the squeaky wheel gets the oil.”

A good example of a Hawaiian organization that has consistently lobbied the legislature as both an advocate for Native Hawaiians and a “watch dog” against anti-Hawaiian bills is the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs.  The Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs is a confederation of fifty-two (52) Hawaiian Civic Clubs.  It is the oldest community based grass roots Hawaiian organization in Hawai`i, having been formed in 1918 by Prince Jonah Kühiö Kalaniana`ole.

The Civic Clubs have always taken an active interest in the civic, economic, health and social welfare of our community.  They support programs that benefit Hawaiians and protect Native Hawaiian traditions and historic sites.  They offer a wide range of activities, and their membership is open to anyone interested in joining.  I encourage anyone who wants to get involved at the legislature to give your local Civic Club a call.  They will be more than happy to help you.

We must always remember that for every enlightened legislator who strongly supports Hawaiian issues, there are still the uninformed ones who oppose a strong and unified Hawaiian community.  Legislators like Senator Sam Slom, who says he supports Hawaiian issues but then turns around and stabs us in the back by trying to kill the Akaka bill.  Actions speak louder than words and people like Senator Slom are clearly part of a negative force working against the Hawaiian community.

Don’t let the Sam Sloms of the world have their way at the legislature.  What we face today as Hawaiians, the indigenous people of our lands, 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.  We are one people. We cannot afford to be divided, not when so much work remains to be done.  The struggle to regain our sovereign rights requires unity and the strength of numbers.

I encourage all of you to call or write your legislators and let them know where you stand.  Your personal testimony will be very much appreciated when our bills are up for consideration in committee hearings.  I look forward to working with all of you during this session of the legislature.

If my office can be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Tags: ,
Posted in Government

2006 Legislative Wrap-up

Thursday, June 15th, 2006

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: June 2006 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  I had high hopes of a productive legislative session back in January, but my hopes were dashes by mid-session when several bills that were dear to me died in committee.  Here is a brief run-down of three bills that I strongly supported:

Interim Revenue.  Senate Bill 2948 establishes the amount of interim revenue to be transferred to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs from the public land trust, each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2005-2006, at $15,100,000.  The bill also appropriates $17,500,000 as the amount of revenues owed to OHA for the underpayment of OHA’s pro rata share of the public land trust revenues between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2005.  As of this writing, the bill is awaiting signature from the Governor to be enacted into law.

OHA Retirement Bill.  SB916 would have allowed trustees with at least five years of service with the Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) to buy-back credit for their prior service.  SB 916 was just a housekeeping measure that would correct an oversight in a previous bill passed in 2002.  Unfortunately, for the past three years, the ERS board, through its Administrator, has lobbied the House not to pass the bill.  For this reason, the House Hawaiian Affairs Committee Chair, Representative Scott Saiki, refused to even give the bill a hearing.

Property Tax Exemption for Kuleana Lands.  SB914 would have exempted Kuleana lands from real property taxes if the land has been continuously occupied by the original titleholder.  Commercial developments have led to sharp increases in taxes on real property, including Kuleana land, throughout the State.  These increases have adversely affected many Hawaiian families who live on kuleana lands because they are unable to pay for the taxes.  Hawaiian families living on kuleana land now face the loss of their land and legacy that took generations to establish and must confront the possibility of homelessness.

SB914 got a hearing on the Senate side, thanks to the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs committee chairman, Senator Colleen Hanabusa, but the bill came up one-vote short of passing.  I tried to convince Senator Donna Mercado Kim, who voted “no,” to change her mind and support the bill.  Unfortunately, she refused to budge from her position that we should first get each county to agree to it.

I am currently working to get a city ordinance passed at the Honolulu City Council.  Bill 25 was introduced on March 15, 2006 and was passed unanimously by the Council’s Budget Committee on April 26, 2006.  It is scheduled to be heard and voted by the full Council on May 17th. 

Ceded Land Revenues.  HB 459 would have clarified the lands comprising and the revenue derived from the public land trust under the state constitution and what is owed to OHA.  Like in past sessions, this bill went no where.  Ever since 2001, when Act 304 was repealed, OHA has tried unsuccessfully to pass legislation that would reestablish the continued funding of OHA from ceded land revenues.  We almost got the bill passed in 2003.  It was passed unamended in the Senate but died in the House Finance committee after the committee changed the bill to leave out money from improvements to the land.

As the campaign season heats this fall, I ask that you question the candidates in your district about their positions on important Hawaiian issues.  It’s time to take a stand against politicians who patronize Hawaiian issues with meaningless words and no positive action.  Politicians like Representative Scott Saiki, who are influenced by lobbyists instead of their constituents, don’t deserve to be re-elected.  In the last election, Rep. Saiki won by only 5,006 votes, while OHA trustees typically win with over 100,000 votes from all voters (not just Hawaiians) state-wide.  It should be obvious who really represents the people.

Let’s remind all elected officials that our issues are important and should never be pushed aside and ignored.  Hawaiians make up 20% of the population and in the last several elections have had a high voter turn-out rate of 75%, despite the fact that Hawaii has one of the lowest voter turn-out rates in the country.  This should be a wake-up call for all elected officials that Hawaiians are aware of their political power at the ballot box.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Government

Getting nowhere at the ’06 legislature

Monday, May 15th, 2006

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: May 2006 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  Those of you who have tried to get a bill passed at the state legislature know that it can be an exercise in pure frustration.  You can spend years explaining the facts to legislators and still get absolutely nowhere.  Although the legislative process is supposed to give all ideas a fair shot at getting passed, the brutal truth is that all it takes is one committee chair to ruin years of hard work.

For the past three years, OHA has been lobbying to pass a bill (currently Senate Bill 916) which would allow trustees with at least five years of service with the Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) to buy-back credit for their prior service.  SB 916 is just a housekeeping measure that would correct an oversight in a previous bill passed in 2002.  In my opinion, there shouldn’t be a single reason why the bill shouldn’t pass.  Unfortunately, for the past three years, the ERS board, through its Administrator, has lobbied the House not to pass the bill.  For this reason, the House Hawaiian Affairs Committee Chair, Representative Scott Saiki, refused to even give the bill a hearing. 

This highlights a major flaw in our legislative system.  Obviously, the legislature should not and could not hear all 4,000+ bills that are introduced year-after-year.  However, SB 916 is not a new bill and OHA has been working hard to educate members of the House and Senate about it for the past three years.  The Senate finally agreed that the bill is a good one and sent it over to the House for consideration – and Rep. Saiki promptly ignored it until it missed a deadline and died again in his committee.

It is the height of arrogance for a State Representative to disregard years of hard work by OHA trustees and staff to get the bill passed.  Not to mention the unfairness of not allowing trustees the opportunity to buy-back the years of service when OHA was not part of the state retirement system.  He could have at least given us the courtesy of a straight answer on why he didn’t want to hear the bill, but that’s the problem with politicians nowadays.  They lack courage to state their positions publicly.  Instead of concentrating on doing what is right, they worry about their poll numbers.  I would have respected this Representative more if he’d given the bill a proper hearing and then publicly explained, for the record, why he doesn’t support it.  At least we would have some direction as to how to address his concerns.

One possible explanation for Rep. Saiki’s negative position on the bill is that he mistakenly thinks that it will cost the state money – money they can’t afford.  According to Veryan Allen’s special to the Star-Bulletin (March 5, 2006), “The ERS receives and pays for poor ‘advice’ from a conflicted, mainland consultant that appears to lack the expertise to add value to an institutional portfolio in today’s investment environment.  Back in 1999, ERS assets were $9.7 billion and today they are just $9.6 billion, despite growing liabilities and regular capital contributions, possibly exposing Hawaii taxpayers to having to fund the over $3 billion that is unfunded, according to the most recent ERS financial report.  In six years, a competently advised, properly diversified portfolio should nearly double in asset size.” 

For the record, SB 916 wouldn’t cost the state anything.  The cost for our pension is paid for out of our own pockets and the employer match is paid for by OHA. 

The only way to combat unilateral decisions made by our lawmakers is for all of us to be active and participate in the process.  We need to have the courage to stand up against the abuse of power given to elected officials.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Tags: ,
Posted in Government

2005 OHA legislative package needs your support

Tuesday, February 15th, 2005

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: February 2005 Ka Wai Ola Article

`Ano`ai kakou…  The State Capitol is buzzing with activity so it must be that time of the year again.  Here are some important bills from our 2005 legislative package that really need your support at the legislature:

Ceded Land Revenues.  Ever since 2001, we’ve tried unsuccessfully to pass legislation that would reestablish the continued funding of OHA from ceded land revenues.

Act 304, which was passed by the legislature in 1990 to clarify and the State’s obligation to transfer ceded land revenues to OHA, was repealed by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs vs. State of Hawaii (2001) case involving ceded land revenues derived from the Honolulu International Airport.  

We almost got the bill passed in 2003.  It passed unamended in the Senate but died in the House Finance committee after the committee changed the bill to leave out money from improvements to the land.  In other words, if someone was leasing ceded lands for a dollar, but they built a building on it and was making millions of dollars from it, all OHA would get is 20% of just one dollar (20 cents).  In the end, we were forced to oppose our own bill.

The Legislature must define, once and for all, the revenue stream from public trust lands that is to be given to OHA for the benefit of Hawaiians.  Only by this action will the State finally move towards fulfilling its constitutional obligation to our people.

Hawaiian Representation on State Boards and Commissions.  We have submitted individual bills that would ensure Hawaiian representation on the Board of Land and Natural Resources, the Land Use Commission, the public advisory body for the Coastal Zone Management Program, and the Commission on Water Resource Management by specifying that one member of each body shall be appointed from a list of nominees submitted by OHA. 

The board, commission, and advisory body mentioned above regularly make decisions impacting the rights of Hawaiians.  These decisions often have immediate and lasting impacts on matters relating to Hawaiian cultural, economic, social, religious, political and historical concerns, all of which State law recognizes as being attached to the use and management of Hawaii’s natural resources. 

Despite this recognition under State law, Hawaiians have had no more of a voice on these bodies than any other member of the general public.  Our bill addresses this deficiency in the State’s regulatory scheme with respect to issues involving Hawaii’s land and natural resources.

Kuleana Lands.  Commercial developments have led to sharp increases in taxes on real property, including Kuleana land, throughout the State.  These increases have adversely affected many Hawaiian families who live on kuleana lands because they are unable to pay for the taxes.  Hawaiian families living on kuleana land now face the loss of their land and legacy that took generations to establish and must confront the possibility of homelessness.

OHA’s Kuleana land bill proposes to end this injustice by exempting Kuleana lands from real property taxes if the land has been continuously occupied by the original titleholder.

OHA Budget.  The following organizations have received significant boosts in their proposed budgets:  (1) Na Pua Noeau has gone from $581,948 in fiscal year 2005 to $707,208 in fiscal year 2006 – an increase of $125,360; (2) The Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation’s budget has jumped from $776,603 in fiscal year 2005 to $1,184,604 for fiscal year 2006 – an increase of $408,001; (3) Alu Like, Inc.’s budget has increased from $596,000 in fiscal year 2005 to $730,000 for fiscal year 2006 – an increase of $134,000.

I encourage all of you to call or write your legislators and let them know where you stand on all of the issues near and dear to us.  Also, your personal testimony will be very much appreciated when our bills are up for consideration in legislative committee hearings.  I look forward to working with all of you during this session of the legislature.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government

Let Down by Legislative Leaders

Wednesday, September 15th, 2004

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: September 2004 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  Before you head to the ballot box in the coming elections, I’d like to share with you two experiences I had in the past legislative session.

State Senate: 

One of the bills that I really pushed hard for at the legislature this past session was Senate Bill 2759, relating to Kuleana Lands.  Many Hawaiian families who have been caring for their Kuleana Lands for generations face the loss of their legacy as well as the potential for homelessness because mainland and foreign entities are building luxury homes and shopping malls on the adjacent property.  This causes their property value and taxes to skyrocket.  Things are getting so bad that a family has asked OHA to take custody of their Kuleana Lands until they were able to save up enough money to pay off their back taxes.

SB 2759 passed all of its Senate committees and looked set to crossover to the House when it was abruptly “recommitted” or sent back to its original Senate committee.  In all my years of lobbying the legislature, I have never heard of a bill being killed in this fashion.  I later learned that an attorney for the County of Hawaii called the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and got the bill killed.  In the mean time, Hawaiian families on Kuleana Lands continue to suffer.

State House:

On April 1, 2004, Board of Trustees voted unanimously to support Governor Linda Lingle’s proposals to reform the public education system in Hawaii.  The Board took this position because of OHA’s constitutional mandate to work for the betterment of the conditions for Native Hawaiians and the findings in Kamehameha School’s PASE (Policy Analysis and System Evaluation) Report.

The PASE Report found that rather than helping underprivileged students, the current system has compounded social and economic disadvantages through its unequal distribution of educational and teaching resources.  A large number of underprivileged children are not getting the help they need.  As a result, Hawaiian children are too often deprived of opportunities for intellectual engagement, social growth, and other aspects of a quality education that provide the keys to lifetime opportunities and fulfillment.

With local school boards, the Hawaiian community will have a more direct say in how educational opportunities are provided to Hawaiian students.  We could also develop culturally appropriate learning models that will allow Hawaiian students to achieve greater success.

Most people know that OHA is a non-partisan entity.  The Trustees would never support the Governor’s proposal based on politics.  Unfortunately, the Democrats in the state legislature didn’t see it this way.

In an April 2, 2004 Advertiser article, Sen. Norman Sakamoto, D-15th (Waimalu, Airport, Salt Lake), questioned whether OHA Trustees even understood the Governor’s proposal and joked about creating more than one Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Our Board Chairman sent a letter to the editor (Advertiser, April 16, 2004) clearly explaining that OHA took its position for the educational welfare of Hawaiian children and not for political reasons.  But that explanation wasn’t good enough for the House Democrats.  They wanted payback.

OHA introduced Senate Bill 1155 to help Trustees receive proper service credit for retirement purposes.  The bill seemed all set to pass out of the House Finance committee.  Then, shortly after OHA took its position supporting the Governor’s plan for educational reform, the bill suddenly died.  Coincidence?  Not a chance.  The Committee chose to punish the Trustees for supporting the Governor’s position on local school boards.

I encourage everyone to carefully consider the candidates’ stand on issues important to the Hawaiian community.  It’s time to help our friends and “crush” our enemies, regardless of their political affiliation.  We must collectively show all elected officials that Hawaiian votes count by making our voices heard!  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government, Political

« Older Entries