Category: Land

Governor should consider transferring Mauna Kea Lands to OHA

`Ano`ai kakou…  As many readers know, Mauna Kea is a ceded land asset belonging to both Native Hawaiians and the general public.  OHA Trustees are also mandated by state law to advocate for all Native Hawaiian and to protect and preserve sacred sites.

On May 26, 2015, Governor David Ige announced that he had asked UH, which subleases the summit area from the state, to make ten changes to improve its stewardship of Mauna Kea.  One of the ten changes included UH voluntarily returning to the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) full jurisdiction of more than 10,000 acres that are not specifically needed for astronomy.

I commended Governor Ige for his commitment to make Mauna Kea whole again.  Transferring such a large portion of Mauna Kea out if UH’s hands is a wonderful idea and provides Native Hawaiians with a positive first step in revising the way Mauna Kea is safe-guarded.

However, I have recently heard through unconfirmed reports that DLNR has been resistant to taking control over the Mauna Kea lands because they lack the resources to properly manage it.

If it is true that DLNR is unable to take responsibility over the lands, I would like to suggest that the state encourage UH to turn over the lands to OHA.  It would make perfect sense since all 11,300 acres of land within the Mauna Kea Science Reserve are public land trust lands classified under section 5(b) of the Admissions Act.  The revenues from public trust lands must be dedicated to specific purposes including the betterment of Native Hawaiians.

OHA’s administration has built up its capacity to manage both commercial and preservations lands by establishing an in-house land department and a land committee at the board level.

I believe that transferring responsibility over Mauna Kea lands to OHA would produce the best “win-win” situation for the State, the University of Hawaii and all of OHA’s Native Hawaiian beneficiaries.  What better solution could there be than to put Hawaiian lands in Hawaiian hands?

ON ANOTHER NOTE…

On April 1, 2015, the Board of Trustees rescinded its support of Mauna Kea as the site of the TMT.  As a result OHA has no position as to whether or not the TMT should be located on the mountain.

Nonetheless, on July 10, 2015, OHA opposed DLNR’s proposals to use emergency rulemaking procedures to ban outdoor gear and nighttime presence in an 18,000 acre corridor leading to the summit of Mauna Kea.  OHA testified that there were a number of technical, statutory, cultural, environmental, public safety, and constitutional concerns, as well as the potential for unintended natural, cultural, and public safety concerns.

Despite OHA’s strong opposition, the BLNR passed the following rules: (1) A rule change that will allow for the BLNR Chairperson to close public hunting areas for up to 30 days; and (2) A rule closing the Mauna Kea Observatory Access Road, including one mile on either side, from 10:00 p.m. – 4:00 a.m.  Aloha Ke Akua.

UH should not be managing Mauna Kea

`Ano`ai kakou…  On May 26, 2015, Governor David Ige announced that he would “protect the rights of the builders” of the Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea.   He also admitted that the state has failed the mountain in many ways and he wants to change the management of the summit to give more consideration to culture and natural resources. (Star Advertiser, 5/27/15)

The Governor has asked UH, which subleases the summit area from the state, to make ten changes to improve its stewardship of Mauna Kea.  His requests included making the TMT the last telescope on the mountain; getting rid of at least 25 percent of the telescopes by the time TMT is ready for operation in the 2020s; and returning more than 10,000 acres not being used for astronomy.

Governor Ige’s proposal provides us a positive first step in revising the way Mauna Kea is safe-guarded, but he needs to go much further.  The 11,300 acres of land within the Mauna Kea Science Reserve are public land trust lands classified under section 5(b) of the Admissions Act.  The revenues from public trust lands must be dedicated to specific purposes including the betterment of Native Hawaiians.

OHA receives a portion of revenues generated from the use of these public land trust lands.  The State should ensure that OHA and its beneficiaries receive adequate compensation for any future subleases.

To avoid possible fiscal impacts to the UH’s educational mission, any proposed general lease for Mauna Kea lands should require UH to charge a more appropriate rent for the sublease or use of such lands.  This would ensure that OHA beneficiaries and the State receive appropriate compensation for the use of these public land trust lands, and ensures that UH also receives adequate revenues to support its broader educational mission.

UH should be required to conduct a financial review of all public land trust revenue it receives.  This will help to identify gaps in revenue from public land trust lands, as well as clarify what revenues may be generated from specific lands, such as Mauna Kea.

The state should also require UH to develop a Master Plan that will return Mauna Kea to its original, pristine state once all of the current telescope leases expire and the lands are returned to the people of Hawaii.

Finally, UH’s authority to manage public trust lands must be reevaluated because of its continual abuse and mismanagement of our precious lands.  The state and the legislature should revisit the autonomy that they have given to the UH.  At the very least, they need to pull back some of its power.  They frequently complain about crumbling infrastructure and the need to raise tuition.  It’s should be clear to everyone that UH is not a fiscally sustainable institution, and such a desperate organization should not be in charge of Mauna Kea.

UH has failed to live up to its commitments and it is OHA’s responsibility as advocate for our beneficiaries to take whatever actions are necessary, legal or otherwise, to make things right on their behalf.

The mountain means many different things for many different people, but the bottom line is if you’ can’t manage it properly then the state should give it to someone else who can.

Moving a Mountain: The Real Problem

`Ano`ai kakou…  For the past several months, there has been a tremendous focus on Mauna Kea.  OHA, as a Hawaiian agency created to better the conditions of Native Hawaiians, is tasked with administering ceded land revenues to address this mandate.

Because of this responsibility, OHA is frequently asked by the state agencies such as the University of Hawaii (UH), nonprofits, and even private entities to comment, help, or, in some cases, take legal action on issues important to Native Hawaiians.

Hawaiians are not against science

Today, Mauna Kea is an issue that has gone global with Hollywood celebrities joining the protest to stop the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) at the summit.  The Star Advertiser says OHA lacks leadership because we are not telling Hawaiians to stand down because the state needs revenue and everyone benefits from science.  They also feel we need to stand by our previous decision.  The newspaper needs to do their homework before making blanket statements.

Six years ago, the majority of the Board of Trustees accepted Mauna Kea as the sight for the TMT.  OHA also weighed in on a contested case hearing asking UH and the Mauna Kea Management planners to force them to do an Environmental Impact Statement and ensure they do what was necessary to culturally protect the site for future generations.

OHA lost the lawsuit and, when approached again last year, the Board took no action for many reasons.  The most critical being we no longer had standing to sue since we lost the first case and two Native Hawaiian workers on the Big Island testified that they needed the jobs the telescope construction would provide.

The real problem

The bigger issue here is UH and the state legislature.  The state has been a poor trustee of our ceded lands.  They are leasing our lands for only a $1 per year and it allows UH to sublease the lands for millions, perhaps billions of dollars.  Why isn’t UH making the builders of the telescope give something back to our community for the desecration of our sacred mountain?  Why isn’t UH requiring the builders to clean-up their mess and take down their telescopes that aren’t operational?

Where is all of this money going?  Is it really going to science?  Has the state ever conducted an audit of the University to verify where all of the millions generated on Mauna Kea each year are truly going?  UH is frequently complaining they are broke.  Where is the accountability?  Revenues generated on Mauna Kea are both Hawaiian and taxpayer monies and yet who really knows how the dollars are being spent?

The state and the legislature needs to revisit the autonomy that they have given to the UH and pull back that power.  UH should not have the power, in the name of science, to do anything they want with our aina.

Hawaiians are concerned about access to worship afforded to them by the PASH Law.

UH does not own the mountain and the state should make them return it to the people of Hawaii in the same pristine condition it was in when they took it from us.

UH needs to pay their fair share

`Ano`ai kakou… Here are two important issues affecting Native Hawaiians that require special attention:

MAUNA KEA

The 11,300 acres of land within the Mauna Kea Science Reserve are public land trust lands classified under section 5(b) of the Admissions Act. The revenues from public trust lands must be dedicated to specific purposes including the betterment of Native Hawaiians.

House Bill 1689 requires the University of Hawai’i to use the fair market value for the lease of lands when calculating the amount of funds that it must transfer to the public land trust fund.

OHA receives a portion of revenues generated from the use of these public land trust lands. HB 1689 will ensure that OHA and its beneficiaries receive adequate compensation for any future subleases.

Mauna Kea lands have long been mismanaged by UH. Sacred cultural lands have been industrially developed without any payment or clear benefit to Native Hawaiians.

At the same time, UH has been receiving a substantial benefit from its lessees in the form of telescope time, which has been valued in some cases at more than $100,000 a night. This benefit has mostly gone only to the astronomy program at UH; since none of this value is seen as sub-lessee rent. OHA beneficiaries and the State Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) have not received a fair share of this substantial revenue.

To avoid possible fiscal impacts to the University of Hawai’i’s educational mission, any proposed general lease for Mauna Kea lands should require UH to charge more appropriate rent for the sublease or use of such lands. This would ensure that OHA beneficiaries and the State receive appropriate compensation for the use of these public land trust lands, and ensures that UH also receives adequate revenues to support its broader educational mission.

It should also be noted that the requirement for UH to conduct a financial review of all public land trust revenue will help to identify gaps in revenue from public land trust lands, as well as clarify what revenues may be generated from specific lands, such as Mauna Kea.

In the meantime, OHA should also propose a financial audit of all revenues UH derives from its use of public trust lands. This will allow OHA to ensure more appropriate level of benefits flow to public trust beneficiaries for the use of our sacred mountain. Finally, UH’s authority to manage public trust lands must be reevaluated because of its continual abuse and mismanagement of our precious lands.

NIIHAU KONOHIKI

Senate Bill 180 SD2 proposes to give one individual resident on Niihau the exclusive konohiki rights to regulate fishing around Niihau. The konohiki will be appointed by the Chairperson of BLNR, in consultation with the private owner of Niihau.

While I understand the arguments in support of this proposal, I believe that we must be very careful about setting a precedence of having only one person making all of the fishing rules for an entire island. Especially if that person may have vested interests to protect and could abuse their power as Konohiki to lock out any competition.

Closing out 2013 and welcoming in 2014

`Ano`ai kakou… Happy Year of the Horse! The following are some of the issues that I will be focusing on in 2014.

Kaka’ako Makai

During the 2012 legislative session, Senate Bill 682 proposed to add value to two parcels of our lands in Kaka’ako Makai by giving OHA the right to develop residential structures on them. This would have added significant value to our properties and provided much needed revenue for our Nation. While the bill had the support of key senators, it failed to pass. OHA now needs lay down the groundwork to pass a similar bill in the upcoming legislative session while also working towards a Master Plan for our Kakaako Makai properties.

Kewalo Basin

A continuing concern are the proposed “finger piers” that will front our property at Kewalo Basin. The finger piers are threatening to seriously reduce the value of our land and take away OHA’s right to develop our own piers. However, the HCDA continues to refuse any proposals to change their plan or to make concessions.

OHA must continue to object to the current finger piers design. If HCDA goes forward with signing any lease, OHA should consider suing. Given the major contests coming up in the 2014 elections, perhaps there are other reasons for HCDA’s reluctance to work with OHA. Developers have contributed large sums of cash to gain the support of key candidates who can help them with their development plans. We should all take this into consideration before we cast our votes.

OHA Audit

Also in 2013, the State Auditor came out with her OHA Audit (to see a copy visit: http://files.hawaii.gov/auditor/Reports/2013/13-07.pdf) that harshly criticized the trustees’ vote to authorize the purchase of the Gentry building. The action also had serious consequences for OHA’s ability to invest in community projects and has opened us to criticism by the state legislature.

In my opinion, OHA could have avoided much of the criticism if we had received better legal counsel from attorneys who have worked with OHA for a long time. I believe it is time for Trustees to seriously evaluate the quality of their advice.

Looking to the Future in 2014 with International Outreach

Last year, I joined the Board of Directors of the American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association (AIANTA), which provides Native Hawaiians a great opportunity to network with American Indians and Alaska Natives and to develop programs that will help sustain and strengthen our cultural legacy.

In March 2014, AIANTA will sponsor a pavilion at the Internationale Tourismus-Börse (ITB) Berlin — the world’s leading travel and trade fair — in Germany. ITB provides Native and Tribal tourism departments the opportunity to showcase their cultural programs and tour packages to the multi-billion dollar European tourism market.

I am optimistic about presenting tourism from a Hawaiian perspective. Native Americans and Alaska Natives are successfully doing this and providing economic development for their tribes and also contributing to their states’ tourism dollars. ITB Berlin will give our beneficiaries the opportunity to make valuable contacts with international travel organizations, media and tour operators.

Happy New Year!

I look forward to 2014 and am optimistic about OHA’s future. I wish all of you the very best Holiday Season filled with joy and good health. May God’s Blessings be upon each of you and your families. See you next year!

State Ethics Commission Bungled Investigation

`Ano`ai kakou… On July 17, 2012, I asked the State Ethics Commission’s Executive Director to investigate whether a trustee’s vote to approve OHA’s purchase of a property being financed by Bank of Hawaii, for which she also serves as a Director on their board, was a violation of HRS §84-14 – Conflicts of interests, which states that no employee may take any official action directly affecting a business in which the employee has a substantial financial interest. This includes elected state board members, such as OHA trustees.

Despite my numerous attempts to follow-up, nothing happened for ten months. Then, on April 13, 2013, the trustee being investigated announced that she received letter from the Commission stating she did nothing wrong. I never received a response to my original complaint.

Just when I thought this was all going to be brushed under the rug, the Auditor of the State of Hawaii came out with her September 2013 Report No. 13-07 (to see a copy of the report visit the Auditor’s Website at: http://files.hawaii.gov/auditor/Reports/2013/13-07.pdf) and harshly criticized the trustees’ vote to authorize the purchase of the Gentry building.

On pages 20-21 of Report No. 13-07, the State Auditor wrote:

“Trustees’ vote in favor of Gentry acquisition violated OHA investment policy

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Trust Fund Investment Policy provides that if a trustee has a personal involvement with any direct investment transaction, or even any perceived conflict of interest, the trustee must disclose the involvement immediately and be recused from both discussions and votes on the transaction.

Contrary to this policy, we found that the board’s decision to purchase the Gentry Pacific Design Center building, a $21.4 million property in Iwilei, hinged on the vote of a trustee who is also a member of the board of directors of the bank that offered the best financing for that acquisition.”

The Auditor concluded that:

“… the trustee’s actions may damage OHA’s reputation and undermine the agency’s credibility with beneficiaries and the public.”

The action also had serious consequences for OHA operations. We were surprised to learn on April 12, 2013 that the loan we got from Bank of Hawaii was not a “secured” loan and that it had to be backed by OHA Trust dollars. OHA’s Hawaii Direct Investment Policy requires that any “recourse” in connection with a loan be counted towards the $25 million maximum allocation. As a result, we can’t make any more investments in Hawaii until the acquisition of OHA’s corporate headquarters is complete.

While I will not comment on the competency of the State Ethics Commission’s investigative staff members, it boggles my mind that after a ten month investigation, they couldn’t find anything wrong with the trustees’ vote to purchase the Gentry building.

I believe the State Ethics Commission’s mishandling of the investigation sends the wrong message to other elected officials who think they can blatantly flout Hawaii’s conflict of interest laws. It also gives the negative perception that the Commission is simply there to protect the status quo instead of aggressively assuring clean ethics in the State of Hawaii.

HCDA will not compromise with OHA on their plans for Kewalo Basin, even though OHA is a major stakeholder (HCDA PART 2)

On March 1, 2009, the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) assumed the management of the Kewalo Basin Harbor from the Department of Transportation and hired ALMAR Management, Inc. (a California-based marina operator), to oversee day to day harbor operations.

On June 7, 2012, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported that HCDA agreed to lease the 143-slip harbor in Kakaako for 50 years to Almar Management Inc. and a partner doing business as KB Marina LP.  The Almar partnership would finance $22 million in repair work to replace all piers and docks and would increase boats slips from 143 to 243.

Almar anticipates the upgrades taking five years to complete and would pay HCDA about $45 million in rent over 50 years.  Is this what the State considers a fair price?  These are ceded lands and OHA beneficiaries & state stakeholders will end up losing out.  Who is benefiting from this deal?

As I mentioned in my last column, OHA received a letter from HCDA on August 6, 2013, stating HCDA will not compromise with OHA on their plans for Kewalo Basin, even though OHA is a major stakeholder.

The HCDA and their many controversial plans for Kakaako have made frequent headlines in the media lately, but most of us are in the dark about what exactly the HCDA is and who is really in charge.

WHAT IS THE HCDA?

The 1976 State Legislature created HCDA to revitalize urban areas that were underused and deteriorating.  The Kaka‘ako Community Development District covers 600 acres within Piikoi, King, and Punchbowl Streets and Ala Moana Boulevard, as well as the waterfront from Kewalo Basin to Forrest Avenue.  (Source: http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hcda/about-hcda/)

HCDA is attached to the Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT) for administrative purposes and their mission is to create “vibrant” communities within Kakaako and encourage new investment by building essential public infrastructure such as roadways, utilities, and parks that are necessary for redevelopment.

WHO ARE ITS MEMBERS?

HCDA’s Kakaako Authority is composed of members from the public and private sectors.  They include:

Four “ex officio” voting members from State departments:

  1. Dean Seki, Comptroller, Accounting and General Services;
  2. Kalbert Young, Director, Budget and Finance;
  3. Richard Lim, DBEDT Director ; and
  4. Glenn Okimoto, Director, Transportation.

The Governor also appoints members from a list of names submitted by the Honolulu City Council, the Senate President and the House Speaker.

At-large member:

  1. Brian Lee, Director of Research and Communications, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Community members:

  1. Miles Kamimura, President, Pacific Property Group;
  2.  Lois Mitsunaga, CFO, Structural Engineer at Mitsunaga & Associates. INC.; and
  3. VACANT.

Cultural specialist: 

  1. VACANT.

An Executive Director serves as the CEO and is appointed by HCDA members.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE

What is sorely missing here is disclosure.

  • Do the members of the Authority, especially those from the private sector, have any conflicts of interest?

 

  • Do they represent any clients that would benefit from any development projects being considered for Kakaako or are they themselves in a position to benefit from any developments?

 

  • Are they contributing to any political campaigns in 2014?

 

  • Should HCDA have sole power over planning, zoning, and directly promoting economic development in Kakaako?

These are the questions the community should be asking this Authority.

HCDA PART 1 — HCDA is not a good neighbor

`Ano`ai kakou… In 2012, when OHA received it’s Kakaako lands in our settlement with the State over past-due ceded land revenues, OHA was not appraised that the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA), which has jurisdiction over development in the area, planned to lease the harbor in Kakaako for 50 years to a California-based marina operator and increase the boats slips to 243.

For the past year, OHA has been negotiating with the HCDA to get them to compromise on their plans to put “finger piers” in front of our Fisherman’s Wharf property.  On August 6, 2013, OHA received a letter from HCDA stating they will not make any compromises to their plans and expects OHA to be a “good neighbor” and accept their plan for our property.

Here are some of the specific concerns I have with the HCDA’s August 6, 2013 letter:

  • HCDA considers OHA a “sister agency” but they are forcing OHA to accept a plan in which we have no opportunity for providing input.  If HCDA wants OHA to be a “good neighbor” they should first recognize OHA as an equal partner in developing the harbor area in front of Fisherman’s Wharf.
  • OHA would be willing to go along with the HCDA’s Finger Pier plan if we could have at least two slips in front of our Fisherman’s Wharf property.  However, the HCDA responded that the lands of Kewalo Basin are submerged lands and the State is unable to convey fee simple interests in any of the slips.  The HCDA needs to realize that all submerged lands are “ceded” and that Native Hawaiians are a part-beneficiary under the State Constitution.  The Kakaako lands conveyed to OHA are on submerged lands – it’s all land-fill.  It appears the HCDA doesn’t have a true understanding of Native Hawaiian rights and who OHA represents.
  • The HCDA said they are concerned about the views of our community.  If this were true, they would agree with OHA’s plans to minimize the impact of large boats docking in front of our property and allow OHA to design its own culturally appropriate sense of place that would be acceptable for everyone.  When OHA conducted community meetings regarding the Kakaako land acquisition, the community was supportive in strong part due to OHA’s commitment to develop the area using Hawaiian concepts and sense of place.

NEXT STEPS

OHA must continue to object to the current finger piers design and not fall victim to HCDA’s threats.  If HCDA goes forward with signing any lease, OHA should consider suing the HCDA.

OHA should also appeal to the State legislature to revisit the powers it has given to HCDA and, if necessary, start a community-based campaign to reform the HCDA and prevent any further irresponsible development.

HCDA doesn’t appear to understand true Hawaiian values and the desires of the broader community regarding Kakaako.  All they seem interested in is making the most money they can out of Kewalo Basin – with or without OHA.

If HCDA is really concerned about getting the maximum dollars for Kakaako, they would not be leasing the whole harbor to a mainland developer for 50-years for only $45 million.  This measly figure is criminal!  The State will lose out as well as OHA beneficiaries.  So who is really benefiting from this deal?  Time to ask questions of the HCDA and the State!

Trustees misled on loan to purchase Gentry Building

`Ano`ai kakou…  On April 15, 2010, OHA established the “Hawaii Direct Investment Policy” (HDIP).  This allows OHA to spend the lesser of $25 million or 10% of the current value of the Trust Fund for investments in Hawaii.

This policy was created to allow OHA to purchase an office building that would serve as our corporate headquarters.  The policy also allows OHA to:  (1) Make equity investments in Hawaii-based companies, (2) Invest in lending programs for Native Hawaiians, and (3) Invest in other Hawaii real estate.

On April 12, 2013, OHA Trustees were surprised to learn that the loan we got from Bank of Hawaii was not a secured loan and that it had to be backed by Trust dollars.  OHA’s Hawaii Direct Investment Policy requires that any “recourse” in connection with a loan be counted towards the $25 million maximum allocation.  As a result, we can’t make any more investments in Hawaii until the acquisition of OHA’s corporate headquarters is complete.

Under the current financing terms with Bank of Hawaii, OHA has to put up the following collateral:

(1) GENTRY MORTGAGE – 100% liability against the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund assets for a total of $21,370,000 required collateral; and

(2) GENTRY RETROFIT LOAN – An additional $6,758,000 loan to retrofit Gentry into an office building at a “75% rate.”  Calculation: $6,758,000 loan / 75% = $9,010,667 required collateral.

Therefore, the combined collateral required for the Gentry Mortgage ($21,370,000) and the Retrofit Loan ($9,010,667) is $30,380,667.  This is -$5,380,667 over our $25 million Hawaii Direct Investment Policy limit.  After doing the math, you have to ask the question, “Who is going to benefit from this sweet deal?”  Certainly not OHA!

The Trustees were misled by OHA’s financial department officers when they repeatedly emphasized that the loan was the best deal we could hope to get.  If it was such a great deal, why do we have to back the loan with our own Trust dollars?  It would have been better to have bought the building in cash.  Why did we even need Bank of Hawaii?

SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE

It never made sense for OHA to spend $21,370,000 to purchase the 80-year-old Design Center, with some existing tenants, and spend an additional $6,758,000 to convert parts of it into a temporary office spaces to house OHA’s headquarters.  Oh, and did I mention that the number of building vacancies are a clear indication that it is even wrong for businesses to move into?

Now add to that the fact that: (1) OHA’s can’t make any more investments using the Hawaii Direct Investment Policy unless we can renegotiate our loan terms with Bank of Hawaii and completed the relocation of our offices to Gentry; and (2) OHA has until February 2014, when our current lease expires, to move into a “design center” that wasn’t meant to be an office building.  What a complete boondoggle!

We could have saved ourselves all of this aggravation and move our headquarters to the AAFES building that OHA now owns in Kakaako, paying no rent, and spending this time drawing up plans for our new property instead of spending trust money trying to make an old building fit OHA’s needs.  Aloha Ke Akua.

Legislative Update (May 2013)

`Ano`ai kakou…  The legislature is about ready to wrap things up.  Here are some important legislation affecting Native Hawaiians that are still alive:

KULEANA LANDS

OHA submitted House and Senate concurrent resolutions to recognize kuleana lands as historical lands and urge the counties to support efforts to promote continued ancestral ownership of kuleana lands.

The House version (HCR5) passed out of its first committee hearing and is waiting to be heard in the House Finance committee.  The Senate version (SCR1) has not been scheduled for a hearing yet.  Both need to be heard before an April 12th deadline.  Last year, Senator Malama Solomon introduced this resolution as a personal favor to me.  This year, her Senate committee has killed the resolution by declining to schedule a hearing for it.  One has to wonder why someone who supported the resolution last year would now refuse to hear it.

OHA BUDGET

On March 8th, the Senate Committee on Ways and Means asked OHA to comment on the cuts to our budget bill (HB 222) by the House Finance Committee.  We let them know that we understand today’s economic situation doesn’t make it easy to decide how to the fund every State agencies.  Therefore, we didn’t oppose the proposed decreases at this time but we did urge the committee to restore OHA’s original request.

Some of the more serious decreases include cutting $268,860 over two years for educational enrichment programs.  This will probably mean that 269 less Native Hawaiian students will be receiving educational services.  Health improvement programs were cut $1,100,000, which may mean 960 less Native Hawaiians receiving Health obesity services and 1,030 less pregnant Native Hawaiian women receiving prenatal services.

HB 222 passed the Senate Ways and Means committee with amendments on April 1st, and all of the funds that were cut were restored.  The House now has to decide if they agree or disagree with the Senate amendments.

OHA PRIMARY

SB 3 proposes to establish a nonpartisan primary and general elections for OHA Trustees beginning with the 2014 elections.  On March 27th, OHA Trustees took a position opposing this measure.  On March 28th, the House Judiciary Committee passed the bill with technical amendments.  The Senate now has to decide if they agree or disagree with the House amendments.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN ROLL COMMISSION

HB 252 would require the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, in cooperation with OHA, to submit annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature on the status of the preparation of a roll, expenditures, and any other concerns or recommendations.  It amends the definition of “qualified Native Hawaiian” to include individuals who meet the ancestry requirements of Kamehameha Schools and OHA.  It also repeals the directive in Act 195 to amend the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.  Senate Committee Chairs Clayton Hee and Brickwood Galuteria amended the bill by:

(1) Deleting the requirement that the Native Hawaiian Roll remain confidential;

(2) Clarifying that all individuals already registered with the State as verified Hawaiians or Native Hawaiians through OHA are included in the Native Hawaiian Roll and extending to those individuals all rights and recognitions conferred upon other members of the roll;

(3) Inserting language to promote renewable energy in Hawaii; and

(4) Inserting an effective date of July 1, 2013;

Aloha Ke Akua.