Privatization: Good Deal or Sellout?

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
March 6, 1998

Another Opportunity for the People…. To Lose!!

Governor Ben Cayetano is calling for privatization of the State Historic Preservation Division. His suggestion calls for the firing of Historic Preservation Division staff, and reassigning their work to archaeologists who would be hired by developers to review their work. What a sweetheart deal this is…for the developers and consultants. It will save the State money primarily because the State is removing itself from most of the process, but it sells out their responsibility to monitor and prevent actions that are culturally and environmentally insensitive. These suggestions to “pass the buck” by the Governor, Legislators, and Joe Souki have once again placed the general public and the Hawaiian people in the loser column.

Allowing developers to hire their own hand-picked archeologists is tantamount to saying that all developers are not only honest and honorable, but culturally sensitive to the historic importance of our Aina. Does H-3 ring any alarm bells for you? We have a history of developers trying to brush aside any considerations for the history and culture of these islands.

“Letting developers hire archaeologists to review their projects is like ‘letting the Mafia police the Mafia,'” said Patrick Kirch of the University of California, Berkeley, in a recent Honolulu Advertiser article. Giving this kind of power to developers could lead to abuses that would allow high rise condos and shopping centers to be built on sacred refuges or burial grounds which are so important to Hawaii’s history. This form of privatization has some serious drawbacks, but the greatest concern is that it will diminish the quality of historic preservation work in Hawaii and allow greater destruction of Hawaiian sites and burials for the sake of development. The opportunity for the developer to skew the review in their favor is great since he is the employer of both the consultant doing the study, and the consultant reviewing it for adequacy.

The State has previously shown its tendency to avoid its statutory responsibilities in the handling of the burials program within the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). For the past two years OHA has funded two positions, including all the fringe benefits, for the burials program although the statutes mandate positions for this program, and the Legislature provides funding for it. Why is OHA funding positions for which the State has responsibility? Perhaps it’s another form of privatizing. Again, the State is passing the buck. There have been attempts to permanently move this program to OHA, but by doing so the program would lose its purpose because OHA has no enforcement powers. Moving this program to OHA would be detrimental to its existence unless the Governor and Legislature work to grant OHA enforcement powers, as required by statute.

In November 1997, I criticized the effort by the Governor and DLNR to privatize small boat harbors. In the article, I pointed out that WestRec Marinas lobbied the Governor and Michael Wilson, hoping to get a consulting agreement with DLNR to manage small boat harbors for the State. My concern then was for the people. What would happen to the local fishermen and the submerged lands in the harbor when boat harbors became privatized?

My concern is still that of the people of this state, and of the Aina. Whether the Governor privatizes the State Historic Preservation Division or the management of small boat harbors more public input is needed before being seriously considered.

Over the last two years I have watched what appears to be a very sinister move on the part of the administration and certain legislators to create commissions and divisions of the State government to divide and parcel out sections of ceded land so as to remove them from the main corpus of ceded lands. We only have to look at the bills being introduced into the Legislature to see this. Upon statehood in 1959, the State Constitution named two beneficiaries of Hawaiian lands: the Native Hawaiians and the general public. Therefore, it is my view that the general public should be as concerned as the Hawaiian people are that the State government does not breach its fiduciary responsibility as trustees to the public land trust. In the 1998 general elections we must tell these legislators that they can no longer mismanage our tax dollars and then cover their tracks with the use of ceded land.

Makua: Target State Not Military

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Kai Wai Ola o OHA, August 1997

Last month, the U.S. Marines had planned an amphibious landing at Makua Beach. The five-day exercise was to begin with an amphibious assault on the beach, followed by live-fire training in the valley. The community was outraged, and rightly so. The Wai’anae Coast Neighborhood Board, Hui Malama o Makua, Pastor Kaleo Patterson (organizer of the demonstrations leading up to the day of the scheduled landing) and the Hawai’i Ecumenical Coalition rose to protest the intrusion of the military onto sacred land at Makua. The protest caused Governor Cayetano to meet with Admiral Prueher (commander-in-chief, Pacific Command), and a meeting with representatives of the community ensued. The military changed its plans and landed at Bellows Air Force Station instead. While Frenchy DeSoto proclaimed this a major victory, this was anything but a victory. All it did was postpone the inevitable.

The military has not ruled out future training activities in the area which is held sacred by Hawaiians. Using live ammunition, and firing into a beautiful sacred valley in the middle of thriving communities is insane. Would the military try this in other states for 65 years? Let’s see if other communities in America will allow them to do this.

The people of Hawai’i must become more involved in what our state officials are doing on our behalf.

One could argue all day about being ready for war, but let’s be realistic. If there is a third world war, no one would be fighting in hand-to-hand combat. The fight would be a nuclear one and none of us would have to worry about Makua Valley, or anywhere else.

In 1964, the state leased Makua to the Army for $1 for 65 years until the year 2029. The lease allows the military to use the beach for maneuvers, but in doing so, it infringes on the community’s public access rights.

During 1ast year’s legislative session, the governor and the legislature decried the poor condition of state finances and how departments and programs would have to tighten down to run more efficiently with less money. But while they are selling the sob story of “no money,” they, at the same time, give away prime lands at $1 for 65 years, denying us -the constituency and beneficiaries – our fair share of revenues: 20 percent – OHA beneficiaries; 80 percent – general public beneficiaries. This debacle allows potentially millions of state dollars to be lost.

The protest at Makua raises questions, not only about access, but about state accountability in meeting its responsibilities to the public trust.

* Shouldn’t there be a review of state land leases? Because of the state’s rationale for low lease rent, an impartial third party should do the review.

* For how much of our valuable ceded lands are we not receiving proper compensation? When potential revenue is allowed to slip away, we get short-changed in education, human services, health and other benefits.

* Why weren’t access requirements considered in the lease of Makua? The state must let the military know that it cannot lease valuable land for bombings, live ammunition firing and training. Although the governor met with Admiral Prueher to change the landing site, this wasn’t resolved when the lease was given in 1964. The target of protest should be the administration, not necessarily the military, because the state can revoke the lease at any time.

* The state doesn’t own lands; it is the trustee for these lands. Shouldn’t it be more accountable for their management of these lands?

It’s time we (the public) demand that the state take its responsibilities seriously as trustee of our public trust. We have allowed them to mismanage our lands for too long! Should we be considering hiring private counsel to investigate the state for their mismanagement of our public land trust?

We Still Don’t Need the Whale Sanctuary

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

June 16, 1997

Governor Cayetano’s recent decision to enter into an agreement with the federal government permitting the creation of the federal Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Sanctuary was a big disappointment. This past May, the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs voted unanimously to oppose the sanctuary. We shared the doubts that prompted Mayor Linda Lingle and other leaders to urge Governor Cayetano to veto the plan, and we also had reasons of our own.

Our Board has a duty to protect the public trust’s resources derived from public lands, including the submerged lands, the water surface, the water column, the seabed and all flora, fauna and minerals they contain. The legislation then before the governor, and in its present state, guaranteed us no protection with respect to the federal government’s use and control of these resources. As fiduciaries, we could not assume that the federal government would always exercise its authority over the sanctuary are in a manner consistent with the best interests of the Hawaiian trust. The Governor knew this, but unfortunately paid no attention to local concerns. Now OHA is saddled with “co-stewardship,” as the federal government’s Environmental Impact Statement calls its shared dominion over the submerged ceded lands comprising the sanctuary. OHA, of course, had enough problems dealing with one “steward,” let alone two.

My own opposition to the sanctuary goes beyond issues involving ceded lands, sovereignty and Hawaiian rights. I’m concerned with the potential for destruction. Like many modern scientists, the Hawaiians of the pre-contact ahupua’a knew that interference with nature’s delicate balance could wreck havoc with the environment. So traditionally they managed the entire eco-system rather than a single species. The wisdom of their ancient practices has been conf1rmed again and again. Recently, for example, I spoke to Colin Kippen, a Native Hawaiian judge for the Squamash Tribe in Oregon, about what happens when a single species reproduces to dominate its environment. Judge Kippen has listened to tribe members complain of the damage caused by an over-population of whales in sanctuary waters. He has seen where whale fecal matter has contaminated and destroyed clam beds and other sources of revenue Pacific Northwest fishermen, including Native Americans, used to depend on. The animals are so crowded that, tragically, they are beaching themselves in desperation.

In a press release, Governor Cayetano defended his decision to bring this disastrous situation to Hawaiian waters by, among other modifications, claiming to limit the sanctuary’s boundaries to half of what was originally proposed. Just how the limits will work is unclear given legal protections in place already. As an endangered species, the humpback whale cannot be approached within 300 feet in its habitat. Existing law does not confine that habitat to the 600 miles designated by Cayetano. Rather, the habitat moves with each whale which therefore enjoys a de facto floating sanctuary with or without the recently signed agreement between the state and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. To date, there have been no complaints that either boaters or fishermen have violated this space.

Why then was this unnecessary State-Federal partnership forced on us? The only justification seems to be the $800,000 to one million dollars for research and study projects. The Governor claims this chump change will, somehow, provide the State with an economic boost!

The Governor made the wrong call on the sanctuary by listening to the wrong people-green nazis, out-of-state marine biologists and animal rights extremist–rather than the Hawaiians who have worked, protected and loved these waters for generations. We need to remember this disregard for public opinion and to look for a change in 1998.

Hawaiians Can Make a Difference

By Trustee Rowena Akana
June 9, 1997

This summer, I’ll be getting together with representatives of various Native American tribes to see what we can learn from those who have found successful models of self-government and economic self-sufficiency. I’ll be sharing my observations with you, but this month I want to repeat how important your vote is. As I compare our situation with the Native American tribes’, the difference in our numbers occurs to me. Unlike Native Americans in any state, “Native” and part-Hawaiians eligible to vote are counted in the hundreds of thousands and we could have real clout at the polls.

You have seen me hint, not too subtly, in this paper and others, at replacing legislators who pretend to be our friends but are not really committed to our well-being. Although our next elections are 17 months away, it is not too early to be asking whether an incumbent deserves your vote. Potentially, we Hawaiians could form a bloc capable of striking terror into the hearts of two-faced politicians.

In the past, I have personally endorsed or opposed certain candidates. In the future, I will be guided by, among other factors, the first vote on the original objectionable draft of House Bill 2207. As passed, this legislation represents a compromise between the Senate and OHA which buys us time but locks us into a $15 million annual payment when everyone knows we are owed twice that. This dubious deal is supposed to give us our badly needed inventory of ceded lands which the Governor is dead set against. He claims that an inventory will take too long and that our claims should be settled now. Why? Does he know more than he is saying?

Watch the Governor carefully between now and November 1998. Watch your senators too. Recently Senator Lehua Fernandes Sallings lost her co-chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee to Roz Baker, a team-player who pushed the so-called “insurance reform” that is so flawed. We need to track this kind of movement. As for our friends and enemies in the House of Representatives, a vote for HB 2207 was a vote against Hawaiians.

Once again, here are the legislators who don’t deserve our vote:

Democrats:

Abinsay, Felipe; Moanalua, Shafter, Kapalama, Kalihi Waena
Ahu Isa, Lei; Alewa, Kapalama, Liliha, Nuuanu, Puunui
Cachola, Romy; Kalihi Kai, Palama
Case, Ed; Manoa
Chang, Jerry; South Hilo
Garcia, Nestor; Waipahu, Crestview
Goodenow, Kenny; Waimanalo, Keolu, Lanikai, Kailua, Lanikai,EL
Herkes, Bob; Ka’u, Puna
Ito, Ken; Kaneohe
Hiraki, Kenneth; Kakaako, Downtown, Ala Moana
Jones, Merwyn; Makaha, Waianae
Kanoho, Ezra; Lihue, Kapaa
Kawakami, Bertha; Koloa, Waimea, Niihau
Marilyn Lee; Mililani, Waipio
Morihara, David; Paia, Makawao, Kunia, etc.
Menor, Ron; Wheeler AFB, Mililani
Nakasone, Bob; Kahului, Wailuku, Waikapu
Okamura, Tom; Red Hill, Halawa Heights, Pearlridge, Aiea
Oshiro, Marcus; Wahiawa, Whitmore Village
Oshiro, Paul; Ewa Beach, Waipahu
Say, Calvin; Palolo, St. Louis, Kaimuki
Souki, Joe; Waihee, Wailuku
Stegmaier, David; Hawaii Kai, Portlock, Kalama
Suzuki, Nathan; Aliamanu, Moanalua, Salt Lake
Takamine, Dwight; N. Hamakua, N. Hilo, N. Kohala
Tom, Terrance ; Kahaluu, Ahuimanu, Heeia, Kaneohe
White, Mike; Lahaina, Kaanapali, Molokai, Lanai
Yamane, Brian; Diamond Head, Kapahulu, Kaimuki, Waikiki
Yonamine, Nobu; Pacific Palisades, Momilani, Manana
Yoshinaga, Terry N.; McCully, Moiliili, Pawaa

Republican:

Marumoto, Barbara; Waialae, Kahala, Wilhelmina Rise

As for our friends in the House, I hope Hawaiians will join me in supporting these legislators who voted against HB 2207:

Democrats:

Dennis Arakaki; Kam Heights, Kalihi Valley
Eric Hamakawa; South Hilo, Puna
Mike Kahikina; Barbers Point, Nanakuli, Maili, Waianae
Hermina Morita; Haiku, Hana, Hanalei, Kapaa, etc.
Scott Saiki; McCully, Moiliili, Kaimuki, Kapahulu
Alex Santiago; Schofield, Kahuku, Mokuleia, etc.
Mark Takai; Waimalu, Waiau, Royal Summit, Newtown
Roy Takumi; Pearl City, Waipahu
David Tarnas; South Kohala, North Kona

Republicans:

Sam Aiona; Makiki, Tantalus, Manoa
Galen Fox; Waikiki, Ala Wai
Chris Halford; Makena, Kula, Kihei etc.
Quentin Kawananakoa; Nuuanu, Punchbowl, Pauoa, etc.
Bob McDermott; Aliamanu, Hickam, Foster Village, Aiea, Halawa Valley
Colleen Meyer ; Laie, Waikane, Waihole, etc.
Mark Moses; Kunia, Makakilo, Ewa, Waipahu, Kapolei
David Pendleton; Kailua, Kaneohe, Enchanted Lake, Maunawili, Pohakapu
Cynthia Theilen; Kailua, Kaneohe Bay Drive
Gene Ward; Hahaione, Kuiouou, Niu, Aina Haina, etc.
Paul Whalen; South Kona, North Kona

Quotables: Honolulu Star-Bulletin

By Various
May 17, 1997

Source Honolulu Star-Bulletin

“I think we have their attention. They are going to have to do something.”
-Roy Benham, a Kamehameha Schools alumnus and leader of a group protesting Bishop Estate trustees’ policies on the schools.

“It is obvious that the economy is not rebounding and that it is in serious trouble. It’ll take leadership to get the economy back on track.”
-Maui Mayor Linda Crockett Lingle.

“What we saw during the legislative session this year can only be described as one of the worst assaults on Hawaiian entitlements in OHA’s 17 years.”
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Rowena Akana.

“What I need to do is be convinced that no woman will be grievously harmed by this legislation.”
-President Clinton, indicating he would veto a bill that prohibits a late-
term abortion procedure.

Answers are Sorely Needed in State Dispute with OHA

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
May, 1997

Source: Star Bulletin; Letters to Editor

Your editorials on state OHA payments from the airport fund continue to ignore the unfortunate reality of government’s slipshod accounting and disbursement methods.

Conspicuously omitted from your bias is the FAA’s conclusion that the state had misused airport funds for a whole gamut of illegal purposes — race tracks, highways and so forth.

Your newspaper has yet to inform the public about how this whole incident occurred. Furthermore, you have never demanded an accounting for the ceded land income pouring into the state general fund.

How does the state spend the sovereign income, 100 percent of which is thrown into some state pot? How is the state’s 80 percent of ceded land revenues being spent?

Why did the state decide to pay OHA’s share out of a federal grant intended for airports when it has the ceded land revenue stream?

If the right questions were asked, I suspect you might find that the same irresponsible practices that led to OHA payments from airport funds also caused our state’s terrible fiscal straits.

How Legislative Vote Went to Cut Ceded Land Revenues

By Trustee Rowena Akana
March 28, 1997

Source Star Bulletin, Letter to Editor

I would like to alert the public as to how the 51 legislators voted on the egregious bill known as HB 2207, a rushed and ill-conceived effort sure to result in future lawsuits because it attempts to slash Hawaiians’ legal share of ceded land revenues by as much as 80 percent.

The compassionate Republican minority almost unanimously rejected HB 2207 (the exception was Barbara Marumoto). Nine humane Democrats stood up to party leadership and voted against the bill: Dennis Arakaki, Eric Hamakawa, Mike Kahikina, Hermina Morita, Scott Saiki, Alex Santiago, Mark Takai, Roy Takumi and David Tarnas.

In favor of the bill were 18 Democrats, including Speaker Joe Souki and those willing to go along with his power trip. Thirteen legislators, including three part-Hawaiians, cast kanalua votes, apparently in an attempt to indicate they were neither for or against the measure. They knew full well, however, that their kanalua votes would count in favor of the bill.

Hawaiians and those who sympathize with our condition must become more involved with what their representatives are doing at the state Capitol on their behalf. I have urged my constituents sitting with me in the gallery on March 4, the day of this unfortunate vote, to relay our impressions to the Hawaiian organizations they represent, and to remind family and friends of the importance of re-evaluating their political affiliation.

The Abuse, Misuse, and Theft of the Ceded Lands Trust

By Trustee Rowena Akana
March 5, 1993

Ceded lands are the remains of an estimated 1.8 million acres of public, private and crown land annexed by resolution from a provisional government to the United States in 1898. Hawaiian Home Lands, once part of ceded lands, are scattered tracts comprising about 200,000 acres Congress set aside in 1921 for native Hawaiian homesteaders.

For the last 100 years, these land trusts have been impoverished through executive orders, lands swaps, sales and general theft. With each change of government trusteeship were agreements to provide for the needs of the land’s inhabitants: the Hawaiians. Each trustee government, in turn, has thoroughly mismanaged the inhabitants’ land. A few examples for your reading displeasure:

MILITARY

In 1959, when the Admissions Act turned responsibility for the remaining 1.2 million acres of ceded lands over to the new State of Hawaii, the federal government “set aside” several hundred thousand acres for its military installations.

Today, more than 100 bases crowd the eight Hawaiian islands, a land area approximately the size of Rhode Island and Connecticut combined. The armed forces control 10 percent of the state and 25 percent of O’ahu. All the military bases occupy ceded lands, and at least six occupy — without consent or compensation – Hawaiian Home Lands. Among those, Pohakuloa on the Big Island is an Army training camp, Lualualei in Waianae is a Navy target range and Kekaha on Kauai is a Navy ammunition dump.

Kaho’olawe, The Target Island, was set aside by a presidential order for the military’s use during WWII. It was supposed to be cleared of ordnance and returned to human use after the war. Today, Kaho’olawe’s soil remains bomb-rich and human-poor — despite its placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands estimates territorial and state governors issued between 40 and 60 executive orders setting aside Hawaiian Home Lands for military use. In 1978, a federal district court ruled all the governors’ executive orders were illegal.

In 1984, the governor ordered the DHHL to rescind nearly 30 of these illegal deals, covering some 30,000 acres. The state attorney general, meantime, decreed the U.S. Navy’s occupation of 1,400 acres of prime homelands near Honolulu to be a ‘fundamental breach of trust.’

Rather than evicting the offending land users, which include state and federal agencies, the DHHL opted for monetary settlements totaling less than $10 million. The DHHL did mount one challenge to evict the Navy, but the judge decided the department waited too long to sue.

However, the DHHL has evicted Hawaiians off land to which they held title, but the state never bothered to install utilities, roads and water as it is required.

Until recently, the DHHL had no funding to improve land management or infrastructure except the general use leases it was allowed to grant non-Hawaiians on land “not immediately needed” for homesteading. Consequently, the DHHL leased more land to non-Hawaiians than to Hawaiians.

Because of this, only 5,889 Hawaiian homestead leases had been awarded as of June, representing just 21.5 percent of the total Hawaiian Home Lands property, while 47.5 percent was under lease to non-Hawaiians.

Meanwhile, there are an estimated 14,400 qualified applicants in the Hawaiian Homes waiting list, many of whom have waited for 40 years or more.

Many more have died waiting.

DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

For the state’s first 20 years, the Department of Land and Natural Resources managed ceded lands without scrutiny. Among other abuses, DLNR allowed use of ceded lands by other state departments without adequate compensation, and it executed a slew of summary land swaps. The land between Hanauma Bay and Waimanalo, once Hawaiian Home land, now belongs to just about everyone but Hawaiians.

In 1985, the state swapped a Big Island forest preserve for other acreage so Campbell Estate could construct a geothermal development, now plagued with technical problems and lawsuits.

In fact, until 1986 the DLNR didn’t even have an inventory of which state lands were ceded lands and which were not, and no one still knows the exact amount the state earns from this inventory. A 1986 “Final Report on the Public Lands Trust” did manage to identify some major parcels of ceded or Hawaiian Homes land commandeered for public use without compensation. A small sampling: Hilo Municipal Golf Course, Maui’s Waiehu Golf Course, Kauai’s Wailua Golf Course, Ala Wai Golf Course, Sand Island, Ala Moana Beach Park, Kapiolani Park, and their rentals, Honolulu Harbor, Kahului Harbor, Kewalo Basin, Keehi Lagoon, Honolulu International Airport, General Lyman Field, Molokai Airport and the University of Hawaii.
All occupy in part or whole ceded and/or Hawaiian Home lands — at the expense of Hawaiians and native Hawaiians.

When will this sickening litany of abuse, misuse and fraud end? When will the state or federal government keep a promise to the Hawaiian people? When will others stop managing our affairs in their interest, stop taking for theirs that which they agreed in writing was ours and stop actively campaigning against any meaningful resolution to our plight?

When? You have the answers.

Entitlements–It Belongs to You

By Trustee Moses Keale
November, 1992

Source Ka Wai Ola O OHA

These are tough times for all of us. Last month I issued a challenge to everyone to speak loudly and clearly that we, the native sons and daughters of this land want our full entitlements. Do you remember my question last month? “Does all this really matter?” And do you remember my answer? “…the total entitlements compensation would approach $30,000,000 yearly. … if you factor in the back payments for rents for these lands the total back rent could exceed $300,000,000!”

Yes, it does make a great deal of difference! I remember all too well how OHA began 12 years ago. We, the nine trustees, were told to run an agency to better the conditions of the Hawaiian people. And they said we were entitled to do this on a budget of $225,000 of public matching funds supplemented by our entitlements income. With the expectation of the people high and the money minimal, it was a struggle to keep our heads above water. For many years there was very little change in our income stream. Between 1981 and 1989 OHA’s annual operating income from special and general funds amounted to an average of $2,066,000 per year. The most significant changes in public funding came in fiscal year 1988 when the legislature almost tripled our general funding level. This was accomplished under the guiding hands of then Administrator Kamaki Kanahele now an accomplished Trustee.

Our biggest break, though, came in 1990 when agreements were reached with the Governor’s office on the PROPER entitlement amount. This was a quantum leap in revenue amounting to more than $8,000,000 annually. Now, under these conditions, we could really function. Now, we could really implement a large portion of the master plan. We conducted public hearings to revise the functional plan and the Board met to implement new policies and procedures.

We hired a new administrator and at his request we reorganized the office. In fact, based on his recommendation, we requested that the legislature change the Hawaii Revised Statutes to allow the Administrator to employ all personnel without obtaining the approval of the Board as was the previous practice. Then, we asked him to draft and to implement a plan that would effectuate the major objectives of the master plan and would incorporate the new functional action items. This was a bold new experiment for us which reflected our ability to use the newly obtained resources.

The Trustees had done their job in obtaining the revenue stream and now it was up to administration to provide programs to impact the beneficiaries. It was our hope that you, the Hawaiian people, would finally begin to feel the impact of new programs to service your needs. Well, the experiment has been a failure! Certainly, three years is adequate time to evaluate the impact of the new products.

In reviewing all of our present initiatives, and after eliminating the ongoing projects which began prior to the reorganization (for example: The Native Hawaiian Revolving Loan Fund, Aha Opio O OHA, Aha Kupuna, educational tutorial programs, the embryo of our self-help housing program, and our ongoing health initiatives), it seems our new programs have fallen far short of the mark. Administration proposed a revolutionary program called I Luna Ae, a 7-point initiative, designed to address concerns and provide services where services were needed. Included in this 7-point initiative were:

Operation Ea, designed to address restitution from the federal government;

Operation Ka Poe, otherwise known as the single definition mandate;

Operation Ohana, targeted to gain data on all Hawaiians to effectuate a better system for the delivery of services and benefits to every Hawaiian;

Operation Malama Mau, created to address the need to identify and protect our cultural heritage and cultural assets;

Operation Alohi, a program designed to enhance our communications system in order to keep our beneficiaries informed of our work;

Operation Hui Imi, a task force of Hawaiian Agencies created to coordinate services to lessen duplication and overlapping of strategies;

Operation Hookuleana, designed to effectuate full entitlements from the state government.

Well, after extensive review, I find that the following is true:

Operation Ea, which began with the publishing of the “Blueprint for Native Hawaiian Entitlements” and other promises of securing restitution, has produced three pieces of proposed federal legislation. One of these draft bills is seriously flawed, another is presumptuous and the third needs input from the effected beneficiary class. No formal hearings have been held on these documents and the public input process has been limited.

Operation Ka Poe, reflects serious flaws in thinking. Less than 1/2 of the Hawaiians over the age of 18 actually received ballots. Of those who received the ballots only 38% returned them. Therefore, the 19,000+ Hawaiians voting in favor of this initiative represented only 16% of the estimated 125,000 adult Hawaiians residing in the state. It was not the overwhelming voice of the Hawaiian people who spoke up for a single definition, it was only a select few.

Operation Ohana, was one of the most noteworthy programs in concept. The goal, as articulated by the administration, was to enroll 150,000 Hawaiians by 1990. It is now 1992 and the latest report indicates that less than 10,000 Hawaiians have completed the enrollment process.

Operation Malama Mau, has met many of its objectives. The Native Hawaiian Historic Preservation Council has been diligent in its work and has achieved notable progress in the area of cultural preservation and protection of sites and practices.

Operation Alohi, has finally begun to make limited inroads toward a commitment to communicate with the beneficiary. After nearly three years of failures and large expenditures of funds, the program has finally begun to move toward its target goals thanks to the efforts of the new public information officer.

Operation Hui Imi, has been operational and met with success. Coordination of program and program services among the agencies and organizations servicing Hawaiians have improved.

Operation Hookuleana, also has been successful. But this success can be directly attributable to work by the Trustees who have been in direct control of the process from the beginning. There is still much to be done and the Trustees are continuing to work directly with the Governor’s office.

Taken as a whole, I find that while we have spent large sums of moneys, expended an enormous amount of staff time, and committed a great deal of office resources toward the efforts of the I Luna Ae program, the success ratio is dismal. Of the seven initiatives, three of the most costly programs have been failures, one could not meet its targeted objective because of severe understaffing, and one was taken over by the Trustees with outside help hired to complete the task. Of the two remaining program initiatives, Operation Malama Mau’s product has been tainted because of administrative misdirection while Operation Hui Imi appears to be self-sustaining.

It is time for us to take a hard look at whether our resources are being directed in an efficient manner. The bottom line is whether you are receiving the benefits that we have mandated the office to deliver. Ultimately, it is the duty of the nine trustees to evaluate the progress and determine whether the work of this office is acceptable. Our focus should now turn toward building the best “delivery of service program” that we can muster. To this end I have always pledged my energies. To this end my efforts will be concentrated. Although we must not lose sight of gaining full entitlements for the Hawaiian people, it is time to concentrate on the delivery of these entitlements to the people. Although this may require tough and unpleasant decisions, that is the nature of position of leadership to which each of us is elected!

IMUA E NO OHANA. A INU I KA WAI AWAAWAI

A i manao kekahi e lilo i pookele i waena o oukou, e pono no e lilo ia i kauwa na oukou. Na ke Akua e malama a e alakai ia kakou apau.

Akana Targets “Anti-Hawaiian” Democrats

By Mike Yuen
May 16, 1991

Source Star Bulletin

A trustee of the semiautonomous Office of Hawaiian Affairs has made overtures to Republican legislators for help in finding candidates to seriously challenge Democratic lawmakers seen as “anti-Hawaiian.”

OHA at-large trustee Rowena Akana, a Democrat, cited House Speaker Joe Souki (D, Wailuku), House Majority Leader Tom Okamura (D, Aiea), House Finance Chairman Calvin Say (D, Palolo), House Hawaiian Affairs Chairman Ed Case (D, Manoa) and freshman Rep. Kenney Goodenow (D, Waimanalo), whose district has a high percentage of native Hawaiians.

“What we saw during the legislative session this year can only be described as one of the worst assaults on Hawaiian entitlements in OHA’s 17 years,” said Akana, an organizer of the Hawaiian silent prayer vigil at the state Capitol during the past session.

She directed much of her criticism at a House-approved bill crafted by Case that would have nullified a Circuit Court ruling that expanded the definition of what was covered by the 20 percent the state owes OHA for use of ceded lands.

That provision, based on the House’s conclusion that the ruling judge misinterpreted legislative intent, was eliminated during conference negotiations at the insistence of Senate conferees. The bill approved by both chambers temporarily sets the state’s ceded-land payments at $15.1 million annually while special commission tries to resolve the dispute between the state and OHA.

Republican state Reps. Quentin Kawananakoa (Nuuanu) and Sam Aiona (Makiki), both of Hawaiian ancestry, acknowledged that Akana has had “informal discussions” with GOP lawmakers. But, they maintained, the talks have yet to reach the point of targeting any Democratic lawmaker.

The House’s 12 Republicans have closely aligned themselves with native Hawaiian concerns. Kawananakoa and Aiona said that was done because it was the right thing to do – not for strategic reasons.

Akana said she is turning to the GOP and to independents because she has yet to see Democrats back a Democratic challenger over a Democratic incumbent.

Akana stressed that while other OHA trustees are unhappy with how the Democratic-controlled Legislature acted on Hawaiian issues, her contacts with the GOP don’t reflect an official board position.

But, she added, “As a trustee, my first priority is to protect our trust. I’m not here as a Republican or a Democrat. I’m here as a nonpartisan person. When people become the enemies of this trust, whether they are Democrat or Republican, they become my enemy too.”

Akana declined to identify pro-Hawaiian candidates because there are no firm commitments.