Tag: Ceded Land revenues

Building a consensus with Board members eliminates mistrust

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, December 2004

‘Ano’ai kakou… OHA’s spending policy was recently changed and now all of the Ceded Land revenues we get from the state will go straight into our operating budget. In other words, instead of depositing our income into a savings account, we’ll be putting it straight into our checking account to spend. OHA’s budget chairman wanted to find a way to get OHA to spend more money, so he called a committee meeting on August 18, 2004 and had high-powered experts do a presentation to the Board. These experts argued that the OHA’s spending policy favored future beneficiaries over current beneficiaries by allowing Ceded Land revenues to grow in the Trust. They explained that we were unfairly saving the money for future beneficiaries and not spending enough on today’s beneficiaries.

The presentation worked and on September 15, 2004, the Board passed a new spending policy. Now the $9,446,922 in Ceded Land revenues OHA will get from the state in 2005 will be spent and not saved. Theoretically, OHA should now be able to fund many new programs and help many more beneficiaries with that money.

Unfortunately, not all of the money is going directly to our beneficiaries. It appears leadership will use some of the $9.45 million to cover massive budget short-falls, which mostly included lawyers’ fees and costs relating to our lobbyist for the federal recognition campaign.

As you can imagine, the Trustees had many questions about what exactly the $9.45 million was going to be spent on. These questions finally forced the budget chair to hold a workshop on October 12th & 13th. Even after the two-day workshop, not all of the Trustees were convinced that the $9.45 million was being spent for its intended purpose – helping our beneficiaries. Despite our concerns, the revised Budget finally passed with the minimum required six-votes on November 1, 2004.

Budget workshops should be made mandatory to avoid problems like this in the future. Past budget committee chairs always held workshops before bringing a new budget to the Board. Workshops would give Trustees the time needed to have their questions answered in detail before they had to vote in committee. Right now, all of OHA’s committee chairs distribute materials for their meetings just a few days in advance. This hardly gives Trustees enough time to meet with administrative staff and ask questions, much less receive the answers we need to make prudent decisions.

The current regime could have shown true leadership if they had spent the time necessary to justify their proposal to spend the $9.45 million instead of hiring an attorney and high powered presenters to make their case and rush it through for a vote. Building a consensus with Board members eliminates mistrust and in the end, everyone is more comfortable with the decision they made, decisions based on current information and not hype artists.

I pray that the New Year will bring constructive and meaningful change, despite the fact that the Board remains unchanged after the November election. It is my hope that we will no longer need to engage in political gymnastics to get things done. We shouldn’t have to duel with leadership in order to make sure we are working in the best interest of our beneficiaries.

If leadership can work towards building a consensus and abandons its “win-at-all-cost” mentality, I feel that a more positive and productive Board will emerge. Perhaps my sentiments can best be summed up by St. Paul, who in a letter to Timothy wrote:

“We know the law is good if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but those who are lawless, the ungodly, the immoral, liars… and whatever else that is contrary to sound teaching.”
– Timothy, 1st Verse

Have a happy and safe holidays and God bless!

The Most Critical Issues Facing OHA Today

By Rowena Akana
November 22, 2002

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Progress Since February 2002

By Rowena Akana
June 2002

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA

The Legislative session ended on May 2, 2002. OHA had some victories and some disappointments. I am happy to report that the bill fixing the legislative problems which held up our ability to give grants passed the legislature and is on the Governor’s desk for approval. With his approval, OHA will be able to release a substantial sum of monies, which had been tied up, for grants to various Hawaiian entities.

I am also happy to report that the legislature passed the bill which allows OHA trustees to join the State Retirement System. Finally, making Hawaiian elected officials equal to other state elected officials.

The disappointment came with OHA’s revenues. Although OHA put forth a bill asking for interim revenues until the ceded lands issue is resolved, and kept it alive until the very end, the legislature found that it did not have the funds to pay the interim revenue, even though this same legislature gave the Japanese Cultural Center $8 million to bail them out of their money problems.

The Hawaii Supreme Court made it very clear to the State that it is its fuduciary obligation to the Hawaiians. We must continue to ask for our fair share of the ceded lands, whether it be through interim revenue, another revenue stream formula, or some sort of settlement. It ultimately may be necessary to take the State to court to force them to pay the Hawaiians their fair share of the ceded lands.

Since the new leadership took over the OHA board in February, there has been NO discussion on how to make up lost revenues or what the strategy will be to stop the bleeding. The lack of leadership of OHA is disappointing not only to those of us who have worked hard to try and resolve these land and revenue issues, but also to beneficiaries. Where is the plan? There has been no direction from this Chair on how to proceed or to plan for the future. All programs being worked on now were from the previous leadership. So, what’s new?

The issue of tying the ceded lands resolution to the ceded land inventory surfaced this past session, again. OHA and the State already know what lands produce income. Requiring a full inventory is only a stall tactic to withhold payment to the Hawaiians. Fortunately, this bill died, but we must be ever virgilant to make sure it does not resurface or gain momentum in the next session.

On another note, I am pleased to report that our FANNIE MAE loan program is progressing and with workshops to educate our beneficiaries more Hawaiians will become homeowners. We hope to have the kick off for the loan program on May 29th with a full press conference. It is anticipated that we will be able to help many of our Hawaiian beneficiaries by leveraging our monies through FANNIE MAE. This, in conjunction with our efforts to produce reasonable manufactured housing should put many of our low to middle income Hawaiian famiies in homes. I thank Doug McWilliams of FANNIE MAE for his tireless efforts in helping our Hawaiian community, and our OHA staffer, Patti Tancayo, for all her hard work with the FANNIE MAE project.

A big Mahalo to the leadership of the state legislature for taking the time to speak to me and our Administrator about our bills. In particular, Speaker Calvin Say, Chair Dwight Takamine, Chair Eric Hamakawa, Senate President Bobby Bunda, Chair Brian Taniguchi, Chair Jonathan Chun, Rep. Joseph Souki, Senator Colleen Hanabusa, the Hawaiian Caucus and the Republican Caucus for their efforts in getting our two bills passed. However, the bigger picture is our ceded lands revenue and getting the Akaka Bill passed by Congress. For without federal recognition the suits against OHA will not be resolved.

Thank you for all of your support–those of you who have continued to be supportive in the Community.

Legislative Kokua Critical to Fix OHA’s Money Woes

By: Pat Omandam
January 22, 2002

Source: Star Bulletin

The Office lost millions of dollars in revenue from ceded lands. 

If ever the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs needed the kokua of the state Legislature, this is the year.

With no annual revenue from ceded or public trust lands and a legal opinion barring it from distributing any grants, OHA needs a legislative fix for these problems if it wants to fully help Hawaiians.

“I think that the legislators that we’ve talked to have a good sense of where everything is, and I think they’d like to resolve some of these issues,” said OHA Vice Chairwoman Rowena Akana, head of OHA’s legislative committee.

“I look to them to be fair in resolving these very critical issues,” she said. “After all, OHA has been around 20 years. It’s not as if you can swipe us up in one fell swoop.”

At the top of OHA’s legislative package is a way to address a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling Sept. 12 that struck down a state law giving OHA 20 percent of ceded-land revenues collected by the state. The court did not question using ceded-land revenue to better conditions of native Hawaiians but pointed out that particular law had a disclaimer that declared it void if it conflicted with federal law.

The justices said it conflicted with a federal law governing state airport revenue, and ruled the state Legislature must come up with a new law to pay OHA ceded-land revenues.

Akana said the loss of millions of dollars in annual revenue from the state has forced the OHA board to reassess programs and look for ways to downsize so it can preserve its $300 million native trust, the only source of income it has right now.

Despite a state budget shortfall of $330 million this fiscal year, trustees have submitted a bill asking for an interim ceded-land revenue payment of $17 million next year. State Rep. Ezra Kanoho (D, Lihue), a member of the legislative Hawaiian caucus, said Hawaiian lawmakers believe the money is warranted and will work to get it passed this legislative session.

“I think it’s recognized that OHA is due something, and it would be politically correct to come up with a figure,” he said yesterday.

“If not $17 million, particularly in this very difficult financial times, we’ll try to come up with something. What that something is, I’m not sure,” Kanoho said.

Meanwhile, OHA also seeks a waiver from the state procurement laws. A Sept. 25 opinion from the state Attorney General’s Office advised trustees not to release any further grants because those expenditures did not go through the state procurement code’s competitive bid process and therefore may be illegal.

OHA’s grant-making authority was questioned by the state Procurement Office in December 2000 and by state Auditor Marion Higa in April 2001.

As a result, OHA was forced to hold $800,000 in grants last year, which included money to Alu Like Inc. and the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp.

And the wait continues.

“Literally, we can’t give out money away,” Akana said. “It’s so ridiculous.”

OHA trustees also seek legislation so they can join the state Employees’ Retirement System, something they have pushed for several years. The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2000 decision in the Rice vs. Cayetano case ruled that OHA was a state agency, so trustees can use that to argue it should be allowed to join the ERS.

OHA’s 2002 Legislative Package

By Trustee Rowena Akana
January 18, 2002

Source Letter to Editor

On September 12, 2001, the Hawaii State Supreme Court delivered a devastating blow to the Hawaiians when they struck down Act 304, which gave OHA 20% of the ceded land revenues collected by the State to be used for Hawaiian beneficiaries.

Without a steady flow of income to sustain all of our programs, we trustees must now reassess our current programs and look at ways to down size to preserve our trust assets.

While the Supreme Court may have struck down the mechanism for payments to Hawaiians, they did declare that the state still must fulfill its constitutional obligation to the Hawaiian people. They also gave the legislature the charge of amending Act 304. Until this is completed, there will be NO payments made to OHA by the state.

OHA will ask the legislature this year for an interim revenue amount until Act 304 is resolved. Because a formula based on revenues has been so problematic for OHA and the state, we must consider, in the very near future, to settle the ceded land claims with the state. This would allow the Hawaiian people the opportunity to have a land base on which to build our nation.

The second OHA bill asks the legislature to adopt a waiver from the state procurement laws. Because of an attorney general opinion, OHA is no longer able to give money to 501 C 3 programs. OHA is unable at this time to give any grants out to anyone. This opinion has basically stopped all flow of money from OHA to any organization or group asking for funds.

The third bill addresses the need to revisit Act 304 as directed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii.

The fourth bill allows the OHA trustees the ability to join the State Retirement System. For 20 years the trustees have NOT been allowed to join the State Retirement System.

At the Federal level: the Federal piece of legislation known as the Akaka Bill is slated to be heard in the Spring of 2002 in the Congress. While there may not be total agreement on the language of this bill, it is very important that Hawaiians receive federal recognition from the United States. Without this recognition we cannot proceed to nationhood.

On another note: I am happy to announce that within the next 30 days OHA will:

1. Increase out business loan amount to $250,000.

2. Partner in building 45 housing units in Kapolei.

3. Develop a partnership with FANNIE MAE to allow ALL Hawaiians to borrow money for home mortgages for down payments and closing costs at a reduced interest rate below the prime rate.

4. We will continue to work to develop a health initiative for our kupuna.

We ask for your kokua, this legislative session, to help us resolve some very critical issues for our people. Mahalo Ke Akua

Legislative Session 2002 a vital “next step”

By Rowena Akana
December 2001

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA

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

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

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

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

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

Republican Minority Voted Hawaiian Cause

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
March 17, 1997

Source: Honolulu Advertiser; Letters to Editor

In response to your banner headline, “Some Hawaiians feel threatened by legislation,” I would like to alert the public how the 51 legislators voted on the legislation in question 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 him. Finally, 13 legislators, including three part-Hawaiians, cast kanalua votes, apparently in an effort to indicate they were neither for nor against the measure. They knew, however, that their kanalua vote would be counted as being 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. Even those not considering a change of party should only support candidates committed to our well-being and fair treatment.