Tag: ceded lands

We need nationhood to protect our lands

`Ano`ai kakou…  Throughout the month of February, I was privileged to participated in the Na‘i Aupuni ‘aha to discuss self-governance.  I believe that calling for an ‘aha is an excellent opportunity to provide an open and democratic forum to discuss possible governing documents of our new nation.  This is where the ultimate form of the Hawaiian government can be debated and considered.

I have always advocated that gaining federal recognition as a native people would finally allow Hawaiians to negotiate with the state and federal governments for the return of some of our ceded lands that the state holds in trust.  Federal recognition would also put us in a stronger position to protect our lands and trust assets.

The three key elements of nationhood are sovereignty, self-determination and self-sufficiency.  In order for Hawaiians to exercise control over their lands and lives, they must achieve self-determination by organizing a mechanism for self-governance.  Hawaiians must create a government which provides for democratic representation before they can begin to interrelate with the State and the Federal governments who control their lands and trust assets. The ultimate goal of nationhood is to become self-sufficient and self-supporting.

My hope is that, as a result of the ‘aha, we will be able to draft the articles or provisions of our constitution for the new Hawaiian nation, whatever form it ultimately takes.  It is important to remember these documents can be changed or annulled.  This is only the beginning.  Once these governing documents are ratified by the Hawaiian people, they can be implemented to protect our lands and trust resources.  We would then be able to care for our people without assistance from anyone.

The window of opportunity for us to act on controlling our lands is closing.  For those who think we have lots of time to talk about this, they only need to look at all of the laws that have been passed in the last ten years to realize time is running out.

A good example of why nationhood is so critical for our people is the recent attempt in the legislature to pass the “forced land sales bills.”  Kamehameha Schools (KS) recently led the charge against legislation that would have forced Hawai‘i’s landowners to sell leasehold lands to their lessees.

If HB 1635 and HB 2173 had become law, all commercial, agriculture, conservation and industrial lands would have been put under threat to be forcibly sold.  KS would have been hurt by these bills since nearly 80 percent of their commercial properties are ground leased.  Our ceded lands controlled by DLNR would also be threatened.

Private land developers could have moved in to condemn and remove historical lands that were passed from generation to generation of Hawaiians.  This would have also negatively impacted the ability of Native Hawaiian organizations and trusts to fulfill their missions.  HB 1635 and HB 2173 represent yet another example of the government’s shameful history of removing Native Hawaiians from their ancestral lands.

Thankfully, on February 8th, KS announced that the House cancelled the hearing for HB 1635 and HB 2173, which effectively killed the bills.  However, there are other land bills in the legislature we need to be concerned about such as DLNR selling off remnants and the transfer of land to the military.  Let us be makaꞌala (watchful).  Aloha Ke Akua.

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.

2011 Wrap-up

January 2012 KA WAI OLA COLUMN

`Ano`ai kakou…  I started off 2011 with a continued hope that there will be positive changes at OHA.  While not always positive, the year was definitely one of major transition for OHA as we: (1) Approved a monumental law which will establish State Recognition for Native Hawaiians; and (2) Received an offer from the Governor to finally resolve the claims relating to OHA’s portion of income from the public land trust between 11/7/1978 and 7/1/2009.

STATE RECOGNITION

After being one of two Trustees appointed as a “Legislative Liaison” representing OHA for the 2011 session, I focused my many years of lobbying experience and strong relationships with legislators on two important issues: (1) Establishing state recognition for Native Hawaiians; and (2) Resolving the past due ceded land payments from the state.

Thanks to the hard work of the Native Hawaiian Caucus, Senate Bill (SB) 1520 was approved by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Neil Abercrombie.  SB1520 establishes a new law that recognizes Native Hawaiians as the only indigenous, aboriginal, Maoli people of Hawaii.  It also establishes a process for Native Hawaiians to organize themselves as a step in the continuing development of a reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity and, ultimately, the federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.

A special Mahalo to Senators Malama Solomon, Clayton Hee, and Brickwood Galuteria, and Representative Faye Hanohano for their tireless effort to get SB 1520 passed into law.

PAST DUE CEDED LANDS SETTLEMENT

In the 2009, SB 995 (Introduced by Senator Colleen Hanabusa by request and supported by Senator Hee) sought to have the State resolve its long overdue debt to OHA resulting from public land trust revenues unpaid from 11/7/1978 to 7/1/2010 by offering OHA $251 million in cash and 20 percent of the 1.8 million acres of ceded lands.  The proposal died in the House and went nowhere in 2010.  In the 2011 Legislative Session, SB 984, part of the OHA Package of bills, died after it was deferred by the Senate Hawaiian Affairs and Judiciary committees.

However, on Nov. 16, 2011, Governor Neil Abercrombie offered OHA property in Kaka‘ako as payment to cover the settlement of past due amounts.  The Governor should be commended for his bold offer.  OHA has lobbied many Governors in the past with nothing to show for it.  Now, for the first time, Governor Abercrombie is making OHA an offer that could potentially generate all of the revenue OHA needs to operate indefinitely and would give our future nation the concrete assets it needs to serve the Hawaiian population.

Although there is a lot work ahead of us in the upcoming legislative session, I feel more confident than ever that OHA, on behalf of our beneficiaries, will finally prevail.  An important part of that will be educating our elected officials and the community about this opportunity.

OHA must also do everything in its power to successfully lobby the State Legislature and convince any naysayers to have a change of heart.  In this effort, we will need your support to effectively solidify the settlement.  OHA will be taking this proposal to community meetings around the state so that our beneficiaries will understand it.  I look forward to 2012 with great hope and anticipation that our efforts to resolve this long standing issue will finally be put to rest.

I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a most prosperous New Year.

Senator Akaka: Hawaii’s most beloved public servant

April 2011 KA WAI OLA COLUMN

`Ano`ai kakou…  I was saddened that after months of thinking about his political future, Senator Daniel Akaka decided not to run for re-election in 2012 after serving in the U.S. Senate from 1990 to the present and 13 years previously in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Over the years, I have worked closely with Senator Akaka on important issues such as fighting for proper medical care of our Hawaii National Guardsmen while he was the chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and I look forward to working with him over the next two years on Federal Recognition for Native Hawaiians now that he is the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

Senator Akaka serves as the best example of how a lawmaker can get the job done with kindness and humility without having to resort to any political shenanigans or negativity.  He will certainly be sorely missed in a Congress that is now more and more focused on being combative and polarizing.

Senator Akaka has been our strongest advocate in Congress and in 1993, working with Senator Daniel Inouye, he passed the Apology Resolution, where the United States officially apologized for its part in the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.  I believe no one can represent the Hawaiian community as thoughtfully as Senator Akaka has and whoever prevails in 2012
will have some very big shoes to fill.

Senator Akaka deserves a great big MAHALO for his life long service to Hawaii.  There is still much work to be accomplished over the next two years and I look forward to working closely with Senator Akaka to get them done.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:

Here is an update on important Native Hawaiian bills that are working their way through the legislature.

State Recognition

Senate Bill 1 (SB1), introduced by Senator Malama Solomon, was passed out of its final Senate Committees and will be crossing over to the House for consideration.  This bill will address a long overdue formal recognition by the State of Hawaii of its indigenous people.

SB1520, introduced by Senator Clayton Hee, also passed out of its final Senate Committee and will be crossing over to the House.  SB 1520 would establish procedures for state recognition of a first nation government similar to what is described in the
Akaka bill, but at the state level.

Past Due Ceded Lands Settlement

SB 984 & HB399, part of the OHA Package of bills, seeks to have the State resolve its long overdue debt to OHA resulting from public land trust revenues unpaid from 11/7/1978 to 7/1/2010.  Both bills failed to make it out of its final committee before the crossover deadline and are now considered “dead” for this session.  However, as anyone who has lobbied the legislature knows, there are ways to resurrect bills from the dead.  The language of either SB984 or HB399 could be inserted into another bill that is still alive, resurrecting it.  So there is still hope of a settlement in this legislative session.  Another alternative is a concurrent resolution which is being considered as I write this column.

Aloha Ke Akua.

LEGISLATIVE LIAISON’S REPORT:

March 2011 KA WAI OLA COLUMN

Native Hawaiians seek clarification on who are the indigenous people of these lands.

`Ano`ai kakou…  I would like to thank OHA’s Beneficiary Advocacy and Empowerment Committee Chair, Trustee John Waihe’e, for appointing me as one of two “Legislative Liaisons” for the 2011 session.  My primary duty is to gather information regarding legislative activities and other matters that may impact OHA and the Hawaiian Community.  I look forward to putting my many years of lobbying experience and strong relationships with legislators to good use.

Two of the most important issues that I am working on are (1) Establishing state recognition for Native Hawaiians; and (2) Resolving the past due ceded land payments from the state.

STATE RECOGNITION

The state legislature has supported the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian governing entity in the 2000 and 2001
sessions by adopting two resolutions.  The state has also recognized the likelihood of a reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity by providing for the transfer of the island of Kahoolawe and its waters to the sovereign Native Hawaiian entity upon its
recognition by the United States and the State of Hawaii (HRS, § 6K-9).

Senate Bill 1 (SB1), introduced by Senator Malama Solomon, suggests that one way for Hawaiians to succeed is to establish Native Corporations similar to those created for Native Alaskans.  SB1520, introduced by Senator Clayton Hee, establishes procedures for state recognition of a first nation government similar to what is described in the Akaka bill, but at the state level.

OHA supports the intent of these efforts and we have offered our suggested amendments to both Senators for consideration.  I urge all those who support this effort to also submit their comments and suggestions to both Senator Hee and Solomon’s offices.  I also ask that everyone who is able to attend the Senate committee hearings on both bills appear in person to testify or at the very least submit written testimony to share their mana’o.

PAST DUE CEDED LANDS SETTLEMENT

SB 984, part of the OHA Package of bills, seeks to have the State resolve its long overdue debt to OHA resulting from public land trust revenues unpaid from 11/7/1978 to 7/1/2010.

If enacted, SB 984 will establish the debt at $200 million minimally and provide for annual payments of at least $30 million
beginning July 1, 2015 until the debt is paid.  SB 984 would also require the State to pay interest to OHA beginning July 1, 2010.

Instead of cash payments, the state executive branch could also substitute land (having the fair market value of the cash for
which the land is being substituted) for all or any part of the cash payments.  The transfer of land could start as soon as July
1, 2011 with OHA’s approval.

Senator Hee’s 2009 legislation, SB995, would have given OHA the right to choose from the following properties, among several
others:

(1)  Kaka’ako Makai;

(2)  Kahana Valley and Beach Park;

(3)  La Mariana and Pier 60;

(4)  Heeia meadowlands;

(5)  Mauna Kea: Mauna Kea Scientific Reserve;

(6)  Waikiki Yacht Club;

(7)  Ala Wai Boat Harbor Complex; and

(8)  Kalaeloa Makai.

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

Aloha Ke Akua.

Setting the record straight about the sale of ceded lands

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: November 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Supreme Court, legislative update

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, May 2009

At the writing of this column, 15 days before it goes to print, Senate Bill 1677 is the only surviving bill that would provide any protection to ceded lands from being sold or exchanged. While it does not provide the complete moratorium that we wanted, it does require a majority vote of both the House and Senate to disapprove the sale or exchange of ceded lands. It also requires that the community be briefed regarding the location of the lands prior to its sale or exchange.

Unfortunately, State Attorney General Mark Bennett and House Speaker Calvin Say are now holding the bill hostage in an attempt to browbeat the OHA trustees into dropping our lawsuit to stop any further sale of ceded lands. SB 1677 has been deferred from the final vote on third reading for four days in the House. Governor Linda Lingle has made it clear that she will not sign the bill unless we drop our case.

Both Lingle and Bennett do not have any interest in doing what is right for Native Hawaiians. If the Lingle administration truly won the recent Supreme Course case, like Bennett has bragged about in the media, why do they want us to drop the case while it’s being reconsidered by the Hawaii Supreme Court? Also, if they really don’t intend to sell or exchange any ceded lands in the near future, why won’t they just pass SB 1677 instead of threatening to kill it? So much for the Governor’s commitment to Native Hawaiians.

There is NO reason for OHA to drop the case at this point because the Senate will most likely not accept the House’s changes to SB 1677 and we would just end up dropping the case for nothing. And settling the case with the Lingle administration without a moratorium on the sale of ceded lands would only anger our beneficiaries. We would also be sending the wrong message to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

THE RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION

In its recent decision on March 31, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the ceded-lands case back to the Hawaii Supreme Court for further deliberations. Many assertions have been made in the media, and I want to clarify all of the misinformation out there. Here is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said:

1) The federal Apology Resolution did not impose a duty on the State of Hawaii to refrain from selling ceded lands.

2) OHA had argued that the Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling relied mainly on state law and only referred to the Apology Resolution for its facts concerning the ongoing reconciliation process. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with OHA and concluded that the Hawaii Supreme Court did in fact rely on the Apology Resolution when it prohibited the sale of ceded lands.

3) However, the U.S. Supreme Court did recognize that existing state laws could serve as the basis for the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision to prohibit the sale of ceded lands.

4) The Court also recognized that the Hawaii State Legislature has the authority to resolve the status of the ceded lands.

5) They also said that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to decide whether, as a matter of state law, Native Hawaiians have rights related to ceded lands. In other words, they said they don’t have the right, under Hawaii Constitution, to prohibit the sale of ceded lands until the status of those lands is definitively resolved through the state political process.

It is difficult for me to understand how the State Attorney General can claim this decision is a victory for the Lingle administration. If the Hawaii Supreme Court decides that state law provides an independent basis for the prohibition on the sale of ceded lands, and I am confident they will, there will be no reason for us to go back before the U.S. Supreme Court and this lawsuit will finally come to an end ñ with OHA and its beneficiaries winning in the end.

SETTLEMENT BILLS

In my last column, I wrote about Senate Bill 995 and House Bill 901, which attempts to resolve claims and disputes relating to the portion of income and proceeds from the lands of the public land trust for use by OHA between Nov. 7, 1978, and July 1, 2009. I wrote that I favored the Senate’s version of the bill because it would convey Mauna Kea to OHA, along with several other parcels of land. The House version did not include Mauna Kea. At the time of this writing, is seems that HB 901 has died and only SB 995 will survive to the final conferencing stage of the legislative process.

House Settlement Proposal

On March 18, 2009, the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs amended the Senate’s bill by (1) deleting the conveyance of all parcels to OHA except those in Kaka’ako Makai; and (2) inserting $200 million as the amount owed by the State to OHA.

On March 23, 2009, the joint House Committees on Water, Land & Ocean Resources and Judiciary amended this bill by deleting the requirement to transfer the management and control of the conveyed parcels to a sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the United States and the State.

Senate Settlement Proposal

On March 27, 2009, the Senate Committee on Water, Land, Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs amended the House’s version of the bill by adding language that would allow OHA and the State to reach a “global settlement” of the past and future obligations of the State to Native Hawaiians. The Committee felt that the proposal made by Gov. Ben Cayetano back in March 31, 1999, is a sensible and appropriate approach toward a “global settlement” and that it should be re‑offered to OHA.

Please note that a global settlement DOES NOT include natural resources, water and gathering rights or any other rights. The settlement would include both land and money. In my view, it would be a great opportunity for us to finally have the resources to build a strong nation.

The Senate’s “global settlement” offer includes: (A) Monetary payment to OHA of $251 million; (B) Conveyance of public lands from the State to OHA equal to 20 percent of the 1.8 million acres of ceded lands already inventoried; and (C) The suspension of the $15.1 million in annual payments to OHA effective upon a date to be agreed upon in good faith between the State and OHA.

OHA has to make a decision to accept or reject the “global settlement” (which means land and money only ñ this does not include rights to natural and mineral resources, gathering rights, etc.) and notify the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of its decision in writing on or before Jan. 1, 2010. Any failure to properly and timely respond to the “global settlement” offer shall be deemed to be a rejection of the “global settlement.”

If a “global settlement” cannot be reached, Part II of the measure sets forth the Legislature’s approach to alternatively address the issue regarding past obligations only. The dollar value of $200 million represents the amount agreed to between OHA and Governor Lingle regarding the resources that should be provided for the period between Nov. 7, 1978, and July 1, 2008. The Committee felt that $200 million for the past obligations is a fair and reasonable payment.

At the discretion of OHA, payment of the $200 million may be accomplished by either: (A) A $200 million monetary payment; (B) Conveyance of properties in the public land trust with a combined tax assessed value of $200 million; or (C) A combination of cash payments and conveyance of properties totaling $200 million.

If OHA chooses to accept a $200 million monetary payment, it must notify the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of its decision in writing by Jan. 1, 2010. Failure of OHA to respond to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House by Jan. 1, 2010, shall be deemed to be a rejection of OHA’s right to accept the $200 million monetary payment option.

The current $15.1 million in annual payments from the State to OHA shall remain uninterrupted for FYs 2009-10 and 2010-11.

In either settlement option, the specific public lands that are to be conveyed by the State to OHA is to be determined by negotiation between the Governor and OHA with reasonable diligence, in good faith, and shall be completed on or before Jan. 1, 2015, unless mutually extended by the State and OHA. OHA and the Governor’s Office are required to submit a report on the status of the negotiations to the Legislature no later than 20 days prior to the convening of the 2010 regular session.

CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS

While the legislative session will be over by the time of printing, I still encourage all of you to let your elected officials know that you support Senate’s version of the settlement bill and that you want a complete moratorium on the sale or exchange of ceded lands. The legislative process is a long one and if the bills fail to pass this year, they will still be alive and will come up again next year. It is truly unfortunate that some of our elected officials need to be constantly reminded about doing the right thing.  Aloha Ke Akua.

U.S. Supreme Court & Legislative Update

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: May 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

At the writing of this column, 15-days before it goes to print, Senate Bill 1677 is the only surviving bill that would provide any protection to ceded lands from being sold or exchanged.  While it does not provide the complete moratorium that we wanted, it does require a majority vote of both the House and Senate to disapprove the sale or exchange of ceded lands.  It also requires that the community be briefed regarding the location of the lands prior to its sale or exchange.

Unfortunately, State Attorney General Mark Bennett and House Speaker Calvin Say are now holding the bill hostage in an attempt to brow-beat the OHA trustees into dropping our lawsuit to stop any further sale of ceded lands.  SB1677 has been deferred from the final vote on third reading for four days in the House.  Governor Linda Lingle has made it clear that she will not sign the bill unless we drop our case.

Both Lingle and Bennett do not have any interest in doing what is right for Native Hawaiians.  If the Lingle administration truly won the recent Supreme Course case, like Bennett has bragged about in the media, why do they want us to drop the case while it’s being reconsidered by the Hawaii Supreme Court?  Also, if they really don’t intend to sell or exchange any ceded lands in the near future, why won’t they just pass SB1677 instead of threatening to kill it?  So much for the Governor’s commitment to Native Hawaiians.

There is NO reason for OHA to drop the case at this point because the Senate will most likely not accept the House’s changes to SB 1677 and we would just end-up dropping the case for nothing.  And settling the case with the Lingle administration without a moratorium on the sale of ceded lands would only anger our beneficiaries.  We would also be sending the wrong message to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

THE RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION

In its recent decision on March 31, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the ceded-lands case back to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court for further deliberations.  Many assertions have been made in the media, and I want to clarify all of the misinformation out there.  Here is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said:

  1. The federal Apology Resolution did not impose a duty on the State of Hawaii to refrain from selling ceded lands.
  2. OHA had argued that the Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling relied mainly on state law and only referred to the Apology Resolution for its facts concerning the ongoing reconciliation process.  The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with OHA and concluded that the Hawaii Supreme Court did in fact rely on the Apology Resolution when it prohibited the sale of ceded lands.
  3. However, the U.S. Supreme Court did recognize that existing state laws could serve as the basis for the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision to prohibit the sale of ceded lands.
  4. The Court also recognized that the Hawaii State Legislature has the authority to resolve the status of the ceded lands.
  5. They also said that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to decide whether, as a matter of state law, Native Hawaiians have rights related to Ceded Lands.  In other words, they said they don’t have the right, under Hawaii Constitution, to prohibit the sale of ceded lands until the status of those lands is definitively resolved through the state political process.

It is difficult for me to understand how the State Attorney General can claim this decision is a victory for the Lingle administration.  If the Hawaii Supreme Court decides that state law provides an independent basis for the prohibition on the sale of ceded lands, and I am confident they will, there will be no reason for us to go back before the U.S. Supreme Court and this lawsuit will finally come to an end – with OHA and its beneficiaries winning in the end.

SETTLEMENT BILLS

In my last article I wrote about Senate Bill 995 and House Bill 901, which attempts to resolve claims and disputes relating to the portion of income and proceeds from the lands of the public land trust for use by OHA between 11/7/1978 and 7/1/2009.  I wrote that I favored the Senate’s version of the bill because it would convey Mauna Kea to OHA, along with several other parcels of land.  The House version did not include Mauna Kea.  At the time of this writing, is seems that HB 901 has died and only SB 995 will survive to the final conferencing stage of the legislative process.

House Settlement Proposal

On March 18, 2009, the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs amended the Senate’s bill by (1) deleting the conveyance of all parcels to OHA except those in Kaka’ako Makai; and (2) inserting $200,000,000 as the amount owed by the State to OHA.

On March 23, 2009 the joint House Committees on Water, Land, & Ocean Resources and Judiciary amended this bill by deleting the requirement to transfer the management and control of the conveyed parcels to a sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the United States and the State.

Senate Settlement Proposal

On March 27, 2009, the Senate Committee on Water, Land, Agriculture, and Hawaiian Affairs amended the House’s version of the bill by adding language that would allow OHA and the State to reach a “global settlement” of the past and future obligations of the State to Native Hawaiians.  The Committee felt that the proposal made by Governor Ben Cayetano back in March 31, 1999 is a sensible and appropriate approach toward a “global settlement” and that it should be re‑offered to OHA. 

Please note that a global settlement DOES NOT include natural resources, water and gathering rights or any other rights.  The settlement would include both land and money.  In my view, it would be a great opportunity for us to finally have the resources to build a strong nation.

The Senate’s “global settlement” offer includes:  (A) Monetary payment to OHA of $251 million; (B) Conveyance of public lands from the State to OHA equal to twenty per cent of the 1.8 million acres of ceded lands already inventoried; and (C) The suspension of the $15.1 million in annual payments to OHA effective upon a date to be agreed upon in good faith between the State and OHA.

OHA has to make a decision to accept or reject the “global settlement” (which means land & money only – this does not include rights to natural and mineral resources, gathering rights, etc.) and notify the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of its decision in writing on or before January 1, 2010.  Any failure to properly and timely respond to the “global settlement” offer shall be deemed to be a rejection of the “global settlement.”

If a “global settlement” cannot be reached, Part II of the measure sets forth the Legislature’s approach to alternatively address the issue regarding past obligations only.  The dollar value of $200 million represents the amount agreed to between OHA and Governor Lingle regarding the resources that should be provided for the period between November 7, 1978, and July 1, 2008.  The Committee felt that $200 million for the past obligations is a fair and reasonable payment.

At the discretion of OHA, payment of the $200 million may be accomplished by either:  (A) A $200 million monetary payment; (B) Conveyance of properties in the public land trust with a combined tax assessed value of $200 million; or (C) A combination of cash payments and conveyance of properties totaling $200 million.

If OHA chooses to accept a $200 million monetary payment, it must notify the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of its decision in writing by January 1, 2010.  Failure of OHA to respond to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House by January 1, 2010, shall be deemed to be a rejection of OHA ‘ right to accept the $200 million monetary payment option.

The current $15.1 million in annual payments from the State to OHA shall remain uninterrupted for FYs 2009-10 and 2010-11.

In either settlement option, the specific public lands that are to be conveyed by the State to OHA is to be determined by negotiation between the Governor and OHA with reasonable diligence, in good faith, and shall be completed on or before January 1, 2015, unless mutually extended by the State and OHA.  OHA and the Governor’s Office are required to submit a report on the status of the negotiations to the Legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of the 2010 Regular Session.

CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS

While the legislative session will be over by the time of printing, I still encourage all of you to let your elected officials know that you support Senate’s version of the settlement bill and that you want a complete moratorium on the sale or exchange of ceded lands.  The legislative process is a long one and if the bills fail to pass this year, they will still be alive and will come up again next year.  It is truly unfortunate that some of our elected officials need to be constantly reminded about doing the right thing.  Aloha Ke Akua.

State of Hawai’i v. OHA: Showdown in Washington, D.C.

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: March 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  In 1994, OHA joined Pia Thomas Aluli, Jonathan Kamakawiwo’ole Osorio, Charles Ka’ai’ai and Keoki Kamaka Ki’ili in suing the State of Hawai’i to prevent it from selling ceded lands.  At that time, the State was about to sell nearly 500 acres in Lāhaina in a project called Leiali’i and another 1,000 acres in Kona in a project referred to as La’i’ōpua.  The lawsuit argued that the State, as trustee of the ceded land trust, should not sell ceded lands until Native Hawaiian claims to ceded lands had been resolved.

In 2002, Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna ruled in favor of the State and held that the State was authorized under the Admission Act to sell ceded lands.  Then, in January, 2008, the Hawai’i Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the lower court decision, and held that in light of the Apology Resolution and similar State legislation, the State possessed a fiduciary duty to preserve the corpus of the Public Land Trust, specifically, the ceded lands, until such time as the unrelinquished claims of the Native Hawaiians have been resolved.

The Lingle administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and in October of 2008, the court said it would hear the case.  OHA has asked the Lingle administration to withdraw its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but they refused to budge.  Oral arguments before the court in Washington, D.C., are scheduled for February 25, 2009.

The Supreme Court will specifically look at whether the Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893, Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii strips the State of Hawaii of its authority to sell lands ceded to it by the federal government until it reaches a political settlement with the Native Hawaiians about the status of those lands.

The stakes could not be higher for us since the U.S. Supreme Court could rule that all ceded lands are the property of the State of Hawaii and end up undermining all Native Hawaiian programs and assets as well as the legal basis for federal recognition.

What could possibly be motivating Governor Lingle to want to sell ceded lands?  Why can’t she just offer 99-year leases like the provisional and territorial governments after the overthrow?  A cynical person might conclude that it must have something to do with her political career.  It’s also not hard to imagine that the urgent move to sell ceded lands is probably motivated by developers who are promising great things for her political future.

It is also shameful that the State of Hawaii has to rely on native lands in order to continue operating.  It has been far too easy for this state to rob our native resources to balance its budget.

Thankfully, OHA will not be alone in Washington.  Among those filing legal briefs in opposition to the Lingle administration’s appeal are:  Abigail Kawananakoa, former Gov. John Waihee, former Hawai’i Supreme Court Chief Justice William Richardson, Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, the entire Hawai’i congressional delegation, the Equal Justice Society, the Japanese American Citizens League, and the National Congress of American Indians.

Most of the briefs ask the U.S. Supreme Court to not hear the case, arguing that it is better to deal with the issue at the state level.  Others argued that the court shouldn’t get involved since there wouldn’t be a substantial federal impact.  The briefs also argue that the Hawai’i courts did not say that the Apology Resolution itself provided us with any rights or claims, but it did recognize that we have unrelinquished claims over the ceded lands and that it foresaw our future reconciliation of those claims with the state and federal governments.

Abigail Kawananakoa wrote that “The State of Hawai’i has trust obligations to Native Hawaiians that are in the process of being reconciled by the nonjudicial branches of government.  The trust and moral obligations of the State of Hawai’i arise from Hawai’i’s complex history.”

Equal Justice Society and Japanese American Citizens League wrote that since the U.S. has admitted that the 1893 overthrow was illegal, “the ceded lands hold unique cultural, spiritual and political significance for the Native Hawaiian people — they are not fungible or replaceable.”

The U.S. solicitor general and attorneys general for 29 states have filed briefs in support of Governor Lingle’s position.  The briefs argue that the Hawai’i Supreme Court misinterpreted the Apology Resolution and that preventing a state from selling, transferring or exchanging state lands would hurt not only the state but also all of its citizens.

The Native Hawaiian Caucus of the Hawaii State Legislature is trying to head-off the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 25th hearing by quickly passing a law that would stop all sales of ceded lands.  Senate President Hanabusa has even proposed a compromise that would allow the sale of ceded lands, but only with the approval of two-thirds vote of both the State House and State Senate.

All of the OHA trustees have been encouraged to attend the oral arguments and I am planning to attend.  I have no doubt that we will prevail because I believe the US Supreme Court will clearly see that the Governor Lingle’s claims are not only historically wrong but also morally bankrupt.  Aloha Ke Akua.

Legislative Update: OHA versus UH for control over Mauna Kea

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: March 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  I call out in a kahea for all Hawaiians and the people of Hawaii to oppose the University of Hawaii’s management of Mauna Kea and to support Senate Bill 995, SD2, which would give OHA ownership of our sacred mountain.

SB995 SD2 attempts to resolve claims and disputes relating to the portion of income and proceeds from the lands of the public land trust for use by OHA between 11/7/1978 and 7/1/2009.  This bill also conveys Mauna Kea to OHA, along with other parcels of land.  The House version of the above bill (HB901 HD2) does not include Mauna Kea.  It passed third reading on 3/10/2009 and has crossed over to the Senate.  At the time of the writing of this article, the board has not taken an “official” position on SB995 SD2. 

During the Cayetano administration, OHA was offered 20% of all ceded lands and $150 million in cash.  Five OHA board members refused the offer.  Two of those members are still on the OHA board.  In Governor Cayetano’s recent book, he speaks to the foolishness of those board members and refers to the events as a “missed opportunity” for OHA.  SB995 SD2 offers OHA another opportunity to redeem itself.

Efforts to Transfer Total Control of Mauna Kea to UH

HB1174 HD3 would allow the University of Hawaii’s Board of Regents (BOR) to adopt administrative rules to regulate public and commercial activities on Mauna Kea lands that UH leases from the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR).  The bill, in its current form does the following: (1) It requires the BOR to establish procedures to enforce these rules; (2) allows UH to collect administrative fines for violations of these rules; and (3) Establishes the Mauna Kea Management Special Fund for the deposit and use of these revenues.

KAHEA, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Sierra Club Hawaii Island Chapter, Royal Order of Kamehameha I, and numerous concerned individuals opposed this measure.  OHA originally opposed the first version of the bill, but now supports the bill with amendments.

In her February 3, 2009 testimony to the House Committee on Higher Education, KAHEA Program Director Marti Townsend strongly opposed HB 1174 for the following reasons:

  • “Mauna Kea lands leased by the University are ‘ceded’ lands.  Granting this authority to the University will violate the Supreme Court’s ruling in OHA v. HCDCH.  With this bill, the Lingle Administration is seeking to transfer ceded land protected by the public lands trust from the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to the University of Hawaii.”
  • “Mauna Kea lands are public trust lands that must be managed by the landlord (BLNR), not the University, who is a mere lease-holder. State law requires that public trust lands be leased at fair market value for the benefit of the people of Hawaii, not the lease-holder.” 
  • “According to current state law, ceded lands are managed and administered by DLNR. See, HRS sec. 171-3. This bill seeks to transfer the ceded lands of Mauna Kea from DLNR to the University by granting the University ‘authority to manage and control public activities on the Mauna Kea lands.’ This is the exact same type of agency-to-agency transferred deemed illegal by the Supreme Court in OHA v. HCDCH and therefore should not be allowed by the state Legislature.” 
  • “The University’s activities on Mauna Kea have exploited, destroyed, and desecrated irreplaceable natural and cultural resources on the summit.  Mauna Kea’s Hawaiian alpine desert is unlike any other place in the world.  It is home to many Hawaiian endemic species some are found only on Mauna Kea!  Multiple reports, audits, and lawsuits have confirmed that the University’s telescope activities have violated the law and continue to destroy the natural and cultural resources of Mauna Kea.” 
  • “In multiple reviews of the University’s activities on the summit, the Hawaii State Auditor found that UH’s management of Mauna Kea is ‘inadequate to ensure the protection of natural resources’ and ‘neglected …the cultural value of Mauna Kea.’ Their report stated that UH’s Institute for Astronomy ‘focused primarily on the development of Mauna Kea and tied the benefits gained to its research program,’ and that its focus on telescope construction has been ‘at the expense of neglecting the site’s natural resources.’” 
  • “The University will use this authority to limit public access to the summit, regulate when and how Hawaiians worship on the summit, and expand telescope construction on the summit.” 
  • “For 30 years, the University has failed to pay the fair market rent to the State for its subleases to foreign countries and corporations that own telescopes atop Mauna Kea, as required by HRS sec. 171. This means the University owes the people of Hawaii back rent for the numerous telescope and support structures on the sacred summit.” 
  • “Unfortunately, the University has never accounted for the profits it has gained from its destructive use of Mauna Kea. According to a report to the UH Board of Regents in 1994, however, the University enjoyed at least $60 million annually in benefits from its use of Mauna Kea. In 2001, the University admitted to the Legislature that the work conducted on Mauna Kea earned $8 million a year just from the patent-lease contracts with defense contractors like Raytheon.” 
  • “Surprisingly, during this time of debilitating economic crisis, the University is not paying this back-rent to the State. Instead in this bill it is proposing to establish a special fund that would allow it to pocket all of the profits from the use of Mauna Kea lands, bypassing the general fund altogether. The University is literally seeking the Legislature’s approval to rob the people of Hawaii.”

On March 10, 2009, it passed third reading in the House with eleven (11) Representatives (Belatti, Berg, Brower, Carroll, Hanohano, C. Lee, Luke, McKelvey, Saiki, Shimabukuro, and Thielen) voting no and has crossed over to the Senate.

I will continue to keep you updated on these bills as they make their way through the second half of the legislative session.  In the meantime, I encourage each of you to call your elected officials and let them know how you feel about these important pieces of legislation.  Aloha Ke Akua.