Hawai’i Supreme Court

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.

Governor trying to strongarm ceded land deal

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter to the Editor, The Maui News, April 18, 2009

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 the Office of Hawaiian Affairs wanted, it does require a majority vote of both the House and Senate to approve 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 against any further sale of ceded lands. At this writing, SB1677 has been deferred from the final vote on third reading for four days in the House. Gov. Linda Lingle has made it clear that she will not sign the bill unless we drop our case.

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. 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.

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 100^th 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 25^th 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.

Too Little, Too Late

By: Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Letter sent to Star Bulletin Editor on February 8, 2008

I am writing to correct the errors that were made by the Chairperson of the Office of Hawaiian Affiars and other trustees in their Feb. 7^th letter.

First, the letter twists the facts by stating that I rejected former Governor Cayetano’s offer in 1999 while I was serving as the Chairperson of OHA.

What really happened is that the full board voted to reject Cayetano’s first offer, which was much less than the $251 million he later offered, for the past due amounts owed to OHA from 1980.

OHA and the state were also discussing a prospective offer of 20% or 365,000 acres of ceded lands, if OHA would settle on all land claims against the state in the future. This offer would not have included any ocean resources, or any other resource, that the Hawaiian people would be entitled to.

OHA was not able to consider Cayetano’s second offer because five trustees, who include currently serving trustees Haunani Apoliona and Colette Machado, voted to end all negotiations. OHA’s attorney at the time, James E. Duffy, Jr., now a Hawaii Supreme Court Justice, repeatedly advised the trustees to continue the negotiations, but they rejected his advice.

The $251 million that Cayetano offered in 1999 would be worth more than double today if it were properly invested and the 365,000 acres of ceded lands would have meant economic self-sufficiency and a better negotiating position for the Akaka bill.

I believe that Apoliona and Machado wanted to end negotiations because they did not want any credit to go to our negotiating team, which was made up of myself and former trustees Clayton Hee and Mililani Trask.

Apoliona and Machado thought they could negotiate their own deal, one that would serve as their legacy, but nine years later all they could come up with is a watered-down version of our previous deal that we now see before the legislature. Their short-sightedness caused OHA to pay dearly a year later when the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Rice decision.

Later, the Hawaii Supreme Court threw out Act 304 and suggested that the remedy must now be sought at the legislature. I believe this decision was made by the court because OHA walked away from the negotiating table after the Hawaii Supreme Court had asked OHA and the state to negotiate a settlement.

Also, in light of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s recent injunction preventing the state from any future sale or transfer of ceded lands until the claims of Native Hawaiians have been resolved, OHA should really consider whether a better settlement can be negotiated than the one we now have before the legislature.

I encourage anyone who would like to dispute my statements to speak directly to Governor Cayetano, his chief negotiator Sam Callejo, Senator Clayton Hee, or Hawaii Supreme Court Justice James Duffy. I also have signed documents from the 1999 negotiations to back up what I have written.

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

Hawaiians’ Court Victories Could be Short-Lived

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
March 14, 1997

Source: Star Bulletin Viewpoint

Bills before Legislature attempt to reverse gains by Hawaiians

Two recent rulings, one from the Hawaii Supreme Court and the other from a Circuit Court, almost convinced Hawaiians that justice is alive and well in our islands.

I am referring to Public Access Shore Hawaii v. County of Hawaii Planning Commission, or the PASH decision, in which Judge Robert Klein held that our “legitimate traditional and customary practices must be protected,” and to OHA v. State of Hawaii in which Judge Dan Heely defined an augmented basis for OHA’s ceded lands revenues. And I say almost convinced us because of two bills recently referred out of committee this legislative session.

The provisions of Senate Bill 8, which would have gutted PASH, are, for this session, history thanks to a massive show of force by the very people the bill’s authors are claiming to benefit. The companion bill in the House had already died in its sleep, Rep. Ed Case, chairman of the Hawaiian Affairs Committee, having decided the better part of valor would be to defer it indefinitely. Then Case, a descendant of missionaries, determined to live up to the injustices perpetrated by his ancestors, got down to the serious business of voiding the Circuit Court decision in OHA v. State of Hawaii, House Bill 2207.

This monstrous piece of legislation, which revokes language in the Constitution, the Admissions Act, and Act 304, begins with a discussion of how wrongheaded Judge Heely was in misreading the Legislature’s intent when he ruled in OHA’s favor. Unlike the bill that would have nullified PASH, this one got no public hearing at all.

Like PASH, however, it is couched in terms of doing a big favor for everyone, especially OHA.

“It is in the public interest,” the measure reads (not to menton Case’s interest given the clientele his law firm represents), “that existing ambiguities be clarified, judicial misinterpretations of legislative intent be corrected, immediate threats to the state’s overall financial condition be mitigated, the ability of the state to carry out its sovereign functions be preserved, and a mechanism for the resolution of all outstanding issues between the state and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs outside of the litigation process and which involves representatives of both be provided.”

Case would pull all that off through a ceded lands inventory compiled in the state’s favor by the Department of Land and Natural Resources, a basis that excludes many lucrative sources of income, fixed income to OHA far below the currently mandated 20 percent of ceded land revenues, among other mechanisms designed ultimately to reduce Hawaiian entitlements.

Case seriously needs a lesson in contemporary U.S history. As a feature of statehood, the lands currently referred to as ceded were conveyed back to the state by the federal government in trust for the Hawaiian people. For some 20 years, the state barely acknowledged its fiduciary duty to us. This pattern of dereliction continued even when the state Constitution was redrafted and state statutes were enacted to provide for partial compliance with this duty.

I emphasize the word partial because the current system provides for the Hawaiian people to receive only a 20 percent share of one type of revenue these lands yields. OHA had to take the state to court to obtain a modicum of compliance with a duty ignored since 1959. Now it not only balks at obeying a subsequent court order, but wants to overturn it after the fact — not through any process of appeals but by providing that House Bill 2207 be applied to the judge’s decision retroactively.

The law does not look favorably on retroactivity and Case, in spite of his concern that future meetings between the state and OHA take place somewhere other than in court, fully expects OHA to challenge this bill. The bill’s unbelievably amateurish Section 10 seems to presume we will be successful in our attack since it starts off with the clause, “Even if the retroactive effect is held invalid…” The bill then goes on to provide that its statement of the intent of Act 304 is correct no matter what.

In other words, it remains retroactive even if a court says it’s not. While I happen to agree with Case that OHA will prevail in any challenge (including to Section 10), I believe that its most vulnerable feature is not its retroactivity but its fundamental injustice.

But don’t expect House Bill 2207 to die quietly. House Speaker Joe Souki is behind it and so is Calvin Say, Chairman of the House Finance Committee, whose committee members, for the most part, couldn’t be bothered with the hearing on this bill. This is a bill that saw the light of day for one reason: The state cannot pay OHA because it has been squandering the money meant for the Hawaiian people.

If ours were a private trust, instead of a public one, such irresponsibility would not be tolerated. Imagine a well intentioned uncle setting up a trust for his nieces and nephews with their stepfather authorized to administer it. Not a court in the country would allow the stepfather to reduce payments to his beneficiaries while he used their trust income to pay his own expenses as well as the debts he ran up living beyond his means.

Our stepfather/state is just as outrageous, if not worse “I can’t pay you,” the state is trying to tell us, “because I spent all my money and yours, too.” House Bill 2207 must be killed.

Rowena Akana is an at-large trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The opinions in View Point columns are the authors’ and are not necessarily shared by the Star Bulletin.