Joe Souki | Rowena Akana

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.

Privatization: Good Deal or Sellout?

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
March 6, 1998

Another Opportunity for the People…. To Lose!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawaiians Can Make a Difference

By Trustee Rowena Akana
June 9, 1997

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats:

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

Republican:

Marumoto, Barbara; Waialae, Kahala, Wilhelmina Rise

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

Democrats:

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

Republicans:

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

How Legislative Vote Went to Cut Ceded Land Revenues

By Trustee Rowena Akana
March 28, 1997

Source Star Bulletin, Letter to Editor

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Hands Off Ceded Land Revenues

By Trustee Rowena Akana
February 10, 1996

Source Star Bulletin Viewpoint

A wide variety of legal principles and historical events cloud the state’s title as trustee of Hawaiian ceded lands. Even if, purely for the sake of argument, the state were to hold clear title to these lands, countless examples showing a breach of trust responsibilities can be found. These issues, pending court cases, and the future status of ceded lands in a Hawaiian sovereign entity, have yet to be settled. Until then, the state has no right to add another chapter to the long, sad history of Hawaiian land alienation.

Gov. Ben Cayetano has made it clear that he considers Hawaiian entitlements a burden on the state treasury. While ceded land revenues are a mere drop in the bucket in the overall state budget, these revenues are certainly not his to touch in any event. Hawaiians have a right to these revenues, as affirmed and reaffirmed by a variety of laws and legal instruments.

Although it is often stated that we receive 20 percent of state income from ceded lands, our agreement with the state actually gives us much less. Imagine not one but two pools of ceded land revenues — sovereign income and proprietary income. Sovereign income includes the big ticket items like airport landing fees, Duty Free Shop income, income generated by the University of Hawaii, etc. The state holds onto all of this income; the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and its native Hawaiian beneficiaries don’t get a cent of it.

The second pool, proprietary income, involves a considerably smaller amount of money, drawn from land leases and rents of ceded lands. It is this pool from which OHA draws its 20 percent to service the needs of native Hawaiians, as required by the 1959 Admission Act.

It represents not 20 percent of our Hawaiian entitlements but 10 percent (or less) of these two revenue sources.

The state assumed fiduciary obligation upon being admitted as a state in 1959 and Section 5(f) of the Admission Act stipulated that proceeds from the sale or other disposition of ceded lands would be held by the state as a public trust for the support of betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, public schools, agriculture, parks, recreational areas and other lands for public use, and capital improvement projects.

In 1995, Rep. Calvin Say introduced a bill that would have diverted the ceded land revenues of OHA to state capital improvement projects. This would have crippled OHA’s ability to deliver crucial services to the Hawaiian community.

It also would have amounted to double dipping by the state, which already gets 20 percent (the same amount OHA receives) specifically for capital improvement projects. To add insult to injury, Hawaiians already pay their fair share of taxes to pay for such building programs!

Fortunately OHA’s trustees and Hawaiian organizations mobilized quickly and gained the support necessary to kill Say’s bill. Hawaiian entitlements are too vital for us to wait until another crisis situation spurs us to action. Now that the state legislative session is under way, it is in the interest of Hawaiians and Hawaii’s general public not to allow our legislators to take away what little funds OHA and Hawaiians receive.

Say and House Speaker Joe Souki have helped drive our state into the present fiscal fiasco. They try to deflect blame away from themselves with a lot of smoke and hot air. They don’t address the real issues; they invent new ones. They pit Hawaiians against non-Hawaiians by creating an atmosphere of distrust based upon unwarranted fears.

Hawaiians aren’t the only ones at risk here. Every tax-paying citizen of Hawaii will be directly affected by the decisions of lawmakers in 1996. Already there’s talk of increasing our general excise tax. Already there’s talk again of taking away OHA’s funding to pay for capital improvements. Can we allow the state to continue mismanaging our ceded land funds and our hard-earned tax dollars? I think not.

We must protect what little we have, before we all end up like the state — dead broke.

Akana Targets “Anti-Hawaiian” Democrats

By Mike Yuen
May 16, 1991

Source Star Bulletin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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