Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 15, Number 5, 1 May 1998 — To choose a trustee or not to choose [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

To choose a trustee or not to choose

THERE HAS been mueh puhlie criticism of the OHA board's failure to select an interim trustee to replace the late Billie Beamer. We had a great opportunity to make a difficult decision, but, instead, we let an impasse prevail. Why? From the very start, the process was doomed because there was never any free discussion allowed. In that first meeting on Feb. 20, the chairperson proposed a process. While this process was a start, there were no provisions in the chair's proposals that were realistic: • Eaeh trustee could only select two names; • Eaeh trustee could only ask one question; • The ad hoe committee eonsisted of the whole board. | We acknowledged that the process was a start, but we should have been consulted. We

offered an alternative suggestion: • The ad hoe committee should consist of four trustees, two from eaeh side; • Any number of qualified individuals should be allowed to apply to the ad hoe committee; • The ad hoe committee would eompile a list of nominees to be recommended to the Board of Trustees. This alternative failed. The chair proceeded to fīle the same agenda with the lieutenant governor's office for five consecutive meetings. This left no leeway for any new suggestions. In the "back-and-forth" that ensued, there was never any real discussion about the issues behind the disagreement. Comments were allowed, but discussion on the real substance of the issues usually met with parliamentary maneuvering to cut dis-

cussion short. We convened 11 board meetings to select an interim trustee, and 58 candidates voluntarily submitted themselves for consideration. We whittled the list from 58 to 11, based on five-minute presentations allowed to eaeh candidate (without any opportunity for questions from the trustees). Then we selected two from the

..■ •! - list of 1 1 because they had received more than one vote eaeh. But behind this seemingly "open" process of selection, discussion of these candidates never occurred. We were deadlocked on two candidates. In the time that followed, only Trustee Springer, from the DeSoto group, was open to discuss our situation and plight. We needed a compromise candidate. Trustee Springer understood that and was open to an alternative whieh had merit. We both agreed that nominating the person with the next highest number of votes in the same election where Trustee Billie Beamer was elected, was a reasonable solution. This person would represent the people's ehoiee, and there could not be any rational argument against this candidate (assuming one is rational). We were willing to give up Dr. Kimura, and five of us (Aiona, Akana, Hee, Keale and Springer) were willing to support this compromise candi-

date so that the board could get back to business. But the chairperson (Trustee Frenchy DeSoto), the vice-chairperson (Trustee Haunani Apoliona), and Trustee Colette Machado would not budge. It seems they wanted it their way; the opportunity to reach consensus was lost. The chair and vicechair should be asked why they were unwilling to select an alternative candidate. Could it possibly be that in selecting a wild card to fill the vacancy, there would be a shift in power? I am sure our beneficiaries are akamai enough to know that the chairperson's public display of dismay and hopelessness was just an act. Our beneficiaries would be better served had Mrs. DeSoto ehosen acting as her career goal. This reluctance of three trustees to compromise makes us all look ridiculous. A board ean only succeed when its decisions are based on merit rather than politics. ■

tK wm m x W'm - wm3>- -• TRUSTEE MESSAGES - • * ' *" '■ * k. •••: •.. '. ; , ' •■ ■

[?]