Ke Alahou, Volume I, Number 2, 1 December 1979 — Legislative Audit of Hawaiian Home Lands Criticized [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Legislative Audit of Hawaiian Home Lands Criticized

Kuhalahala hou i ke Keena o ka Aina Hoopulapula "E nai wale no oukou i kuu pono, aole pau."

" Ua hoopuka i ka palapala hooia aka Ahaolelo kaukanawai no ke Keena oka Aina Hoopulapula ma ka mahina aku nei. A pai ia iloko o na nupepa kakahiaka ame ahiahi ma Honolulu nei he moolelo me ka poomanao kahaha. Ua kuhalahala no ka Luna hooia i ke Keena o ka Aina Hoopulapula no ka mea ua loaa ka poillikia iloko o ka palapala helu ame ka Hoōponopono ana o ke Keena a hiki i ka manawa o June 30, 1978. Aole e hoopau i ka palapala hooia, wahi a ka Luna hooia, no ka mea huikau no na palapala helu ame na meai e ae. Alaila, eia no ka pane mai o ka Lima poo o ke Keena o ka Aina hoopulapula ma kela manawa:

Last month, a legislative audit report of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands was released and it made sensational headlines in the two Honolulu English dailies. The audit was critical of the accounting audit financial managing of the DHHL as of June 30,1978, The exammation of loan funds, for example, was not reported upon or completed because the auditors found the records "not in auditable condition." In response to such an audit, former director Billie Beamer prepared the following response: Our sole objective was to refute the image of inefficiency, to put our house in order, to be a

source of pride to the Hawaiian people. We were to accomplish this by being forthright, honest fair and consistent. The beneficiaries interest was always our overriding concern. We would work as hard as we could to the best of our abilites (and we were capable of) to place as many people on the land as possible. People who had been waiting too long! While doing this we would press for corrective legislation. The fulmaination of dissatisfaction directed to the Hawaiian Home Commission are not new They have been in a constant state of war. The Commission defends itself against the law makers, attorney generals, other departments. the applicants and homesteaders, while the public watches with disinterest. The Commission has been the scapegoat The rece legislative audit followed the same pattern by habit. not research. If the audit reflected the conditions of the department in 1975 I would have no recourse but to agree. I unequivocally dispute its findings as of 1978. I will not permit anyone to cast a cloud of doubt over the accomplishments of the department based on the flndings of this dishonest document, I will not permit

anyone to undermine the years of labor, of care, dedication, and nobl'e efforts of volunteers who tediously updated and audi|e"d every single file in that department, No one will demean a staff who were motivated to give devotedly ancT"professionally every ounee of their talent. mept could not even start to afford payment to them for the extra hours of work that they put in to create a model operation. The Hawaiians have every right to be proud of the Commission and the staff. This is not an area in whieh they have question the quality of our work nor the dedication. We operated the department as a business in whieh we all had a "personal cpncerp that it be successful. We were accōuntable in al of our actions and honest in all dealings. We were prudent with expenditures and personal funds*oT many werē used tp finance busihess expenses. The manpower requirement to manage all the responsibitities assigned to the department wa triple the staff available to us even with complēte mechanization, and we had none. ' Our financia! management was supreme: two Certified Public Accountants served as Fiscal Officers'in successive terms. We increased our land revenues by $500,000 and our earnings from investments increased $150.000. Our reconciliation involved more than 50 jcpillion dollars in transactions and hād only two remaining aecounts to reconciTe. The 1978 Audit shou!d real!y have beēn called the Audit of 1975 as the aiiditors !eft in 1975 and did not return until Decēmber of 1978 visit. Therefore, the indictment is misplaced and-an apoldgy to the Hawaiians is in ordex- ■ I will not tolerate the condescension and unwarranted disgrace to a program regurgitated from a biased, inaccurate, imprecise, and capricious audit. I happen to care about thē program and I happen to be a very proud and aware partHawaiian American. I am plain sick and tired of the political manipulations and the Machiavellian use of the Hawaiian Homes Commission as a scapegoat for the unscrupulous and their followers. Throughout the history of the Hawaiian Homes Program. | it has been mueh too convenient to b!ame the Commission and department for the shortcomings. The same old tacti©«s were tragically repeated years after years for l k a century: always pitting Hawaiian against Hawaiian to obscure the real scoundrels. Then, condescendingly treating the Hawaiians ās the 'sacred eow' and parading his image for Hawaii's benefit; using him as a marketing tool; tolerating him between the sale blitzes and cajoling him when he his needed again as a ceremonial showpiece. If anyone's credibility is challenged let me assure the public it is not the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands or the Hawaiian people. ! question the credibility of the researcher, the historical parade of law makers and those who perpetuate the obsolescent ethnic stereotyping. ' The DHHL is the most studied department in ' the state. One would thiiik a change would have . taken plaee after so many studies and so mueh public vivisection. The eall for audits were ploys, delaying tactics to justify no action, to pretend eoneem or to divert attention to the Commission. Isnt it odd that no studies bratantly chastised the government for encroachment on 29J300 acres of Hawaiian Home Lands. Isn't it odd that no one questioned why the government was not paying its bill to HHLs whieh records a 99% delinquency rate. If precision is required of DHHL lessees then why not of the government? Headlines register indignation of the HHC !easing lands to non-Hawaiians for 50C ah acre. yet the same headlines also herald to the fact that thc land board lrased these lands when"it man-

agedthelandsfortheCommissionyearsago. Let the record also reflect that the boārd issued these leases for 65 and 50 years with reopenings at the 20th and 25th years. Let the media also revēal that the governme'nt pays an average of 12 cēnts jper acre for the Hawaiian Home Lands it uses. Tell thē public also that the Commission has no clout. To whom does a Commissidn turn when it exercises its responsibilities and denies a requēst by another government department'lo use any more of HHLs only to find that that same department arrogantly ignores the Commission's decision. Without permission that department simply ffioved on the land and pa ved t'he area for a pa?kiog facility. '/ Pnnee KuHlo, father of the Hawaiian Hornes Commission Act, accurately envisioned that the land would be the departmentVgreatēst asset. Kuhio was adamant in his stand that the program * should not be a ward of the state — the land was to be leveraged. 'However s when HHLs appreciated in value and were in demand for use they were seized by the government iri exchange for mountaintops and swamps. Other lands.were siniply withdrawn by executive privilege. The Commission had no say in these /natters. Imagine the revenues that could have been accruing to the department all these years from a Kawaihae Harbor, a Sea Life Park, the Hilo, Kamuela and

Molokai Airports to name a few. I keep getting the same feed back that the Hawaiian Homes is an Hawaiian problem. They say tell the Hawaiians to get their act together then we will make a decision. The Hawaiians are not even a pliirality. The program is dependent on direction by a majofity of non-Hawaiian decision markers. Does the legislature eall for a plebiscite when it makes other decisions? Another excuse offered is that to tamper with the legislation might challenge its constitutionality and threaten the program. The State Land Reform Act flouts the constitutional rights of private land owners when we are so posSessed by conviction that every man should have the opportunity to purchasehis land in fee. How does the state "justify the right to cōndemn private lands to allow fee ownership for homeowners, then in turn refuses to ehampion that same privilege of ownership to its own leaseholders? This sameact specifically excludesthelesseeson HHLs from the right to petition for fee ownership. Ignore the stultifying aspects of a law whieh discourages* hunlan developmeriTwith disincentives to improye. This is graphically evidencedby the auditor who questioned the right of a Hawaiian eaming $1400 per month [a non-property owner] a award. This patronizing interpretation of ihe law tacitly M Stay poor, and we'll take care of you' 1 — be damrled afJii3 self respect. A smug attitude "aßounds _that the wor!d bas_ *changed for ēveryon'e but tjje Hawaiians. There is but one all have, be vve Hawaiians or otherwise. Beneve it or not, we belong \o the race. We have. the same range of capabilities. Tlie goaris frēedom. Freedora to fail and learn from our mistakēs if we wish. Freedom to succeed if the drive prevails. • Freedom td make »ithese jegTsibns bn the land reserved for the 6omestelcfers is important for them as itis fo'r those of us wbo do no* qūalify for tHis inheritance. „

Beamer

BiJiie Beamer