Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 16, Number 5, 1 May 1999 — OHA and Rice [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

OHA and Rice

RICE VS. CAYETANO\ Three words on the minds of everyone at OHA! As the senior trustee, I have sat in this seat from the very first day that OHA opened for business. I have had the great honor and privilege of being a part of OHA's history. We have overcome many challenges, but this ehallenge is most important of all. A favorable outcome could mean the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority in the land, could, onee and for all, define the relationship between the United States and our Hawaiian people. However, the court could also find against us on this voting issue that, if isolated as such is of small significance. But a more sinister outcome is possible. Legal scholars point out the issue of voting rights might be determined by first considering whether OHA itself is constimtional. What is happening to us after nearly 20 years of existence? Well, it seems inevitable that we would have eventually ended up on this doorstep. Our office is unique and a difficult concept for many

people. It is easy to pay a high price if your wal- | let is fiill. But when the wallet is empty and there are many mouths | to feed, it is very easy to forget your debts, to lose sight of your obligations and to lose your will to ensure justice. Innovative challenges to obligations are nurtured and fertilized. The "will" is challenged and 1 the "resolve" is tested. Over the last 18 years I have said time and aeain that the state and

its attorney general have, and continue to have, conflicting responsibilities in trying to serve both the people of Hawai'i and Native Hawaiians. Rice vi. Cayetano is just one more example of this conflict. Hawaiians cannot afford to have OHA unraveled by this issue, but this very unraveling could be a windfall for the state. In his defense, I applaud Governor Cayetano for calling for the appointment of a special counsel. However, he says

that OHA should pay for this legal specialist. I absolutely agree the issue is so significant that special counsel should be hired and that OHA, with a vested interest in the case, could share this legal expense, but the state should not pass on this responsibility solely to the Hawaiians. One of the reasons OHA was created was to address the state's legal responsibilities to the 1 Hawaiian people. The state is the Diimarv

trustee of the Public Land Trust and by state law has the primary fiduciary responsibility to ensure that no action diminishes the benefits due to Native Hawaiians for their betterment. In this case, the state wears two hats. The governor both defends OHA's constimtionafity and suggests OHA (the Native Hawaiian) should pay for litigating the issue. This dual statement is a familiar one and is unacceptable. Hawaiians are not foreigners. Every

Hawaiian is a citizen of the United States and most are citizens of Hawai'i. We are entitled to the benefits afforded to all citizens and the state is obhgated to protect the interests of every Hawaiian. OHA is not a state agency and does not assume the state's responsibility or obligation to the Hawaiian people. In other words, the state serves two masters: the general publie, of whieh the Hawaiians are citizens, and the Native Hawaiian populahon. Often the interests of those two groups are in conflict. So whose interest must the state protect? Yes, Rice vs. Cayetano is a major eoncern and it is in the interest of the Hawaiian people to have the very best counsel. We agree the state should hire the best counsel, and perhaps, the question of who should pay should be addressed under the same principles as the question of how mueh OHA should receive from the ceded land revenues. If OHA should pay at all for this special counsel, then may I suggest the state pay 80 percent of the litigation and OHA pay 20 percent. ■ "When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peaee with him." — Proverbs 16:7

[?]