Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 17, Number 5, 1 May 2000 — OHA transitional plans fail in the Legislature [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

OHA transitional plans fail in the Legislature

ON TUESDAY, March 28, the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs voted to pass "as is" Senate Bill 2477, SD 1 . Despite OHA's testimony that the bill should be amended to protect the tmst assets and the govemance of OHA, the committee declined to make the appropriate changes thereby ending OHA's hopes of using the bill as a vehicle for addressing the ramifications of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Rice vs. Cayetano. OHA recommended that the legislature protect the trast assets by clearly defining OHA's trust duties according to one of two altematives proposed by OHA. Specifically, both of OHA's proposals urged the legislature to include the following language in the bill: 'Tmstees' duties are to manage and administer all assets, property, and ineome of the office derived from whatever sources as a trust for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians, provided that the management and control of the trust together with the tmst assets will be transferred to the sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the United States." Lobbying efforts initiated by OHA opponents, including the Native Associa-

tions for Hawaiian Unity (NAHU), led to the demise of OHA's two legislative proposals. NAHU, whose membership includes Aloha 'Aina, Ka Lāhui Hawai'i, Prince Kūhiō Hawaiian Civic Club, Moku o Hawai'i 'Ohana, Ho'omalu ma Kualoa, Kuikalāhiki, Hui Kalani, Kualoa-He'eia Hawaiian Civic Club, Kailua Hawaiian Civic Club, Ka Lāhui Political Action Committee, Wai'anae Hawaiian Civic Club, American Friends Service Commit-

tee, Business and Professional Women - Kailua Chapter, Makawalu - A Native Hawaiian Women's Initiative, King Kamehameha Hawaiian Civic Club, Hālau o nā Maohpua and Hālau o Kaho'onei, focused on only one of OHA's proposals related to the creation of a "separate entity." The critical language relating to the preservation of tmst assets for a future sovereign entity and OHA's effort to explain these proposals to the Hawaiian community were rejected. Minamina. Īhese messages have managed to strangle any sincere effort to protect the frust assets, as many legislators became reluctant to initiate an action with a community that appeared divided. The actions also provide the fodder for Freddy Rice's attomey John Goeman's argument presented in the newspaper. Now the tide to dismantle OHA is swelhng. Nevertheless, we will continue to press on to ensure the assets of our Hawaiian beneficiaries are sufficiently protected, that OHA be govemed by and for Hawaiians, and that your Hawaiian representatives be chosen by Hawaiians. Currently, the LAGA committee continues to support SCR 1 13, SR 56 as weU as HCR 156

and HR 135. AU four resolutions request a smdy of the existing representation ffamework of OHA in light of the Rice decision. The proposed HCR 156, HD 1 is especiaUy important as it caUs for the convening of a beneficiary conference or fomm in addition to the study. Other legislative matters. The LAGA committee also recommended the Board of Tmstees support several other legislative measures. Included in the committee's recommendations are two Capital Improvement Projects scheduled for funding by the State of Hawai'i. This particular biU wiU appropriate CIP funds for the Maunalaha water and road infrastructure and the Keaukaha Gymnasium/Community Recreation Center, subject to the release of the state and county funding. FinaUy, the committee recommended that the board support SB 2108, SD 1, HD 2 relating to creation of a comprehensive and accurate inventory of aU ceded lands. In this process, the state auditor is directed to work with OHA and DLNR to develop a sound approach that would include a pubUc trust inventory and an information system detaiUng eaeh ceded land parcel identified. ■

V I C E CHAIRPERSON'S MESSAGE

[?]