Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 23, Number 6, 1 June 2006 — Letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

ūz Stender TrustEE, At-largE

Editor's Note: This month, Trustee Oz, Stender shares his May 15, 2006 letter to the U.S. Conunission on Civil Rights (USCCR) in Washington, D.C., regarding the USCCR Briefing Report on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganiz,ation Act held on Jan. 20, 2006. My name is Oswald K. Stender, and I am a Native Hawaiian and have been a member of the Hawai'i Advisory Coimnittee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for more than 15 years. I am currently a trustee for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and have been for the last five years. This letter is with regard to your Briefing Report titled, "The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005," approved by the USCCR on May 4, 2006. After reading the report, I am appalled at the conduct of the commissioners for the manner in whieh the supposed "hearing" was called and conducted. The entire process amounted to a lynching of the Akaka Bill. Following is a list of failures with regard to the process: 1) The USCCR press release announeing the lan. 20, 2006 USCCR Briefing on NHGRA was not neutral. The press release expressed a eoneem of the opposition and framed the issue negatively for the puhlie and commissioners. 2) The Hawai'i Advisory Committee was not invited nor asked for its views on the subject. 3) There was no consideration given to the reports or the views of the Advisory Committee. 4) The briefing packet prepared for USCCR commissioners appeared to be biased towards the opposition because it lacked key documents relative to a balanced understanding of NHGRA. For example, briefing packets did not include the following: a) Puhlie Law 103-150, The Apology Resolution; b) "Mauka to Makai: The River of Iustice Must Flow Freely," a 2000 report on reconciliation between the

U.S. and Native Hawaiians prepared by the U.S. Department of Iustice and the U.S. Department of Interior; c) Testimonies submitted for the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on NHGRA held in March 2005 and the overwhelming list of organizations that support the Akaka Bill, including all the mayors of the Hawai'i counties, the state Senate, House of Representatives, and governor of the state of Hawai'i. 5) Those who submitted testimony were from "off the street" and their testimony was given more credence than people such as the Hawai'i attorney general, professor Viet Dinh, attorney Christ Bartolomucci, professor Charles Wilkinson and the OHA trustees, nine Native Hawaiians elected by the voters of Hawai'i. 6) Mr. William Burgess and others made egregious, inaccurate and misleading statements that the commissioners did not bother to verify; nor did the eommissioners try to distinguish fact from fiction except for USCCR commissioners Yaki and Melendez, who set forth the truth about Native Hawaiian history, U.S. Native American laws and policy, and OHA during the January briefing discussion period and again at the May 4, 2006 USCCR meeting. I could go on, but it makes no sense to say more. As a commission, you have made a sham of the process and the mission of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Although it appears the Hawai'i Advisory Committee has no standing before this commission, I (along with others) will nevertheless continue to send you the accurate facts and expect that they be made part of the USCCR record. The truth will prevail over this biased USCCR process that attacks Native Hawaiians and our history and offensively disregards our political status as the indigenous people of Hawai'i. It is outrageous that the USCCR recommends discrimination against Native Hawaiians, the third group of Native Americans, by opposing the NHGRA. Very truly yours, Oswald K. Stender Trustee At-large

— LEO 'ELELE • TRUSTEE MESSAGES