Hawaiian leaders urge delay on ceded landsBy Gordon Y.K. Pang, Honolulu Advertiser, March 17, 2008Two Native Hawaiian leaders have joined with Hawaiian activists in calling for state lawmakers to delay passing an agreement that transfers $200 million of land and cash to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.Robin Danner, president and chief executive officer of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, and Colin Kippen, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Education Council, said they want more information to be gathered before the settlement is adopted. That probably would mean putting off a decision at least until next year's Legislature convenes in January 2009.Late yesterday, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly also weighed in on the subject. The organization, formerly known as the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Association, issued a statement saying it "strongly opposes" the agreement reached between OHA and the Lingle administration. The statement said homestead association presidents gathered Saturday to discuss the issue and voted unanimously to oppose the agreement. The group echoed the arguments made by Danner and Kippen.Meanwhile, a poll conducted on OHA's behalf shows 55 percent of Hawai'i residents believe the Legislature should approve the settlement agreement while 72 percent of Native Hawaiians polled believe it should be passed.The proposed settlement is meant to resolve a 30-year dispute between Native Hawaiians and the state over who gets the income from land once owned by the Kingdom of Hawai'i.Under the terms of the agreement, OHA gets three parcels of land worth $187 million, $13 million in cash and a minimum annual payment of another $15.1 million. In exchange, OHA agrees to waive further claims to income from the so-called ceded lands from 1978 onward.OHA and the Lingle administration have lobbied hard to get the settlement passed in this session of the Legislature, pointing out that the proposed agreement took more than four years of meetings to work out.Danner and Kippen, who are usually allied with OHA on major issues, including their support for the Akaka bill for Native Hawaiian recognition, say they are not convinced this settlement is the best OHA could get."I think it's a significant decision, one that warrants us to pause — not just the Hawaiian community, but the Legislature, the state government," Danner said.Kippen, who stressed he is speaking for himself and not his organization, said, "I'm opposed to this bill basically ... because it gives up too much for too little in a way that is unfair to Native Hawaiian beneficiaries."COMMITTEES MEET TODAYOHA Administrator Clyde Namu'o and Attorney General Mark Bennett say the agreement is fair and beneficial to both sides and should be adopted.Three committees of the state Senate meet in the state Capitol auditorium at 2:45 p.m. today to consider House Bill 266, the latest version of the negotiated settlement. The Legislature must approve the deal for it to become binding.The $200 million offered in the settlement is presumed to represent the revenue generated by the ceded lands and owed, but not paid, to OHA by the state between 1978 and now.The ceded lands are made up of 1.2 million acres, or about 40 percent of the total land in Hawai'i and about 95 percent of state-controlled lands, according to OHA.A number of Hawaiians continue to believe that language in the settlement suggests the agreement could be interpreted to relinquish all future claims by anyone regarding ownership of the ceded lands.The House draft of the bill contains language that is supposed to address that concern.Kippen, a former senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, former OHA deputy director and tribal judge for Indian tribes, cited language in the agreement that "waives claims of any kind" related to "income, proceeds, or any other tangible right."That could be broadly interpreted by a judge to mean the agreement settles all claims by Hawaiians to ceded lands, not just any revenues derived from them, he said."The ambiguities that are in that document are in that document forever. That language is as broad as it gets and OHA agreed to it," Kippen said.Bennett however, insists that the agreement settles only the issue of revenues."It talks about income and proceeds and that's what it's intended to do. That is what it is intended to deal with," Bennett said. "For people who are saying this bars other claims, there's no language to support that."CLARIFICATION PROMISEDOHA's Namu'o said language in the House bill clarifies that point, and added that Bennett has agreed to go even further to clarify any ambiguity."Mark is going to go on the record and will offer language to be included in the committee report that essentially says this waiver does not extinguish any claims which the Hawaiians have to ceded lands," Namu'o said.Said Bennett: "It's certainly possible that on particular language with the settlement agreement, we may work on modifying it with OHA."But even without the ambiguity, Kippen believes the agreement gives up too much."Ceded lands are from the top of the mountains ... to the submerged lands (in the sea)," Kippen said. "So let's say tomorrow ... somebody finds that there's this certain kind of limu that holds the cure to cancer or Alzheimer's, and the state now says, 'Those are growing on our ceded land, we want to sell those items, we want to make money on that.' "Hawaiians would not be able to get a share of that money because it would be income that goes to the state, Kippen said.Danner, head of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, said OHA and the administration of Gov. Linda Lingle have done a good job in getting the agreement to this point. However, she said, it's now up to the Legislature to take the time to make sure it is done right.Danner said she wants the state and OHA to work on completing an inventory of all ceded lands before the agreement is finalized, a process that likely would take at least until next year."We'll all still be here next year," Danner said. "I don't think you sell the items in your house before you take an inventory of the items."Namu'o, however, said that is an irrelevant point. While it's true that OHA has not received a detailed inventory of the entire 1.2 million acres of ceded lands, it does have an inventory of all income-generation lands in that category, he said.IS $200 MILLION ENOUGH?Activist Mililani Trask, a former OHA trustee, said that since the Supreme Court's Rice v. Cayetano decision allowed for non-Hawaiians to be elected to the OHA board, its actions have been suspect.While she supports the concept of an agreement, Trask said, she still has too many questions about the current version.Trask echoed the concern of many that the $200 million amounts to too little. "We haven't been told what the $200 million is based on," she said. "How is that calculated?"A judge in 1996 said that Hawaiians were owed $1.2 billion or more for revenues derived.Namu'o, however, said that billion-dollar-plus figure was based on accumulated interest and a later court ruled that Hawaiians were not entitled to interest, only revenues themselves.The values assigned to each of the three parcels selected to be handed over to OHA are based on assessed values issued by tax offices of the individual counties.Trask said there needs to be further study. "I want to know what the environmental studies are on them (the parcels)," she said. "I think they're short-changing the people."Andre Perez of the umbrella activist group Hui Pu, said he objects to the way the agreement was handed down without any consultation with beneficiaries."The constituents and beneficiaries only found out about this agreement after it had been submitted to the Legislature," Perez said. "And now we're going to tell you what we're going to do for you. It's a very condescending and paternalistic attitude."Danner said the series of meetings OHA has held in recent weeks across the Islands is just a starting point. "There are informational meetings and then there are consultations," she said. "I just feel like we've got the cart before the horse."OHA POINTS TO POLLWhile the specter of "establishment" Hawaiians like Danner and Kippen standing side by side with activists like Trask and Perez presents a formidable opposition, OHA is countering with the poll numbers that appear to show a majority of the public, and Native Hawaiians in particular, favor the proposed settlement.Results showed 55 percent of those polled answering "yes" to the question "Do you believe the Legislature should approve the proposed settlement?" Only 26 percent of all respondents said "no" while 19 percent said they did not know.Among Hawaiians, 72 percent said "yes," 20 percent said "no," and 9 percent did not know.Asked how they felt about the agreement, 28 percent of total respondents and 27 percent of Native Hawaiians said the settlement is a good one, while 34 percent of all respondents and 62 percent of Hawaiians believed the package is too little for what OHA is owed. Only 22 percent of all respondents and 4 percent of Hawaiians said the settlement is too much.Conducted by Ward Research Feb. 15-26, the poll queried 500 people, 100 of them Native Hawaiian. The number of people polled allows a margin of error of 4.4 percent for the total population polled and 9.8 percent for Native Hawaiians.Perez said the poll didn't survey enough people to form an accurate gauge of how the public, and Native Hawaiians, feel about the settlement.Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com.Hawaiian homesteaders opposes Lingle/OHA billI AGREE WITH DA STATEMENT , BUT SCHHA Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands , SHOULD TALK " PONO" WITH A 50% BLOOD ,usa'z GENOCIDAL PROGRAM, OVER 40,000 on da waiting list, ~HEWA~and in da SAME BOAT AS DA "IPSO FACTO" ACTING PUPPET GOVERNMENT!Hawaiian homestead group opposes Lingle/OHA billAdvertiser, March 16, 2008An organization claiming to represent 7,000 Hawaiian homestead families statewide issued a statement today opposing House Bill 266 HD2 regarding the ceded lands agreement between Gov. Linda Lingle and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.In a news release, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly, formerly known as the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, stated, "We recommend that in the interest of transparency, the Legislature require OHA and Gov. Lingle release and make public the basis of the amounts contained in the Lingle/OHA agreement."Kamaki Kanahele, SCHHA chairman, added:"Until the egregious wrongs of the past are made 'pono,' any settlement terms must be strengthened to ensure that a portion of the settlement funds are directed to the Hawaiian Home Land Trust and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act beneficiaries, in accordance with the law."SCHHA, which claims a tie to 24 Hawaiian homestead associations, also opposes the agreement noting it lacks a ceded lands inventory and revenue report, and an unacceptable list of waivers were approved by the governor and OHA.
Hawaiian leaders urge delay on ceded landsBy Gordon Y.K. Pang, Honolulu Advertiser, March 17, 2008Two Native Hawaiian leaders have joined with Hawaiian activists in calling for state lawmakers to delay passing an agreement that transfers $200 million of land and cash to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.Robin Danner, president and chief executive officer of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, and Colin Kippen, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Education Council, said they want more information to be gathered before the settlement is adopted. That probably would mean putting off a decision at least until next year's Legislature convenes in January 2009.Late yesterday, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly also weighed in on the subject. The organization, formerly known as the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Association, issued a statement saying it "strongly opposes" the agreement reached between OHA and the Lingle administration. The statement said homestead association presidents gathered Saturday to discuss the issue and voted unanimously to oppose the agreement. The group echoed the arguments made by Danner and Kippen.Meanwhile, a poll conducted on OHA's behalf shows 55 percent of Hawai'i residents believe the Legislature should approve the settlement agreement while 72 percent of Native Hawaiians polled believe it should be passed.The proposed settlement is meant to resolve a 30-year dispute between Native Hawaiians and the state over who gets the income from land once owned by the Kingdom of Hawai'i.Under the terms of the agreement, OHA gets three parcels of land worth $187 million, $13 million in cash and a minimum annual payment of another $15.1 million. In exchange, OHA agrees to waive further claims to income from the so-called ceded lands from 1978 onward.OHA and the Lingle administration have lobbied hard to get the settlement passed in this session of the Legislature, pointing out that the proposed agreement took more than four years of meetings to work out.Danner and Kippen, who are usually allied with OHA on major issues, including their support for the Akaka bill for Native Hawaiian recognition, say they are not convinced this settlement is the best OHA could get."I think it's a significant decision, one that warrants us to pause — not just the Hawaiian community, but the Legislature, the state government," Danner said.Kippen, who stressed he is speaking for himself and not his organization, said, "I'm opposed to this bill basically ... because it gives up too much for too little in a way that is unfair to Native Hawaiian beneficiaries."COMMITTEES MEET TODAYOHA Administrator Clyde Namu'o and Attorney General Mark Bennett say the agreement is fair and beneficial to both sides and should be adopted.Three committees of the state Senate meet in the state Capitol auditorium at 2:45 p.m. today to consider House Bill 266, the latest version of the negotiated settlement. The Legislature must approve the deal for it to become binding.The $200 million offered in the settlement is presumed to represent the revenue generated by the ceded lands and owed, but not paid, to OHA by the state between 1978 and now.The ceded lands are made up of 1.2 million acres, or about 40 percent of the total land in Hawai'i and about 95 percent of state-controlled lands, according to OHA.A number of Hawaiians continue to believe that language in the settlement suggests the agreement could be interpreted to relinquish all future claims by anyone regarding ownership of the ceded lands.The House draft of the bill contains language that is supposed to address that concern.Kippen, a former senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, former OHA deputy director and tribal judge for Indian tribes, cited language in the agreement that "waives claims of any kind" related to "income, proceeds, or any other tangible right."That could be broadly interpreted by a judge to mean the agreement settles all claims by Hawaiians to ceded lands, not just any revenues derived from them, he said."The ambiguities that are in that document are in that document forever. That language is as broad as it gets and OHA agreed to it," Kippen said.Bennett however, insists that the agreement settles only the issue of revenues."It talks about income and proceeds and that's what it's intended to do. That is what it is intended to deal with," Bennett said. "For people who are saying this bars other claims, there's no language to support that."CLARIFICATION PROMISEDOHA's Namu'o said language in the House bill clarifies that point, and added that Bennett has agreed to go even further to clarify any ambiguity."Mark is going to go on the record and will offer language to be included in the committee report that essentially says this waiver does not extinguish any claims which the Hawaiians have to ceded lands," Namu'o said.Said Bennett: "It's certainly possible that on particular language with the settlement agreement, we may work on modifying it with OHA."But even without the ambiguity, Kippen believes the agreement gives up too much."Ceded lands are from the top of the mountains ... to the submerged lands (in the sea)," Kippen said. "So let's say tomorrow ... somebody finds that there's this certain kind of limu that holds the cure to cancer or Alzheimer's, and the state now says, 'Those are growing on our ceded land, we want to sell those items, we want to make money on that.' "Hawaiians would not be able to get a share of that money because it would be income that goes to the state, Kippen said.Danner, head of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, said OHA and the administration of Gov. Linda Lingle have done a good job in getting the agreement to this point. However, she said, it's now up to the Legislature to take the time to make sure it is done right.Danner said she wants the state and OHA to work on completing an inventory of all ceded lands before the agreement is finalized, a process that likely would take at least until next year."We'll all still be here next year," Danner said. "I don't think you sell the items in your house before you take an inventory of the items."Namu'o, however, said that is an irrelevant point. While it's true that OHA has not received a detailed inventory of the entire 1.2 million acres of ceded lands, it does have an inventory of all income-generation lands in that category, he said.IS $200 MILLION ENOUGH?Activist Mililani Trask, a former OHA trustee, said that since the Supreme Court's Rice v. Cayetano decision allowed for non-Hawaiians to be elected to the OHA board, its actions have been suspect.While she supports the concept of an agreement, Trask said, she still has too many questions about the current version.Trask echoed the concern of many that the $200 million amounts to too little. "We haven't been told what the $200 million is based on," she said. "How is that calculated?"A judge in 1996 said that Hawaiians were owed $1.2 billion or more for revenues derived.Namu'o, however, said that billion-dollar-plus figure was based on accumulated interest and a later court ruled that Hawaiians were not entitled to interest, only revenues themselves.The values assigned to each of the three parcels selected to be handed over to OHA are based on assessed values issued by tax offices of the individual counties.Trask said there needs to be further study. "I want to know what the environmental studies are on them (the parcels)," she said. "I think they're short-changing the people."Andre Perez of the umbrella activist group Hui Pu, said he objects to the way the agreement was handed down without any consultation with beneficiaries."The constituents and beneficiaries only found out about this agreement after it had been submitted to the Legislature," Perez said. "And now we're going to tell you what we're going to do for you. It's a very condescending and paternalistic attitude."Danner said the series of meetings OHA has held in recent weeks across the Islands is just a starting point. "There are informational meetings and then there are consultations," she said. "I just feel like we've got the cart before the horse."OHA POINTS TO POLLWhile the specter of "establishment" Hawaiians like Danner and Kippen standing side by side with activists like Trask and Perez presents a formidable opposition, OHA is countering with the poll numbers that appear to show a majority of the public, and Native Hawaiians in particular, favor the proposed settlement.Results showed 55 percent of those polled answering "yes" to the question "Do you believe the Legislature should approve the proposed settlement?" Only 26 percent of all respondents said "no" while 19 percent said they did not know.Among Hawaiians, 72 percent said "yes," 20 percent said "no," and 9 percent did not know.Asked how they felt about the agreement, 28 percent of total respondents and 27 percent of Native Hawaiians said the settlement is a good one, while 34 percent of all respondents and 62 percent of Hawaiians believed the package is too little for what OHA is owed. Only 22 percent of all respondents and 4 percent of Hawaiians said the settlement is too much.Conducted by Ward Research Feb. 15-26, the poll queried 500 people, 100 of them Native Hawaiian. The number of people polled allows a margin of error of 4.4 percent for the total population polled and 9.8 percent for Native Hawaiians.Perez said the poll didn't survey enough people to form an accurate gauge of how the public, and Native Hawaiians, feel about the settlement.Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com.Hawaiian homesteaders opposes Lingle/OHA billI AGREE WITH DA STATEMENT , BUT SCHHA Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands , SHOULD TALK " PONO" WITH A 50% BLOOD ,usa'z GENOCIDAL PROGRAM, OVER 40,000 on da waiting list, ~HEWA~and in da SAME BOAT AS DA "IPSO FACTO" ACTING PUPPET GOVERNMENT!Hawaiian homestead group opposes Lingle/OHA billAdvertiser, March 16, 2008An organization claiming to represent 7,000 Hawaiian homestead families statewide issued a statement today opposing House Bill 266 HD2 regarding the ceded lands agreement between Gov. Linda Lingle and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.In a news release, the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly, formerly known as the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, stated, "We recommend that in the interest of transparency, the Legislature require OHA and Gov. Lingle release and make public the basis of the amounts contained in the Lingle/OHA agreement."Kamaki Kanahele, SCHHA chairman, added:"Until the egregious wrongs of the past are made 'pono,' any settlement terms must be strengthened to ensure that a portion of the settlement funds are directed to the Hawaiian Home Land Trust and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act beneficiaries, in accordance with the law."SCHHA, which claims a tie to 24 Hawaiian homestead associations, also opposes the agreement noting it lacks a ceded lands inventory and revenue report, and an unacceptable list of waivers were approved by the governor and OHA.
Comments
Date: Mar 18, 2008 3:33 AM
Panels reject $200M OHA land settlement
By Richard Borreca, Star Bulletin, March 18, 2008
Years of negotiations fail to keep the bill alive in the Legislature
STORY SUMMARY »
A proposed $200 million settlement between the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the state over the use of former monarchy lands appears dead for this session.
Last night, three Senate committees rejected the proposal - the result of four years of negotiations between OHA and the state.
Sens. Jill Tokuda, Brian Taniguchi, Clayton Hee, Mike Gabbard and Russell Kokubun voted to reject the bill, House Bill 266, effectively stopping the measure for this year.
Hee (D, Kahuku-Kaneohe), a former OHA chairman, said that not enough was known about how the state and OHA reached their agreement and how it would benefit the native Hawaiian beneficiaries.
The senators represented the Committees of Water and Land, Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs, and Judiciary. Yesterday the committees heard more than five hours of mostly negative testimony regarding the bill.
Plan would resolve ceded-land issue
The $200 million settlement proposed between the Lingle administration and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs would resolve a long-standing obligation the state has to pay OHA for disputed ceded-land revenues.
The state would agree to give OHA $13 million and an additional $15 million a year, which is estimated to be about 20 percent of the revenues generated by the public land trust.
The state would give OHA land at Kewalo Basin, Kalaeloa and Banyan Drive on the Big Island worth $187 million.
The settlement would not disturb native Hawaiian claims for sovereignty, according to Haunani Apoliona, OHA chairwoman.
FULL STORY »
A $200 million deal between the state and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to resolve a 30-year dispute over the use of ceded lands appears to have failed.
The chairmen of the Committees on Water and Land, Judiciary, and Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs said last night that they could not approve the settlement. The rejection effectively kills the bill for this year, unless a compromise can be fashioned by OHA, the Lingle administration and the Legislature.
"They are holding the bill. It does not move forward. It is not likely the House will hear the Senate bill, so it is basically dead," said Haunani Apoliona, OHA chairwoman. "There is no agreement. The disputed issues remain unresolved."
Attorney General Mark Bennett said he was disappointed because the debt has been owed for 30 years, and the state had negotiated with OHA for four years.
"The senators have chosen to reject it. I hope the bill can be revived, but if it isn't, the responsibility for this issue is where it started under the state Constitution -- with the Legislature, and I hope the Legislature will resolve it," Bennett said.
Gov. Linda Lingle is the third Hawaii governor to work on a settlement for ceded lands, or former monarchy lands.
When the settlement was announced on Jan. 18, Lingle said it would resolve any and all claims relating to income and proceeds from ceded lands.
"While we have had a clear, constitutional obligation since 1978 to share ceded-land revenues, the amount has always been in dispute," she said.
Lingle called the settlement "reasonable, fair and just," but senators said too many people raised too many questions about the deal.
For instance, three former OHA trustees and one current OHA trustee, Rowena Akana, testified against the settlement yesterday.
"OHA's mission is to advocate for the betterment of our beneficiaries," Akana said. "I cannot support a bill that will extinguish the rights of all our beneficiaries to future entitlements, including rights to surface, ground water and mineral resources."
Also speaking against the bill were former trustees Clarence Ku Ching, Moanikeala Akaka and Mililani Trask.
Trask said there were no assurances in the bill that money from the settlement would reach native Hawaiians.
"In reality, Hawaiians live and die in poverty because OHA has withheld hundreds of millions of dollars from those who need it most: the Hawaiian people," Trask said.
Sen. Clayton Hee (D, Kahuku-Kaneohe), who was OHA chairman when former Gov. Ben Cayetano attempted to negotiate a different settlement with OHA, said in previous negotiations all parts of the settlement were justified and explained.
"With this, there is an unknowing of what is in the details," Hee said last night. "We could not understand the basis of the agreement."
Earlier in the day, Senate President Colleen Hanabusa said she was concerned about the settlement because native Hawaiians said they were not involved in the negotiations.
"There is the potential for cutting off rights, and it behooves everyone to slow it down," Hanabusa said.
Sen. J. Kalani English (D, Maui-Molokai-Lanai) said many native Hawaiians said they had not been consulted.
"Across the board, my Hawaiian constituents are saying that if OHA gets the money, we aren't going to see any of it," English said. "I think the bill is onerous and that drawing it up without consultation makes it problematic."
I love your flash sites especially the one that has the Queen and deoccupy...haole go home! Good job.