Blog

TWO OPINION EDITORIALS ON THE INCOME AND PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT : DANNER‏

What's wrong with paying X amount temporarily during an interim period without all the 'strings attached'? The lands in question is over-inflated. Why didn't they use the fair market value rather than the potential revenues it 'could' obtain minus the cost of restoration and repair of the land and buildings which are on those lands? Why are they stating the right of way to the shorelines? That's a given for ALL properties along the shoreline; how much have the state kept open? The state had an obligation since 1959 and only adjusts revenues since 1978. Cute! So meanwhile, since there is no established inventory nor dollar amount of the 20% established, Sale of ceded alnds and land swaps of ceded lands, they should put a hold on a settlement until ALL of the inventory and revenues are settled. They should set an amount as an advance of what they already owe to be deducted from what they are liable to owe. They need to be impressed that the Hawaii Nationals are alive and well and they cannot sell off our lands. The dollar a year lease to the governments and military must be rescinded and a new lease with the conditions of complete land restoration should be included and the protection of our sacred sites be preserved. There should be no toxic waste-dumped on the premises, etc. Abuse of property is cause for eviction. Now that's justice and a correct thing to do. Hawaii Nationals should have the ability to live on those lands as well. All these shenanigans must stop and it's time to pay the piper! If the state cannot do its job properly, then it's time to change the trusteeship back to the Hawaii Nationals, Not to OHA nor the US government or any of its agents.

Simple! So what's the problem?

Tane

Posted on: Sunday, March 23, 2008 COMMENTARY
Hawaiians' priorities, not expediency, must matter in settlement
By Robin Puanani Danner

The ceded land trust consists of roughly 1.2 million acres of lands, submerged lands and harbors that were ceded by the federal government to the state under section 5(f) of the 1959 Hawai'i Admissions Act as a public trust. There are five purposes of the trust proceeds, one of which is bettering the conditions of native Hawaiians as defined by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. In 1978, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created as a state agency under Article XII to administer the ceded lands revenues dedicated to this obligation. The governor, the Legislature and the courts all agree the state's OHA has not received a proper share of the revenue. The only questions left are the terms and purpose of the settlement.
I applaud Gov. Linda Lingle and OHA for their leadership in taking up this longstanding issue, but process and inclusion matter, and what is important to Hawaiians must matter. The Legislature should not hastily approve this settlement for the sake of settling, or political or monetary expediency, or simply because it has been an issue for 30 years.
The opportunity here is much bigger. Hawaiians and our great state deserve a different future over our difficult past. It will come from a different approach. We cannot start the dialogue when the ink on a settlement agreement has dried; we must resolve to reach an agreement that accounts for what the beneficiaries of the ceded land trust value most. Without consultation, we cannot know if this agreement contains their priorities at all. Expediency is not the center of the bull's-eye, and settlement terms that flash a number and call out 'This is your last chance, take it or leave it' is not how we achieve the very different future we see for ourselves as Hawaiians or as a state.
There are more than 200 years of native history of this kind of deal-making, here and in every state in the country. Under circumstances that are only defined by the measurements and consumption models of unrestrained capitalism, we have not fared well, nor has the stewardship of our island home as a result. Both hang in the balance of what we do differently now. We must not make decisions with insufficient time for due diligence. We must not accept being the last to know and having no opportunity to establish what our collective beneficiary priorities are in order to guide the priorities of an agreement at the beginning. We must not accept that fear of lost dollars and cents is the place where our deliberations begin. If we do, we rob our state of the Hawaiian ingenuity and energy toward developing long-lasting solutions to our state's most complex challenges.
I don't subscribe to these circumstances, and I don't subscribe to the notion that $13 million-plus land is the only answer to a 30-year question based on them. We haven't asked the right questions of the very beneficiaries we say this settlement supports, especially our homestead communities. We haven't asked, 'What are your priorities in your communities, given the condition of your island homeland and the future you are reaching for? Will $13 million in cash and land at Kaka'ako, Hilo Bay and Kalaeloa meet them?' What is important to Hawaiians must matter in this settlement and in the administration of this trust, lest it be just another expedient deal, and not the fulfillment of priorities we know for ourselves must be achieved. Process and inclusion matter.
Going forward there are three actions the state should consider:
1) Agree to the completion of a ceded lands inventory. Regardless of whether lands are idle or generating income, this is a prudent data point for the trust and state to have and publish. Reasonable people would not agree to sell the contents of the family home without taking an inventory.
2) Coordinate well-planned consultation sessions over the next nine months, versus the past six weeks, to provide beneficiaries with comprehensive data by which to fully evaluate the agreement, and submit a report to the Legislature in 2009.
3) Specifically reach out and identify the priorities of beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act on this settlement and in general. Beneficiary organizations are long standing and well known to the state and OHA, easily and readily available for consultation. Designate a representative from the Hawaiian Homes Commission to participate in any negotiations.
Settlement agreements of this nature, involving a public trust containing the collective assets and resources of the Hawaiian people, must pursue equitable value based on a set of priorities, and a reconciliation that respects the knowledge of those most impacted. Our trust will survive the time necessary for due diligence, and a thoughtful evaluation by the Legislature and the beneficiaries of the trust.
Robin Puanani Danner is the CEO of a Native Hawaiian community development nonprofit, is a former bank executive, and lives on Kaua'i. She wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.

Posted on: Sunday, March 23, 2008

COMMENTARY
Killing best hope for resolution isn't pono; we've waited 30 years
By Haunani Apoliona and Mark J. Bennett

On March 17, three Senate committees decided that instead of increasing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' asset base by approximately $200 million ? almost 50 percent ? OHA will instead get nothing this year for what is past due. We disagree with this decision.
In 1959, through the Hawai'i State Admission Act, the United States transferred approximately 1.4 million acres of crown and government lands of the Kingdom of Hawai'i ? also known as ceded lands ? to the state.
The Admission Act required Hawai'i to hold 1.2 million acres and their income and proceeds as a public trust for one or more of five purposes, including supporting public schools, making public improvements, developing home ownership, bettering the conditions of native Hawaiians, and providing lands for public use.
OHA was created by the 1978 Constitutional Convention in part to receive a portion of income and proceeds from the ceded lands. The Legislature was responsible for determining and specifying how much was to go to OHA.
Since 1980, the Legislature has passed laws to spell out OHA's portion and the method of calculation; however, the Hawai'i Supreme Court has said that the legislation was so imprecise that the total amount to be paid to OHA cannot be accurately determined.
The court made clear that it is the responsibility of the Legislature to decide how much is to be paid. Sadly, that never happened in a way that allows this issue to be put to rest. As a result, the amounts have been the subject of divisive lawsuits for 30 years.
The Lingle administration, like previous administrations, has attempted to agree with OHA on income and proceeds amounts to be paid to OHA dating from 1978. Since 2003, we have informed the Legislature that we would attempt to negotiate this issue.
In 2008, the state and the OHA trustees came to a proposed resolution of the disputed amount of the income and proceeds from the ceded lands from 1978 to the present to be paid OHA. The proposed settlement provides about $200 million in land and cash to OHA (since 1978, OHA has received about $430 million in income and proceeds). OHA methodically selected land that would provide both income and growth. In addition, OHA would receive a minimum of $15.1 million per year in the future with the provision for legislative reexamination. The lowest annual payment OHA has received is $0, when Gov. Ben Cayetano suspended all payments; the highest is $15.1 million.
The House found the basic terms fair, but reminded us that the Legislature was not a party to any settlement and that the final decision was one of policy for the Legislature. The House passed a bill with which we agreed.
The Senate president introduced a resolution, adopted by the Legislature, requesting that OHA and the attorney general conduct statewide informational meetings, solicit input, and provide a report to the Legislature by March 26, 2008. We took this very seriously and spent many hours listening and discussing this matter at more than 40 meetings throughout Hawai'i.
The Senate's three committees, however, did not even wait for our report to be filed before making their March 17 decision.
While many comments were received from the more than 1,400 attendees at these meetings, not a single person who spoke suggested that Hawaiians were due nothing from the state for these past amounts.
Some felt the waiver language was too broad. OHA and the state, however, did not negotiate or resolve any issue other than the disputed amount of the income and proceeds from the ceded lands from 1978 to the present to be paid OHA, and the amount going forward ? no other historic grievances of Hawaiians and nothing relating to the 1893 overthrow or to the state's ability to sell ceded lands to third parties. To make this absolutely clear and respond to concerns, the waiver language has been revised.
Some have said that there are unresolved questions. However, during the March 17 hearing, not one senator asked a question of any witness, nor offered any plan or resolution. If there is a Senate plan, it is a secret.
It is not pono to kill legislation that fairly resolves this 30-year-old controversy while failing to offer any alternative. It is not pono to direct us to solicit input and then not even consider our report of the voices we heard before acting.
To those who tell us to continue waiting, our response is that 30 years is long enough. Even if what we propose is not perfect, it is fair, and it is our best hope for resolution, especially given economic trends.
The Legislature will not adjourn for at least another six weeks, and thus the Senate still has an opportunity to act in this legislative session. That would be pono. Leadership involves decision-making that offers solutions, and not just hollow criticism.
Haunani Apoliona is chairwoman of OHA's Board of Trustees. Mark J. Bennett is the attorney general for the state of Hawai'i. They wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.