The Office of Hawaiian Affairs will eliminate 28 of its 178 positions as part of a new strategic plan outlined yesterday.

The layoffs are expected to save OHA from $500,000 to $750,000 and are part of a shift to a more "results-based" strategy.

OHA plans to set specific goals, such as raising the level of Native Hawaiian incomes to meet or exceed non-Hawaiian incomes in the Islands.

The plan also calls for turning over OHA assets to a new Hawaiian government that could result from passage of the so-called Akaka bill in Congress, which would grant federal recognition to Native Hawaiians.

"That's fairly controversial," OHA administrator Clyde Namu'o said yesterday. OHA's trustees "see OHA as eventually going out of existence and being taken over, if you will, by this Native Hawaiian entity. ... That is a strong statement about how the trustees view the future for Native Hawaiians."

Sonny Kaniho was one of the giants in the modern Hawaiian rights movement who gained fame by quietly, and then not-so-quietly, protesting the failures of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to make land available to Native Hawaiians.

A deal on the sale of ceded lands was reached yesterday.

The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs and three of four Native Hawaiian plaintiffs agreed to settle their 15-year-old lawsuit with the state over ceded lands in the wake of the Legislature's passage yesterday of a bill requiring Hawai'i governors to get approval from lawmakers before selling ceded lands.

OHA and the other plaintiffs had sued to block the state from selling portions of ceded lands — 1.2 million acres held in trust by the state — until claims by Native Hawaiians to those lands are resolved.

The measure, Senate Bill 1677, requires a two-thirds vote by both chambers of the Legislature before most ceded lands can be sold.

OHA and three of the four individual plaintiffs reached "an agreement on a set of steps that will resolve all or almost all of the lawsuit filed by OHA and the private plaintiffs in 1994," OHA said in a statement.

Yet to be resolved is the issue of how much OHA should receive from revenues derived from ceded lands. A bill to address this issue failed last Friday.

University of Hawai'i professor Jonathan Osorio, one of the plaintiffs, did not join in the settlement.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs will try again this legislative session to pass a bill seeking to resolve past due claims on income and proceeds generated by the Public Land Trust.

This year, however, they will not be going to the Legislature hand-in-hand with members of the Lingle administration as it did last year.

The Public Land Trust consists of those 1.2 million acres of ceded lands transferred to the state in the Admissions Act, excluding those lands under the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. It amounts to about two-thirds of all ceded lands, which refers to the crown and ceded lands that were taken over at the 1898 overthrow.

OHA and the state have long agreed that the agency is owed a portion of the proceeds generated by lands once owned by the Hawaiian monarchy. In fact, the state now pays OHA $15.1 million annually.

What’s been in dispute is how much OHA should have received in the 30 years up until July 1, 2008.

As it did last year, OHA is seeking a settlement valued at $200 million.

And under the plan unveiled at a press conference today, OHA once again is asking to gain title to two parcels of land – in Kaka‘ako Makai and along Banyan Drive in Hilo. The two parcels carry an assessed value of $127.2 million.

But recognizing the state’s financial straits this year, OHA leaders said, it will ask for the remaining $72.8 million to be decided and transferred next year.

A key change in this year’s proposal is that it does not propose any resolution of so-called “future” claims beyond continuation of the $15.1 million annual settlement. Extinguishing future claims was a key concern raised by Native Hawaiian groups who opposed last year’s plan.

“The Legislature’s support and enactment of the bill is essential to put to rest the 30-year old past due ‘disputed’ revenue claims on income and proceeds from the Public Land Trust,” OHA board Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona said.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs announced today it has drafted a bill for introduction to the 2009 session of the state Legislature that will enact public policy for a moratorium on the sale and exchange of ceded lands.

The decision by OHA Trustees to move forward with this legislation emerged following the state administration's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of the unanimous ruling by the Hawai'i Supreme Court that prevents ceded lands from being sold or transferred until the "unrelinquished claims" of Native Hawaiians to those lands are settled.

The value of Kamehameha Schools' endowment plunged by more than $1.7 billion in four months due to the meltdown in the nation's financial markets.

The charitable trust said the value of its investments portfolio and real estate holdings fell 18 percent, to $7.7 billion, between June 30 and Oct. 31.

The declines reverse a stellar 2008 fiscal year when the trust's endowment increased by $367.9 million to $9.44 billion.

The stock investment portfolio for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs shrank by 27.9 percent during the first 10 months of 2008, 12 percent during October alone, OHA officials said.

The immediate impact is a hiring freeze, but the agency may be forced to cut money for programs in future budgets.

About 300 people converged on the state Capitol yesterday and urged the Lingle administration to back off its legal claim that the state has the right to sell ceded lands.

In a case that places the state against the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Gov. Linda Lingle and her administration are appealing a unanimous ruling by the Hawai'i Supreme Court in January that the state cannot sell or otherwise transfer ceded lands until Native Hawaiian claims against the land holds were resolved.

"The administration's decision to appeal has the potential to adversely impact the way the people of Hawai'i deal with issues affecting Native Hawaiians locally," the groups of Native Hawaiian supporters said in a statement. "A U.S. Supreme Court decision threatens what our state Legislature and state courts have already decided — Native Hawaiians have a valid unsettled claim to ceded lands. ... The Lingle administration's appeal threatens the future of the Hawaiian community and is in direct conflict with the administration's reported support for the Native Hawaiian community."

A lawsuit filed today against Kamehameha Schools is once again challenging its admissions policy that favors Native Hawaiian children.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of four children and their families “seeks an end to the ‘Native Hawaiians only’ admissions policy,” of the schools, a statement by lawyers for the children said.

Attorneys Eric Grant of California and David B. Rosen of Honolulu said the federal District Court lawsuit filed today “is essentially identical to the earlier lawsuit filed on behalf of ‘John Doe,’” which the schools settled last year.

A federal judge has ruled in favor of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' policy of assisting all Native Hawaiians, not just those with 50 percent or more Hawaiian blood.

U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway on Friday ruled in favor of OHA trustees and dismissed a lawsuit that claimed OHA could only spend money on Hawaiians of "not less than one-half part" of Hawaiian blood.

The lawsuit was filed by five men, each with 50 percent or more Hawaiian blood, who said OHA has too many beneficiaries and that money from what's known as the Public Land Trust — established under the Hawai'i Admissions Act of 1959, which admitted Hawai'i as a state — can only be used to benefit those who have at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood.

Mollway said in her ruling that "the Admissions Act is not so restrictive."

Earlier, in documents that indicated how she would eventually rule, Mollway wrote: "OHA trustees have broad discretion" in deciding how to better the condition of native Hawaiians.

OHA maintains that its mandate is to assist all Hawaiians, regardless of blood quantum.

Walter Schoettle, attorney for the plaintiffs, yesterday said of the ruling: "It's wrong, and we're going to appeal to the 9th Circuit."

HONOLULU (AP) — A U.S. District Court judge is deciding whether to once again dismiss a lawsuit filed against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Judge Susan Oki Mollway heard arguments yesterday in the case that pits OHA against five Native Hawaiians.

The five are seeking to stop OHA from funding programs for those who have less than 50 percent Hawaiian blood.

They say the state agency breached the public land trust by paying for programs for all Hawaiians, regardless of their blood quantum.

Mollway threw out the case in 2006. But it was reinstated last August by a federal appeals court.

On Friday, Mollway issued an "inclination" statement, indicating she was leaning toward siding with OHA and its motion to dismiss the case.

OHA's attorney said a Native Hawaiian government established by the pending Akaka Bill will have to define its membership.

"That entity would have its rules and its rules will probably have a blood quantum," Klein said.
[...]
Even if most Hawaiians oppose a blood quantum they might be forced to accept it because under the Akaka Bill, the U.S. Department of interior must accept the Hawaiian entity's rules and it might demand a blood quantum similar to most Native American tribes.

Twenty-nine states have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to accept an appeal by Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett, who wants the high court to overturn a recent state court decision that prevents Hawaii from selling or transferring ceded lands.
[...]
In that case, the state justices ruled that the 1993 Congressional Apology Resolution prohibits the state from selling, exchanging or transferring any of the more than 1.2 million acres of ceded land until it reaches a settlement with native Hawaiians.

Urging the U.S. justices to hear the case, Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna wrote for his and the other states that the Hawaii Supreme Court "misconstrued" the Apology Resolution.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs said it will channel $90 million to the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in a historic partnership to deliver up to 500 residential lots to Native Hawaiians across the state.

The agreement, unanimously approved by OHA's board yesterday, will about double the production of lots on which Hawaiians can begin to build homes in the next 12 to 18 months.

The Army Corps of Engineers is in the early stages of creating a self-imposed mandate to formally seek out the input of any and all Native Hawaiian groups before it makes decisions on aquatic and watershed permits that could significantly impact the islands and the ocean.

During a scheduled five-hour forum Saturday at Maui Community College, Corps Regulatory Program Manager Farley Watanabe said that the federal government is in the process of revising its regulations for who it must consult during the complicated and often long permitting process.

And the Army Corps wants Native Hawaiian organizations — from nonprofits and state agencies to ohanas, lineal descendants and individuals — to be included in that process for the first time, Watanabe said.

Just days after the end of the legislative session and a failed attempt to reach an agreement over how much ceded-land revenue is owed to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the key parties involved appear to again be at loggerheads.

This time the issue is over what should happen next. While Gov. Linda Lingle says her administration stands by the existing proposal, lawmakers and OHA want to go back to the bargaining table.

Lawmakers did not approve an agreement reached between the Lingle administration and OHA that would have given the agency three parcels of land valued at $187 million and $13 million cash, as well as a minimum of $15.1 million in ensuing years.

But in the waning days of the session, legislators tacked onto the state budget a nonbinding proviso requiring the Lingle administration and OHA to resume negotiations on the 30-year-old dispute.

Meanwhile, Lingle on Friday told reporters her staff will not return to the negotiating table with OHA leaders.

Hawaii has a "sovereign right" to sell and transfer lands previously owned by Hawaii's kingdom, the state told the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in an effort to lift a legal ban on the property deals until claims by native islanders are resolved.

In papers filed in Washington, D.C., state Attorney General Mark Bennett urged the nation's highest court to overturn a Hawaii Supreme Court decision that led to an injunction freezing any transaction of former royal land pending compensation to native Hawaiians.

Bennett contends Hawaii gained the right to manage more than 1.2 million acres of ceded lands, or about 29 percent of the islands' total land area, when it became a state through the Admission Act of 1959. He said the state court's unanimous ruling on Jan. 31 misinterpreted the Apology Resolution, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law in 1993 to acknowledge the illegal overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy.

Labeling the apology "symbolic," Bennett disputed the court's 5-0 decision that the resolution serves as a bar on the sale, exchange or transfer of ceded lands by the state.

The state has appealed a major Hawai'i Supreme Court decision that blocks the state from selling or transferring former Hawaiian monarchy lands.

State Attorney General Mark Bennett yesterday filed paperwork in Washington, D.C., asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the unanimous state court decision, issued Jan. 31.

That decision held that the state cannot transfer ownership of 1.4 million acres of former monarchy lands, now called ceded lands, pending resolution of claims by Native Hawaiians to those lands or revenues they produce.

The Hawai'i opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald Moon, was based in large part on language in a Congressional Apology Resolution passed in 1993 to mark the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom.

Moon wrote that the Apology Resolution and related state legislation impose upon the state a "fiduciary duty to preserve the corpus of the public land trust, specifically the ceded lands, until such time as the unrelinquished claims of the Native Hawaiians have been resolved."

Bennett, however, said the Moon opinion "is based on a wholly incorrect reading of the legal effect of the Apology Resolution" and unfairly blocks the state from "prudently managing" the ceded lands.

The decision "strips the state of its basic sovereign right to control and manage the lands it owns," Bennett said in a news release.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court opinion reversed a lower court ruling from Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna in a suit filed against the state by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and four individual plaintiffs of Native Hawaiian ancestry.

Kamehameha Schools is trying to get back as much as $2 million of the $7 million it paid last year to settle a lawsuit that challenged its admissions policy favoring Hawaiian students, according to legal papers filed in federal court in California.

The proposed $200 million Office of Hawaiian Affairs settlement appears dead for this year's legislative session.

Senate President Colleen Hanabusa said yesterday that OHA trustees voted to urge the Legislature to pass a bill directing OHA to spend another year in negotiations.

Another legal challenge to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was filed yesterday in federal court by six Hawaii residents who contend state funding for the agency discriminates against non-Hawaiians.

The six contend that paying OHA a part of the revenues from ceded lands once held by the Hawaiian monarchy violates the state's trust obligations to all Hawaii residents.

The six non-Hawaiian residents are represented by H. William Burgess, the attorney who filed other challenges to OHA in the past.

It asks for a court order to halt state payments from ceded-land revenues to OHA and a halt to OHA spending that money to support the Akaka Bill pending in Congress. It also suggests that the pending settlement before the state Legislature to resolve past disputed claims by OHA to ceded-land revenues would also violate the rights of non-native Hawaiians.

A key Senate committee yesterday advanced a resolution urging state Auditor Marion Higa to conduct a financial and management audit of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, following more than three hours of testimony for and against the action.

OHA trustees and state Attorney General Mark Bennett said the sudden introduction of the resolution was punitive and tied to the critical comments they made after three Senate committees rejected a $200 million settlement of ceded land revenues last week.

They also pointed out that Higa is already scheduled to conduct an audit this year, under a statute that mandates such an audit of OHA every four years.

Senators said the suggestion for an audit came from growing calls from constituents who question OHA's expenditures and want more accountability from an agency established to benefit Native Hawaiians.

State senators will consider a measure today calling for a financial and management audit of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The audit would come on the heels of the Senate's rejection last week of an agreement between the state and OHA to settle a 30-year dispute over revenue from land formerly owned by the Hawaiian government.

The settlement would give OHA $200 million in land and cash plus an annual $15.1 million payment. In exchange, OHA would relinquish any claims to revenues from the so-called "ceded lands."

Senate President Colleen Hanabusa said an audit of OHA would give everyone a chance to review the settlement.

"What the (OHA) beneficiaries are asking for, which we in the Senate do not find to be unreasonable, is to say, 'Slow it down a little bit. Let us participate in this. Talk to us.' And so the audit, to me, is an extension of that," said Hanabusa, D-21st (Nanakuli, Makaha).

Opponents of settlement have said it asks Hawaiians to give up too much for too little in return. Many Native Hawaiian leaders also complained they were not consulted on the settlement.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees and Hawai'i Attorney General Mark Bennett yesterday vowed to continue pressing for legislative approval of a $200 million ceded lands settlement this year. But a key senator was skeptical that a resolution could be reached in the remaining six weeks of the Legislature.

"We want to make it clear that we are not giving up," OHA Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona said at a news conference, with five of her eight colleagues flanking her.

But Sen. Jill Tokuda, who chairs the Senate's Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, said Tuesday's decision to hold House Bill 266, which contained the settlement offer, speaks for itself.

"I think by holding the measure, that was a pretty definitive message that we do not intend to pass the bill this year," said Tokuda, D-24th (Kailua, Kane'ohe).

Tokuda stressed that she and other senators want the parties to get more feedback from the public, work on the bill and come back next year.

Bennett, the Lingle administration's chief negotiator in settlement talks with OHA, said, "We are going to do everything we can to try to still get this passed in this legislative session."

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.

Two 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.
[...]
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.

Supporters of a cultural trademark study to protect Native Hawaiian art say it shows that many local artisans want a program to distinguish authentic artworks and products from fakes and imitations.

But more than a year after release of the $74,300 study, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has taken no action on its conclusions.

"It's sitting on a shelf gathering dust," said Leighton Chong, a Honolulu intellectual property and patent attorney who gave legal counsel to the study.

Chong said OHA, which paid for the study, is the logical agency to follow up with the study's recommendations because its mandate is to benefit Hawaiians.

"My basic reading is with all the challenges to race-based programs that OHA is dealing with, the cultural trademark program may not be a priority at this time," said Chong. "The Hawaiian community is rather fractious, and there are many different viewpoints. [The study] crumbled under its own weight."

OHA Administrator Clyde Namuo did not respond to requests for comment.

The state House, the Lingle administration and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs now appear to all be on the same page regarding a settlement of a longstanding dispute over ceded [sic] land revenues.

That could leave the fate of the $200 million settlement package in the hands of the 25 members of the state Senate.
[...]
Three House committees yesterday voted to approve House Bill 266, House Draft 2, which OKs the state to hand over three parcels of land valued at $187 million and $13 million in cash to OHA.
[...]
There are two key differences between SB 2733 — the original bill — and HB 266, the bill passed by the three committees yesterday:

  • The House bill states OHA will get a minimum of $15.1 million in future years as its share of ceded land revenues. A biennial report would be submitted from the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, which would analyze the amount of money derived from ceded lands, and the Legislature would determine how much OHA would ultimately get. The original bill calls for a flat $15.1 million annual payment, a key sticking point for some Native Hawaiians.

  • The House bill deletes all references to a "settlement." Caldwell said: "I believe this legislation sets a policy that enables a settlement but does not set the terms of the settlement. We're the policymaking branch of government."

The two sentiments voiced most frequently were that OHA, a state agency, cannot be trusted to fully represent kanaka maoli in negotiations with the state, and that such negotiations represent a tacit acceptance that the state has jurisdiction over the 1.4 million lands in question. (Another 400,000 acres are held by the fed.)

“You’re promoting a fraud,” said one man.

“You’re asking us to be collaborators with the enemy,” said another.

Three committees of the state House of Representatives will collect testimony from the public Saturday on its newly released version of a proposed settlement of disputed land revenue claims by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs against the state.

House Bill 266 keeps intact the bulk of the landmark settlement reached last month between OHA officials and Attorney General Mark Bennett, specifically a package of four parcels of state land valued at $187 million and a one-time cash payment of $13 million.

A key change is that it negates the proposed future annual payments of $15.1 million to OHA, as called for in the OHA-Bennett version and which has been criticized by many because it makes no allowances for inflationary factors. Instead, the House bill calls for an undefined pro rata share.

Saturday's 9 a.m. hearing at the state Capitol auditorium is being held jointly by three House committees: Finance, Judiciary and the Water, Land, Ocean Resources and Hawaiian Affairs.
[...]
On a related note, Native Hawaiians and the public will get two more opportunities before Saturday's hearing to learn about the bill.

OHA is holding an Internet discussion on the proposed settlement from 9 to 11 a.m. tomorrow. Go to www.oha.org/pastdue/index.php for more information.

Meanwhile, a coalition of Native Hawaiian rights groups will hold a panel discussion at 6:30 p.m. tomorrow at the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa titled "Why the OHA settlement is a bad deal."

Two key state Senate committees yesterday advanced a plan to settle a dispute over ceded land revenues that would have the state give $200 million in land and cash to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

But it remained clear that the plan, or some version of a settlement, is still an iffy proposition at the state Capitol, where lawmakers must sign off on any settlement.