Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 6, Number 4, 1 April 1989 — Should OHA Trustees Be Fairly Compensated? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Should OHA Trustees Be Fairly Compensated?

By Clarence F. T. Ching Trustee, O'ahu

On February 27, 1989, in advocating a position adverse to a proposed bill that would pay OHA trustees a salary, the Honolulu Aduertiser printed an editorial entitled "Pay the OH A Board?" The bill as introduced in the Legislative would have enabled the trust-

ees to be paid an annual salary of $14,400. They presently are paid $50 for eaeh meeting attended. The writer of the editorial stated that while the trustees "make some important decisions, their responsibilities don't warrant an annual salary." The conclusion of the editorial was that it would be "an unwanted change" to pay the trustees asalary. The editorial, unfortunately, revealed a serious misunderstanding of the mission of OHA and its trustees by the Advertiser's editorial writer and editorial staff. The editorial continued with a single purpose statement that "OHA was established. . .(only) to handle possible federal reparations" and concluded that "OHA lacks a clear purpose." It oversimplified the very complex and important missions that OHA, and its trustees, performs for its Hawaiian beneficiaries along with other benefits that frequently flow over into the public domain. The trustees' mandate covers a lot more than just the handling of federal reparations. To understand the seemingly all-encompassing purposes of OHA and duties of its trustees, including the handling of reparations, one must be aequainted with Section 10-3 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (H.R.S.) They direct that OHA is responsible for: •The betterment of conditions of native Hawaiians and Hawaiians. •Serving as the principal public agency in this

State responsible for the performance, development, and coordination of programs and activities relating to Hawaiians, except for Hawaiian Homes programs. •Assessing the policies and practices of other agencies impacting on Hawaiians, and conducting advocacy efforts for Hawaiians. •Applying for, receiving, and disbursing, grants and donations from all sources for Hawaiian programs and services. In addition to the above, the specific powers and duties of the trustees as stated in Section 10-5 of H.R.S. are: •To manage, invest, and administer the proceeds from the^sale or other disposition of lands, natural resources, minerals, and ineome derived from whatever sources for Hawaiians, including all ineome and proceeds from that pro rataportion of the public (ceded) land trust. •To exercise control over real and personal property set aside to the office by the State of Hawaii, the United States of Amenea, or any private sources, and transferred to the office for Hawaiians. •To collect, receive, deposit, withdraw, and invest money and property on behalf of the office. •To formulate policy relating to the affairs of Hawaiians. •To otherwise act as a trustee as provided by law. •To delegate to the administrator, its officers and employees such powers and duties as may be proper for the performance.of the powers and duties vested in the board. •To provide grants to public or private agencies for pilot projects, demonstrations, or both, where such projects or demonstrations fulfill criteria established by the board. •To make available technical and financial assistance and advisory services to any agency or private organization for Hawaiian programs, and for other functions pertinent to the purposes of the Office of Hawaiian affairs. There is really no legal limit to the scope of acti-

vities that OHA and its trustees ean entertain. The limiting factors, however, are the financial resources available and the personal energies that the trustees and staff ean brings to bear. Compared to the mega-budgets of the Department of Education or Department of Transportation, OHA's trustees and staff eonhnue to work a miraele in spreading the approximately $12.5 million annual budget efficiently over a broad spectrum. The trustees' involvement includes many hours of exertion in non-meeting activities — activities that they do not get any compensation for because it isn't part of the pay structure. Actually, it should be noted that the mere obligation to "act as a trustee as provided by law" brings into play a whole new set of fiduciary responsibilities and obligation. There are no other elected or appointed officials of the State of Hawaii, not even the governor, the legislature, the Board of Education or the Board of Regents, who shoulder such a scope and level of responsibility. Such responsibility subject the trustees to individual suit for "misapplication of funds and resources in breach of fiduciary duty" or "by any other provision of law and by the eommon law" as provided in Section 10-16 H.R.S. No other elected or appointed officials of the State of Hawaii carry such legal burdens. Other trustees, such as those of the Bishop and Campbell Estates, have commissions set by law, whieh sums reflect the magnitude of their responsibilities — responsibilities that are not greater than that of OHA's trustees. By comparison, the small compensation requested by OHA trustees for an annual salary ean only be regarded as a terrific bargain. Many Hawaiians feel that OHA's trustees — their elected trustees — have sufficient justification to be salaried. Some don't. The points made here will hopefu!ly supplement the incomplete facts of the editorial and convince the doubters among us. The beneficiaries of OHA deserve the best trustees, trustees who are also fairly eompensated.