Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 7, Number 4, 1 April 1990 — OHA and Hawaiian sovereignty [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

OHA and Hawaiian sovereignty

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

In the week following the Feb. 8 announeement of the negotiated settlement between OHA and the governor for past money due OHA by the state and the introduction of a bill to clarify the status of ceded lands and

their functions by formula, it was a shock to hear a high-level federal official declare that OHA could now be looked at as the organization that legitimately represents the interests of the Hawaiian people. That same federal official shocked me even further when he said that he could now see OHA (probably with structural changes) as the future Hawaiian sovereign entity. He further pointed out that OHA had begun to grow up, it had developed from the infancy stage to that of a teenager, and had risen above the ordinary "state agency" level — a level that many of OHA's critics have tried to loek OHA into. There ean be no denial that OHA had attained the elevated status of sitting "eyeball to eyeball" across the table from the top executive officer of the State of Hawaii — Gov. John Waihee OHA had reached some kind of "equal" status with the state as the negotiations went back and forth to its final conclusion. At the press conference in the governor's office on Feb. 8, it was obvious that Unele Tommy Kaulukukui, chair of OHA's board of trustees, shared equal billing. Those two individuals, one representing the State of Hawai'i and the other representing all Hawaiians sat side by side asequals, eaeh saying those things important to his own constituency. Despite the quantum leaps of its evolutionary development, OHA's critics eonhnue to sing the outmoded "OHA is a state agency" song, that because it is a state agency OHA cannot ever become the Hawaiian sovereign entity. The song continued to be the proverbial broken record that has been sung by OHA's regular critics at almost every legislative hearing held this year. The critics also eonhnue to harp on the idea that whatever the state has put together, it ean take apart. Although OHA was given its initial life in the state Constitution, the most permanent of all state documents, the fact is that whatever the voters of Hawai'i have put together, they ean take apart. We must remember, however, that Hawaiians are also voters. Some of the seeds of OHA's "feared" destruction rest in our own voting behavior. It is very interesting that those who sing the "state agency" song the loudest seem to be among the most vociferous complainers when giving legislative testimony negative to OHA. These are the very people who continue to suggest that the legislature attach would-be strings to OHA, then, to foster their own purposes, reverse themselves and point out OHA's possible susceptibility to the legislature's strings. Requesting the legislature to usurp OHA's authority to "expend" money from the trust lands would open Pandora's box and set the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty back numbers of decades. Unfortunately, this may be the objective of the petitioners. However, at the hearing of the House Finance Committee that heard the negotiated settlement bill Hoaliku Drake, chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission and one of those with whom OHA will be coordinating to map out future plans, testified that OHA should make its own decision on

how the money should be spent. As to how the moneys will be spent most effici ently and necessarily, OHA will be looking at the needs singled out by the Operation Hui 'Imi report tnat is expected later this year. Hui 'Imi is the task force that is coordinating the planning of services to Hawaiians. For purposes of further comparison, however, are the different counties concerned about their destruction because they were created by the same process (constitutional amendment) that created OHA? The counties were imbued, of course, at the time of their creation with a high degree of autonomy, quite similar, but arguably more so, than the degree of autonomy that OHA presently appears to have. Let's face it, OHA is different from all other state agencies. OHA represents the indigenous people that we Hawaiians are and has that level of autonomy that enables it to exercise its granted and non-granted sovereign powers. OHA is a unique entity that combines features of both a public trust and governmental agency. It is independent from any branch of state government and its independence is assured by the elective process by whieh the board of trustees is chosen, by its ability to enter into contracts and leases, by its ability to acquire and manage property, and by its control over its internal affairs. To be sovereign, one must act like a sovereign. OHA's trustees continue to exercise the broadbased mandate and authority given OHA to work for the betterment for all Hawaiians. The trustees remain accountable only to those Hawaiian beneficiaries who elect them and to the fiduciary obligations of the OHA trust.

To advance the cause of Hawaiian sovereignty, the OHA Blueprint released on Sept. 2, 1989, declared that Native Hawaiians have the right to selfdetermination and right to govern their affairs in a se!f-governing status pursuant to their culture, traditions, and current goals. The Blueprint goes further to state that OHA will assist in the development of an organic document (such as a Constitution) to govern Native Hawaiian affairs relating to self-determination and self-governance. The document is to be drafted by Native Hawaiians elected to a kind of Constitutional Convention, followed by a ratification eleetion by Native Hawaiians themselves. The Blueprint further suggests that OHA could be the sovereign entity that may be chosen by the people. If the people decide that OHA is to be the entity for self-determination and self-governance, then OHA must be transformed into a structural entity that will enable it to act as such. In the process, OHA will vacate its present position as a hybrid state agency and be recognized by the federal (and state) government as the Hawaiian sovereign entity. That the possibility that OHA could become the sovereign entity is rather galling to OHA's critics. They elaim that they have been wrestling with the sovereignty issue for many years and that OHA cannot possibly be considered as the sovereign entity or even to take a position on sovereignty because it is the new kid on the block. They fail to note that OHA already has the basic structure of a governmental/sovereign entity and that it is governed by elected trustees who represent all of the Hawaiian people.