Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 8, Number 8, 1 August 1991 — OHA prevails in suit before Hawaii Supreme Court [ARTICLE]

Help Learn more about this Article Text

OHA prevails in suit before Hawaii Supreme Court

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Board of Trustees, and the individual Trustees named in Kepoo v. Burgess have prevailed at the Hawaii Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a challenge to the efforts of OHA to conduct a referendum on the single definition of Native Hawaiians. The challengers argued that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and its Trustees breached their fiduciary duty to administer 5(f) funds solely to better the conditions of people with more than 50 percent Hawaiian blood by: advocating a single beneficiary class definition of "native Hawaiian"; and expanding special trust fund monies to inform and educate the Hawaiian community about the single definition referendum. The Hawaii Supreme Court found that there were no grounds on whieh to reverse the granting of summary judgment by the trial court. At the trial court level, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and its Trustees submitted 1) the affidavits of several OHA staff members indicating to what extent 5(f) funds were expended on the single definition 2) the first ballot and its accompanying information pamphlet, and 3) the resolution relating to Ho'okahi No Maua Ewe, as well as other documents and materials. In fact, special funds were not used for the single definition issue, except in an incidental fashion for wages and salaries of staff and for informational lunches at the Willows to whieh representatives of Hawaiian organizations were invited. At the trial court !evel, Judge Marie Milks entered the following finding of fact: "The betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians ean be achieved in many ways. Programs such as the single definition referendum that promote selfdefinition is one of many ways to achieve the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians even though all Hawaiians would benefit." The Hawaii Supreme Court did not reverse any of the orders of the trial and affirmed the judgement of the trial court. Attorney Sherry P. Broder, represented the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and its trustees. ■ ■ ■ K ■ m m