Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 10, Number 9, 1 Kepakemapa 1993 — How will OHA spend the ceded lands money [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

How will OHA spend the ceded lands money

by Rowena Akana Trustee-at-large Not too long ago, OHA's chairman took a beating in the press for seeking poliīieal contributions from companies competing to manage $136 million in OHA funds. What the public doesn't know, and should, is that the nine-mem-ber OHA board still has made no provisions for spending that $136 million. If dangling a hundred million dollars as campaign bait

seems crass, squandering it on myopic whims will be infinitely more odious. The $136 million is partial compensation for back payments on ceded lands onee owned by the Hawaiian | government, but now held by the state. The OHA

board chairman deposited the bulk of the funds in OHA accounts at the Bank of Hawai'i pending decisions on where to invest the money. The board has never discussed a long- or shortrange plan on how to spend the money. Not onee. One of our agency's missions is

to seek and coordinate funds for Hawaiian programs. We now have some funds, but we have not coordinated them with our programs. Unfortunately, we haven't coordinated our programs, their directions or destinations either. It's not that the board is planning to fail, it's just failing to plan. The OHA board needs to ask what programs will get how mueh, when and why. It is a difficult, convoluted, but emeial question to answer. The

chairman has not asked and has not offered to let the board try. Instead, the board members waste time in argument over procedurI al matters and jurisdictions. For example: Because Bank of Hawai'i could insure less than one

percent of OHA's money, it bought $130 million worth of U.S. Treasury certificates. Either the bank or the chairman made the decision, no one will say. Three days later, the chairman brought the issue to the board. Eight board members approved the decision, ostensibly because it was a safe financial move. I

voted against approval because whether or not the decision was financially sound, it was made without consultation with the majority of board members.

The move, in judicial parlance, was a nune pro tunc — legal like many of the chairman's other maneuvers, but dangerous because of what it represented: a reckless laek of consideration. OHA has been demanding the back payments for years, but never decided how to put the money into investments, projects and plans. Unless plans are made, the board will just dole out the cash pieeemeal until nothing is left and nothing is left to show. The board has made only two decisions to allocate reparations money: a $10 million education foundation and a $20 million setaside for loans through First Hawaiian Bank for Hawaiian homestead leaseholders. The chairman's plan for the

$136 million seems to be not to have a plan. Without a plan, there is nothing to follow and therefore anything goes — like asking eontract seekers for campaign contributions. The general election in November 1994 will be the most important since statehood. Hawai'i will choose a new governor, Honolulu city eouneil, OHA board of trustees (Editor's note: five seats will be open) and perhaps — if the oracles, constellations and tea leaves agree, a new Honolulu mayor. Hawaiians too must make these decisions along

with a referendum on a Hawaiian constitutional convention. The people, especially Hawaiians, know things aren't right. Last year they wanted elected officials to be accountable for their actions, but they got politicians accountable only to themselves — a fact impossible to reconcile in a public trust such as OHA. So, if you're tired of reading about politics as usual, stop electing politicians. OHA is as good a plaee to start as any.

The OHA board needs to ask what programs will get how mueh, when and why.