Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 13, Number 2, 1 Pepeluali 1996 — Courts the on!y recourse for minority trustees [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Courts the on!y recourse for minority trustees

by the Rev. Moses K. Keale, Sr. Trustee Kaua'i and Ni'ihau What happened to the December 7, 1995 complaint filed by Attorney Foley to man-

date Chatrman Hee and his majority to comply with the legal provisions requiring full disclosure of the intent of agenda items to interested parties, the outcast trustees and the puhlie at-large? Trustee Beamer and I funded the complaint and were joined by. beneficiaries Tagupa, Lawrence and Kawaiaea. Recall that trustees Hee, Aiona, DeSoto,

Akaka and Kealoha blatantly changed the October agenda to fit their own plan to hire

Linda Colburn as administrator without following the prescribed procedures. The suit challenged the action taken and required eomplianee. OHA exists to aid the people. By opening our decision-mak-

ing process to pubhc scrutiny we protect the public's interest as required in HRS 92 statutes for the conduct of public meetings and record keeping. There was no recourse but to go to the courts for relief from the willful violation of the law and procedures. By taking the path of political bottle necking for control, I trustees invalidated OHA's

role as the conscience of the beneficiaries. Making light of the complaint, the chair-

man submitted an agenda for the December 13, 1995 meeting listing items as (1) OHA Administrator, and (3) Legal counsel funding. Trustee Beamer responded, asking, "What about the administrator? Will you hire, ftre, raise her salary? And how will the public prepare input for such a broad item?" She admonished that this agenda, again, is grounds for a complaint. The courts do have clout. The items were amended and included in a meeting scheduled for December 19th. Now the item read (C) OHA administrator (1) Appointment of OHA administrator (same one appointed in October on Lāna'i) and (2) Approval of contract for OHA administrator. This was a step forward on paper. Now the sleight of hand began. Aiona moved to suspend the rules for hire. Beamer amended to allow the Board to

interview the candidate, part of the suspended procedures. After a long manipulative hassle, purposeful confusion and political gamesmanship the board was denied the request to allow questioning of the appointed one. Have you ever heard of a board that controls $250M plus being denied the right to question a manager for their estate? Do you remember the Carpenter suit? He sued the trustees who terminated him for personal damages and then

walked to the bank laughing when these same trustees decided to buy him out. It never got to court....trustees sold out. Now we only want corrective action from these unaccountable trustees who continually interpret the law and procedures for their own purposes. Over futile objections»of the minority, Aiona included in one motion two primary actions whieh require two separate votes. But the group ignored Robert's Rules and voted in one motion to suspend the rules and to hire Linda Colbum. The Circus continued when Aiona refused to provide details of the perquisites given the administrator. So we don't know if, like Carpenter, she ean charge $200 lunches to petty cash, get moving fees and travel fees, parking and a car, and whatever else he got besides the $85,302 plus 33

percent for benefits. Trustees are derelict. Perhaps the reason for not giving us detailed financial reports is that what is not known is better left unknown. There is more - the Group appointed Sherry Broder to represent five trustees against the two filing the complaint. This is a questionable move since she is the board's attorney who refused to represent the other five against Carpenter. We shall see what will happen for they must respond by January 9, 1996. THE ENCOURAGING NEWS IS THAT A THIRD STATE AUDIT (IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS) WILL REVIEW OHA'S OPERATIONS. PUBLIC SCRUTINY IS GOOD BUSINESS. THIS TIME LET'S MAKE THE SUGGESTED CORRECTIONS.