Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 13, Number 3, 1 March 1996 — The art of compromise -blessing or curse? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

The art of compromise -blessing or curse?

bv the Rev. Moses Keale. Sr. Trustee, Kaua'i and Ni'ihau It was 103 years ago that Hawaiians lost a

kingdom, their land, and their most valuable resource, their sovereignty. It was 96 years ago that Hawai'i was made a part of the United States of America through annexation. It was 37 years ago that Hawai'i became a state of

the union of states called Ameiiea. With statehood eame public law whieh declared that Hawaiians

were to be beneftciaries of a land trust consisting of their stolen land base. It was 16 years ago that the state of Hawai'i created the Offtce of Hawaiian Affairs

to address and pursue the problems facing its true indigenous peoples, na keiki o ka 'āina! But it was not until 1990, six years ago, that the state of Hawai'i aeknowledged its fiduciary responsibility and AGREED upon a settlement and payment

to the Hawaiians. However, agreement and execution are two very, very different

actions. The state has not honored its agreement! It has defaulted year after year. OHA has never received its full entitlements eaeh and every year. In fact, it would be very accurate to say that the state has been consistent in its failure to render a full accounting for and transmittal of the 20 percent entitlement from revenue generated ffom the pubhc land trust. The state has failed to live up to its obligation to negotiate those areas of revenue yet in dispute and the state has failed to collect the full value of every lease for whieh it is bound by law to eollect as land owners and tmst fiduciary. And now the state, while still in continued page 14

Keale from 12

default of our agreements (agreements entered into freely and willingly by the state through its executive branch and affirmed by the members of the state Legislature, representatives of the people through appropriate legislation) now suggests, through legislative initiatives, that OHA, representatives of the Hawaiian beneficiaries, be forced to agree to a breach of their agreements by offering not a settlement, but a retraction of their settlemenL They are asking that OHA reduce its entitlements by 75 percent — that we accept 5 percent instead of 20 percent of the generated revenue. I THINK NOT! ! ! There ean be no talk of reduction of entitlement, when full entitlements have never been paid. There ean be no talk of further compromise until the original agreement has been honored. And there certainly ean be no talk of transferring the state's legal responsibilities to fund statewide programs to OHA's Hawaiian beneficiaries. Recently, several trastees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs suggested that we, you and I, "bankroll" the state of Hawai'i by loaning our money to the state! This idea is absurd, unthinkable, and is an exercise of poor judgment, and maybe even a demonstration of impradent behavior. If the state cannot pay us our full entitlements, how are they ever going to pay us back for the money they propose to "borrow?" This is silly, ridiculous and demonstrates a laek of knowledge of who we, as trastees, are elected to serve.