Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 14, Number 10, 1 October 1997 — Classify Hawaiians with Native Americans and Alaskans [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Classify Hawaiians with Native Americans and Alaskans

ALOHA MAI, e nā 'ōiwi o Hawai'i. My eighth article in a series of 46, follows up on my September article addressing the significance of the Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive 15 ( OMB Directive 15} on "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting." Directive 15 is the federal policy that sets data standards for government agencies to measure their eomplianee with civil rights laws and to monitor equal access to housing, education and employment opportunities by

population groups that historically have experienced discrimination or differential treatment because of race or ethnicity. The directive provides for a minimum set of categories for data on race and ethnicity, used government-wide, not only in the decennial census (every 10 years), but also in data eolleehon for statistics on school registration, housing assistance, employment and education. Directive 15 does not determine eligibility for participating in any federal programs. On July 9, after four years of review that included four national public hearings and the establish

ment and implementation of a federal interagency task force of 30 federal agencies impacted by

OMB Directive 15, recommendations prepared by this task force as amendments to 0MB Directive 15, were published in the Federal Register. On Aug. 6, representatives of 17 public/private agencies, organizations and groups, reviewed these recommendations as to their impact on Native Hawaiians. This Hawai'i working group agreed to oppose the recommendation to continue to include Hawaiians in the Asian and Pacific Islander category of the 0MB Directive. It also eoncluded that the task force findings justifying the recommendation (maintenance of the status quo) were flawed and contradicted the purposes that established the 0MB

Directive 20 years ago. For three weeks, representatives of the Hawai'i working group eollected and compiled statistical and quantifiable data to refute the lnteragency Task Force findings and rationale. They wrote, exchanged and shared this information, and met on Aug. 27, to help eaeh other to meet the Sept. 8 deadline. A complementary initiative was launched as well, funded by OHA. Twenty thousand individuals from Hawai'i and the eontinent mailed postcards to the director of the Office of Management and Budget citing opposition to the Federal lnteragency Task Force recommendation. ■ See excerpts on page 13

MĒĒ «L

[?]

ls deception a noble act for the puhlie good?

The accuSATION that Bishop Estate trustees micro-man-aged the schools has been replaced by charges of covert mismanagement of the trust's investments. Somehow, the charges of micro-management metamorphosed into the present intense vivisection of the estate. The incumbent trustees are the scapegoats. But what should be addressed is the estate's

systemic cancer of historical abuse by the privileged. In many years of watching Hawaiian trusts, never have I witnessed such determined media scrutiny. What happened? Why eall for accountability now? The media have been aware of KSBE's politics for years. Is it because the Hawaiian eup runneth over, and some consider it time for the reassessment of its nratured assets?

After a hundred years of political deception, enough beneficiaries shucked the stereotype of the "ignorant powerless rabble," deemed the politically unsophisticated weeds, the "nāhelehele." When lone beneficiary Pearl Nishimura, sister of a trustee, called repeatedly for ethical behavior and fiduciary accountability, she was ignored. Enter, another stalwart, pro bono attorney Beadie Kanahele Dawson. Her mother, the gracious Annie Kanahele, ehampion of Opukaha'ia, must be thankfully praying for Beadie's heroic soul. Like Pearl, for the sake of tnith and justice, Beadie has had the courage and integrity to speak out nobly. Groups of beneficiaries, some more informed than the trustees, now step forward to assume their long-neglected role as "keepers of the trust gates." Isn't it an irony that a Punahou graduate and attomey, serves them without fee, while estate attomeys blithely set up their extravagant defenses using the millions supposedly intended for the betterment of the beneficiaries? Something is amiss. V The KSBE inquisition is not an indictment of Hawaiians by Hawaiians. Rather, it is an indictment of carpet-bagging public servants, Hawaiians included, who glean exorbitant benefits meant for the estate's beneficiaries. • Appointments were made by non-Hawaiian judges. NonHawaiian circuit court judges appointed masters to assess and evaluate the estate's fiductary practices. • The attomey general, named guardian ad litem, was to protect the best interests of the beneficiaries. • Hawaiian advisory committees like HSIA and Hui 'Imi did not eall for accountability, but worked within the power stmcture. • Occasionally the media questioned the migration to the tmsts of high-paid, job-seeking politicians, without calling for resolution.

No provisions or procedures were ever encouraged for beneficiary input or external review. Politicians sometimes believe that the public must be deceived for its own good, just as the parent lies to the child or the doctor withholds from the terminal patient. To them, what they negotiate on our and their behalf, with our resources, is best left hidden from public view. The evolution of our Hawaiian estates has fossilized too many incidents of plunder. It isn't only KSBE, that must be scmtinized. The Queen Emma estate discontinued meelieal services for Hawaiians. The Lunalilo Estate ean no longer support the elderly. Hawaiian Home Lands has a disgraceful waiting list. And, after 18 years, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs still searches foran identity. In my presence, Senator Inouye announced on three occasions that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and DHHL should merge, that he is ready to amend the Admission Act of 1959. When the senator floats this kind of trial halloon, beware. A bill is probably already in the federal hopper waiting to be introduced. Again, no state-wide beneficiaries hearings have been , announced. At our Aug. 28 Lāna'i meeting, the policy committee presented amendments to the by-laws that would require regular reporting to the beneficiaries verifying their right of access to information. Apoliona, Beamer, Machado and Springer, voted yes; Akana, Aiona, and Hee. Voted no. Why? Is beneficiary ignorance to be considered bhss and tmstee deceit and omission to be deemed noble? ; Call 594- 1 899 for information. Write e-mail, bilhe@hgea.org ■ ,

[?]