Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 14, Number 10, 1 ʻOkakopa 1997 — OHA's ancestral responsibility [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

OHA's ancestral responsibility

INJULY 1 997. the Board of Trustees of the Offīce of Hawaiian Affairs approved Chairman Hee's proposed 1 997-1998 Biennium Operating Budget with the understanding that further changes could be negotiated. One particularly troubling item was the recommendation to discontinue OHA's funding of the Department of Land and Natural Resources' (DLNR) Bunals Program. ln the past year, OHA has played an important role in protecting our iwi kūpuna by funding two of the three full-time burials program positions. OHA assumed the funding when DLNR Chairman Mike Wilson allowed the positions to fall under the knife of the governor's budget cuts. With the exception of a few informal dicussions with trustees, Mike Wilson has not changed his stance. In facL on Aug. 8, OHA's trustees and administrator were notified that unless OHA continued to fund the two positions, the burials program would be severely crippled. Moreover, the trustees were cautioned that the loss of the two burials positions would seriously paralyze the overall effectiveness of the state's protection of our iwi kūpuna. Recent reports from DLNR and several of the state's island burial council's contirm that the burials program is facing an "emergency situation" as the OHA-funded positions are due to lapse as early as December. This places OHA in a critical position to ensure that the program is kept

[?]

alive to handle the enormous backlog of re-interments now pending. We need only look at the statistics recorded in the burial sites program's quarterly report to find that "there are approximately 3,000 sets of Native Hawaiian remains needing reinterment in about 220 active cases." This significant number is anticipated to remain constant for the next several years. The deletion of the two OHAfunded positions would not only cause serious logistical problems with monitoring and reinterment. but would reduce the staff to a single director responsible for both administrative and field work for the entire state. In response to this "emergency," prominent Hawaiians stepped forward to urge OftA to continue funding the burials program. Halealoha Ayau encouraged trustees to put aside their polilieal agendas and protect their

birthright by caring for our kūpuna iwi and funding the burials program positions. Written testimony by Edward Kanahele reminded us of our duty to honor our ancestors and care for our iwi kūpuna. As a native Hawaiian and trustee, 1 recognize this duty should be foremost in our minds and actions. In that regard, I believe that any funding cuts would be a dereliction of our duty to our iwi kūpuna and our beneficiaries. Following the committee meeting, a memo was circulated to the trustees that "an agreement was reached between the director of DLNR and the chair of OHA." The memo further stated that OHA was prepared to fund one of the burials positions and DLNR would piek up the remaining two. However, the memo also pointed out that no formal commitment had been made by either party. I am "cautiously optimistic" that some good may eome out of this unfortunate political tug-of-war. The fact that the DLNR and the State of Hawai'i must take a more serious and active role in maintaining the burials sites program should not stop OHA from asserting its authority in this matter through funding these two positions. Onee we have settled the emergency issue before us, OHA must commit to expanding our involvement in repatriation efforts and the protection of our iwi kūpuna beyond the current legal obligations imposed on the state. Indeed, OHA's responsibility to care for our kūpuna is broader than DLNR's mandate and our commitment to the program should reflect that kuleana. ■