Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 15, Number 1, 1 January 1998 — Inclusive or exclusive? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Inclusive or exclusive?

HAPPY NEW YEAR! Ihopeyou enjoyed our holidays. The year has started with business-as-usual. The new "inclusive/exclusive" regime continues to define their existence, Last month, I mentioned that the agenda behind the change in leadership had to do with power and money, not "inclusiveness." Mueh has happened since. In a Committee on Budget and Finance executive session on Oct. 21, there occurred an evaluation of personnel whieh I thought improper under Hawai'i statutes. I have repeatedly asked, in writing, for the tapes from that session, and Chairperson Billie Beamer has denied me that opportunity, despite the OfRce of Information Practices" instructions to release the tapes within 10 days of the meeting. Instead, Trustee Beamer has pursued new OHA rules to limit the distribution of any tapes to committee members, and only if approved by the committee or the board chair. It is a trustee's right to hear tapes of an executive session in whieh she participated. Obviously, the "inclusive/exclusive" majority has a very narrow definition of "inclusiveness."

My eoneem is that, while pretending to be "open to others," they are railroading a narrower agenda, regressive for OHA in the long

term. Forinstance, rather than seek counsel from an OHA attorney on a parliamentary rule, the chair of the Committee on Budget and Finance and Policy and Planning obtained an outside consultant — without getting Board of Trustee approval. The Board's Functional Statement on responsibihties says, "Specifically, the Board of Trustees approves the provision

of OHA funds, grants, advisory, technical and other services." The Budget and Finance chair committed to these services, then sought approval of $1,300 for them. Despite my objection based on the rules defining trustee responsibilities, the eommittee approved payment. Fortunately, when the action item was presented to the

board, it was deferred because of procurement questions. This Nixonian, Water-gate-type behavior is

unacceptable. Disregard for our stated policies is irresponsible. Yet, the "inclusive/exclusive" majority is showing that they will do what they want without open discussion. They feign inclusivity while excluding consideration of outside input. To be real, inclusiveness demands an element of trust among key decision makers. Trust allows members of the

OHA team to carry out the job they were hired to do. Yet, our key managers' decisions are not trusted. The OHA administrator is repeatedly reminded that his hires must be approved by the "inclusive/exclusive" majority, despite Article VII of OHA bylaws whieh says, "As required by Section 10-12, Hawai'i Revised Statutes, the

administrator may employ and retain such officers and employees as may be necessary to carry out the function of the office. Such employees shall serve at the pleasure of the administrator." When we hired him, didn't we entrust him with key responsibilities that would move OHA forward? This micromanagement needs to stop as it puts OHA back where it has been for years. At the Kaua'i BOT meeting, benefīciaries were made painfully aware that, despite a change on the board, nothing had changed for the better, in fact it was worse. The same people who had criticized the last chairman were doing the same things. Until this team begins to do as they said they would — be inclusive and make productive changes, and leave blame behind, they are no better than anyone who eame before. We really need people at OHA who are interested in ways to help our people move forward. Let us look positively toward the 1998 OHA elections for new faces and new energies. We ean only hope that 1998 will bring a progressive approach to business with OELA, and inclusivity becomes a reality. ■

[?]