Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 15, Number 4, 1 ʻApelila 1998 — The Easter bunny leadership syndrome [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

The Easter bunny leadership syndrome

ĪHE HAWAI'I Supreme Court's March 12 decision in OHA vs. BLNR (dealing with Haseko's 'Ewa Marina development) has profound impact on the other cases OHA has pending before the Supreme Court and the Circuit Court. In OHA vs. HFDC, OHA and others assert that the state doesn't have the legal authority to sell ceded lands. Not so, says the Hawai'i Supreme Court, the state has the legal authority to do just that, so long as there is a "public benefit." In the biggest case for Hawaiians ever, OHA vs. State, more commonly known as the "Heely decision," Hawaiians risk losing "around $500 million" in the state's appeal before the Supreme Court. When I was removed as chair of OHA, Chair Frenchy DeSoto and Vice Chair Haunani Apoliona complained

that I was "moving too fast" in trying to hire Wall Street firms expert in real estate brokerage, accounting bond sales and land settlements with other Native Americans, to negotiate a settlement with the state in the Heely decision. As far back as April 1997, the governor himself met with OHA willing to discuss a settlement of the pending appeal. The OHA leaders evidently meant what they said, as nothing has been done since their leadership takeover in October. The Heely appeal is to be heard next month. While I and OHA's law firm have long counseled for a negotiated settlement with the state, DeSoto and Apoliona have turned a deaf

ear to the advice. lnstead, they have opted to put "all of the Hawaiians' eggs into one basket," namely the appeal.

By not hiring Wall Street experts to advise us, as we hired experts to manage our portfolio, resulting in nearly a 100 percent return since 1993, DeSoto and Apoliona's leadership has placed the nearly $500 million in Hawaiian claims in one precarious basket, the same one that has resulted in egg on our face in OHA vs. BLNR where the sale of ceded lands is eoncerned. While I continue to believe OHA is correct, any reasonable person knows the "all or nothing" approach is foolhardy when the stakes are this high. A win-win negotiated settlement is prudent, practical and wise. I suppose DeSoto and Apoliona ean

ask us to appeal the Haseko case to the U.S. Supreme Court, as foolishly spending Hawaiian money has become their hallmark. ■

[?]