Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 18, Number 3, 1 Malaki 2001 — Much to do about the audit [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Much to do about the audit

Recently, the state auditor's report on OHA was delivered in draft form to the trustees. An agency of our size and importance to Hawaiians ean always use constructive criticism to better serve the Hawaiians who entrust us to best represent them. We mustn't look for excuses as to why we are lacking in certain areas. Rather, we should assess the findings and determine proper recourse. We trustees, as a board, have reviewed the recommendations and criticisms of State Auditor Marion Higa and are working on an implementation plan that will help us make those recommendations a reality and that will make our agency a stronger plaee for all Hawaiians. It was difficult at first for trustees to review the draft audit that was received by the chairman's office. The chairman was not forthcoming with the information and did not release trustees' copies until I wrote a memorandum requesting that it be released. This attempt to stall our review of the draft report is unprecedented, especially given the gravity of the report's findings and

recommendations. In my decade at OHA, nothing like this has ever occurred. Because mueh of the information contained in the

audit is unfair and inaccurate, trustees were very concerned about the eight-day turnaround response that was required by the auditor. It took a letter with five trustees' signatures addressed to Higa that asked for additional time to respond to her audit before the Chair would eall Higa to ask for that additional time. It also took trustees complaining to the Chair about not being able to discuss the auditor's report collectively

before she consented to eall a meeting to discuss the matter. The Chair had assigned select staff, along with two trustees (one of whom did not attend these meet-

ings) to do a draft response to the auditor's report. All of the employees selected as well as the trustees, with the exception of one employee,

had been employed at OHA for about three years. In my view, they did not have the institutional knowledge with whieh to aeeurately respond to the report. To leave the control of information in the hands of a select few and to exclude trustees in this important process is unfathomab!e. To control the official response by giving limited information to trustees and staff, one could only conclude that

the Chairman's reasoning for this would be that she intends to destroy the fabric of OHA from within. This audit is unfair because of the assumptions that it makes based on

the information supplied by disgruntled employees, including those who resigned or were terminated. To my recollection, Higa's office has never given a glowing review to any state agency — including the Governor's office. Remember, too, the auditor's job is to look only at what they believe is wrong. They don't give glowing remarks for doing well. Making OHA look bad would give this administration the opportunity to use OHA's $390 million in beneficiary money to remedy its financial woes. For the past six years, the state has refused to give OHA its fair share of the 20 percent of ceded land revenues. As trustees, we need to correct the things that the auditor points out that need reevaluation and defend those things that are not correct in her assessment. This audit provides the office a ehanee to review what is working and what isn't in our agency. By building on these recommendations, rather than making excuses, we will be able to justify our response to make OHA a better agency for all Hawaiians. ■

lt was difficult at first for trustees to review the draft audit that was received by the chairman's office. The chairman was not forthcoming with the information and did not release trustees ' copies until I wrote a memorandum requesting that it be released.

Rowena Akana

Trustee, At-large