Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 23, Number 3, 1 Malaki 2006 — Setting the record straight on ceded land revenues [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Setting the record straight on ceded land revenues

Rūwena Akana TrustEE, At-lsrgE

£ A no'ai kākou. As you have prob- /\ ably already heard, the governor Ā. \.and the Board of Trustees have agreed upon an amount that the state will pay OHA from its pro rata share of ceded land revenues. Legislation to make it law is currently making its way through both the state House and Senate, and it looks as if it will pass without difficulty. For the record, despite what you may have heard in the media, I am not opposed to the proposed amounts that were negotiated. I do, however, have serious concerns about how the amounts were calculated. I also question whether OHA's negotiation team considered all of the facts and figures that were available to eome up with a fair and justifiable amount. The last discussion that I am aware of was in December, when our attorney told us that the state owed a past due amount between $17-$30 million. Despite my inquires, I have not gotten a satisfactory answer on how the final $15.1 million figure was calculated, nor why this amount is lower than the $17-$30 million range that was discussed. Over the past six months, I have received bits and pieces of information from the negotiation team from time to time. However, even very important information, such as the calculations and figures compiled by OHA's accountant in the past, has changed over the years, and I question whether they were even considered. There also did not appear to be a clear formula by whieh the negotiators ealculated the amounts owed or even the future payments to be paid to OHA. Let me be absolutely clear: at no time was I ever privy to the formula that the negotiation team used to calculate the settlement with the governor's office, nor was I given any real numbers that showed exactly how the team had arrived at the numbers that they were suggesting. Mueh of the specific details of the negotiations were kept a closely guarded secret. By the time I found out that the negotiating team and the governor's office had eome up with a deal, it was too late for me to express my other concerns, whieh include:

• By what method was the past due amounts determined to be $17 million? • Was inllahon factored into the equation? • Did they consider the fact that the state has been re-negotiating leases every year and, consequently, the revenue stream is now mueh higher? The $15.1 million figure goes way back to 1995. • What about the interest that is owed to OHA on the unpaid amounts? What's really egregious is that during a recent board meeting, Trustee Dante Carpenter asked the board to take a vote (whieh was not listed on the agenda) to deny me the formulas and numbers that I requested from the negotiation team. To my knowledge, not only should this information be public, the vote goes against state "sunshine" laws. On Feb. 1, the state House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs had a hearing on the proposed legislation. During the questions and answers period, eommihee members asked the state attorney general about where the revenue would eome from. The attorney general replied that they were looking at receipts from the airport shops, the University of Hawai'i Bookstore, U.H. parking, etc. State Representative Ezra Kanoho asked if those sources were included in the $15.1 million and the answer was "yes." This was confusing since those revenues have been in dispute with the state since the Heely case. This begs the question: is the state now settling a part of the Heely case with this settlement? Again, I'd like to stress that I am not opposed to the negotiated revenue stream from the ceded lands. The increased revenue will definitely strengthen OHA's ability to assist its beneficiaries, and the governor should be commended for her work to address this issue. I just feel that our negotiating team was too secretive about how they eame up with the hnal $15.1 million figure. I also haven't heard a convincing argument that justifies the amount. Perhaps they thought it was an amount that everyone could live with. If so, they haven't admitted it publicly. Given their laek of trust for their fellow trustees and ambiguous explanations, on a personal level, I sure wouldn't want them negotiating for anything on my behalf. For more information on important Hawaiian issues, eheek out my website at www.rowenaakana.org. ^