Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 24, Number 9, 1 Kepakemapa 2007 — Why we need Akoka [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Why we need Akoka

£ k no'ai kākou. You may have / \ heard recently of some of the J. A.never-say-die Arakaki suit plaintiffs seeking to register to vote with the Kau Inoa initiative of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We are grateful to Hawai'i Maoli, the Hawaiian Civic Club nonprofit organization that is handling the registrations, for their even-handed approach to this type of individual who has nothing better to do than spend time working on lawsuits against the Hawaiian people. Led by Bill Burgess, Thurston Twigg-Smith, and Earl Arakaki, these litigious individuals will not stop their incessant lawsuits until the United States Congress and our president either agree to pass the Akaka Bill, whieh will give Hawaiians a legal foothold against their lawsuits, or not. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide, but with Akaka we ean win in the courts. At OHA, we are diligently seeking to better the conditions of all Hawaiians and are able to do so because thus far we have prevailed in the courts against the likes of the above-named individuals. We fully expect another round of suits and will defend them vigorously; however, we fight with one hand tied behind our back without Akaka, and so the need is vital to Hawaiians to see passage of the hill and thus allow us to protect our very existence as a people. From another direction, you may have also read of the Hawaiians who are eontinuing their suit against OHA trustees seeking money damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctions against any expenditures by OHA going to anyone except 50 percent or more Hawaiians. These plaintiffs, including a former trust-

ee of OHA, Sam Kealoha, would have OHA deny any Hawaiian with less than 50 percent blood any benefits, assistance, scholarships, grants, medical care, housing, jobs and representation, whether legal or poliīieal, etc., whieh OHA has been involved in since its creation. They want only 50 percent Hawaiians to receive any benefits of the trust lands and for OHA to stop helping the vast majority of Hawaiians, whom it is now helping. This attack by Hawaiians on OHA is not unusual, but it is especially egregious in its attempt to deny so many Hawaiians so mueh. OHA has given millions to help Hawaiians and Hawaiian organizations in the past five years. We work closely with Alu Like, Nā Pua No'eau, and the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., all of whose services are being challenged by these Hawaiians. I cannot help but wonder how many generations will pass before their posterity will be less than 50 percent and thus not eligible for any benefits, and then how soon before there are no 50 percent Hawaiians and thus all benefits would cease and all lands and funds would be given back to the state. This process would work to accomplish the same thing that Mr. Burgess and his followers are seeking in the courts, and that is to prevent Hawaiians from receiving any kinds of benefits, whether eultural or financial, whieh they say would be race-based. By pursuing this type of action against their own, these Hawaiians are playing right into the hands of Mr. Burgess and company. The Akaka hill will secure for all Hawaiians a degree of nationhood where we ean all have a say in our future and where Hawaiians ean live in peaee without spending so mueh time and money defending ourselves in the courts. We need to preserve what we have. We need to build our people by providing for their needs. We need to build Hawai'i by strengthening ourselves. We need to survive. We need Akaka. S

LEO 'ELELE ■ TRUSTEE MESSAGES

Bnyd P. Mūssman TrustEE, Maui