Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 26, Number 6, 1 June 2009 — The state's obligation to all Hawaiians [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

The state's obligation to all Hawaiians

Editor's note: In the final days ofthe legislative session, state lamnakers approved a hi.ll cutting OHA 's hudget by 20 percent. As of press time, the būl was pending the governor's consideration. Toward the end of this past legislative session, the OHA general funds budget was completely cut by the Senate Ways and Means (WAM) Committee Chair Donna Mercado Kim. While it is still possible that the funding will be at least partially restored (the legislative session will not be over at the time of tliis writing), I was disappointed to hear the reasons why the WAM Chair felt the cuts could be justified. The WAM Chair argued that: (1) OHA has $300 million in its trust fund; (2) OHA has $15 million in its fiscal reserve fund; (3) OHA receives $15.1 million a year in ceded lands payments; and (4) OHA received $2.03 milhon for a legal settlement from the Hōkūli'a case from the Native Hawahan Legal Corp. (NHLC). However, the WAM Chair did not take into consideration other circumstances such as: • OHA's tmst fund has lost almost $150 million, or 30 percent of its value, from its peak in late 2007. • OHA's Spending Policy puts an annual eap of 5 percent on withdrawals from our trust fund, so there ean be no further withdrawals. • OHA had already agreed to reduce its budget by 20 percent, like all other state agencies, at the Legislature's request. Now they are proposing to cut 100 percent of our budget. Where is the fairness in that? • The OHA Fiscal Reserve Fund is not a "rainy day" fund and is actually part of our trust fund. It was never meant to be used to make up budget shortfalls. • OHA's matching funds for the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. only entitles us to about half of the total $2.03 mhhon the NHLC received forthe Hōkūh'a settlement. Therefore, OHA will only receive about $1 mhhon. In addition, the $15.1 million ceded land payments that OHA receives annually are part of the state's legal obligation to pay OHA for its 20 percent pro rata share of ineome from ceded lands. The attorney general has made it clear that the Hawaii Constitution makes OHA trustees, not the Legislature, responsible for determining

how the Native Hawaiians' poiiion of ceded land revenues is spent. The attorney general has also stated that OHA's share of ceded land revenues belongs to Hawaiians and is not "pubhc money." The WAM Chair also ignores the fact that the OHA budget was designed more than 16 years ago by the governor and the state Legislature to contain both general funds and trustee-approved matclhng trust funds so that it ean better the eondition of all classifrcations of Hawaiians: (1) those with at least 50 percent blood quantum under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 and (2) any descendants of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. This blending of funds was thought to be the most effective way to allow OHA to serve the entire Hawaiian populahon, estimated at the last census to be 400,000 nationwide. OHA will not be able to provide the same level of services to such a large population without the assistance of additional general funds from the state. The WAM Chair needs to realize that OHA funds a wide range of programs relating to Education, Heahh, Human Services, Housing and Eeonomie Development, just to name a few. For the sake of comparison, while OHA may have $300 million in its trust fund, Kamehameha Schools spends more than that in just one year - only on education! OHA has also subsidized the loss of legislative funds to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, whieh by law must be funded by the governor's budget. Other state departments that have been funded by OHA include the state departments of Education and Health. Finally, cutting the funding to Na Pua No'eau is simply cruel and would destroy a leader in Hawaiian culture-based education. The WAM Chair needs to think about the 1,500 Hawaiian students, their families, 80 teachers that will be adversely affected. The actions by the WAM Chair shows why OHA needs to constantly educate the Legislature on Hawaiian history and culture and Hawaiian rights. But it wasn't always this way. There was time when legislators made it a point to be educated on Hawahan issues and were all well aware of why OHA was created during the 1978 Constitutional Convention. It was veiy clear to the legislators and the governors who served from 1978 to 2000 that the legislative funds that OHA was to receive were to seive the Hawaiian population with less than 50 percent blood quantum. This promise was made because the law, Chapter 10 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, made it clear that the ceded See AKANA on page 29

ĒL www.oha.ors/kawaiola LEO 'ELELE ■ TRUSTEE MESSAGES

Rūwena Akana Trustee, At-large

AKANA

Cūntinued fram page 25 land revenues are to serve Hawaiians with a 50 percent blood quantum. The law ended up creating two classifications of OHA beneficiaries but funded only one of those beneficiaries. This is why legislative funds have been sought since 1980. It is clear that the across the board "slash and burn" of OHA's budget by Sen. Donna Mercado Kim is without conscious or careful thought regarding the special circumstances that governs the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. If you are outraged by this action, please write to Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and your state senators and representatives. Aloha Ke Akua. For more information on important Hawaiian issues, eheek out Trustee Akana 's web site at rowenaakana.org. ■