Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 34, Number 7, 1 July 2017 — Reinventing OHA Part 2 [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Reinventing OHA Part 2

n my last eolumn I set forth seven recommendations for Tmstees to consider

in order to hit the reset button on the way we manage henehciary business and maximize our proficiency in carrying out our fiduciary duty in ways that clearly allow us to determine what is it we're supposed to be doing, what's working, what's not, and how do we fix the things that aren't working. The first two initiatives I eall for are ( 1 ) revisiting the constitutional intent of OHA and (2) retrofitting OHA's overarching

vision and mission statements. A review of the constitutional language that created OHA in 1978 and the legislatively constructed language of Chapter 10 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes that spell out OH A' s authority loom important, not so mueh for what they say, but for what they do not say. For the past 37 years since 1980, most OHA Trustees have seemed to presume that the notions of polilieal sovereignty, polilieal self-determination, and the politics of nation-building were fundamental to the purpose for whieh OHA was created. A considerable amount of resources has been committed to nation-building since OHA's inception. Yet nowhere in either the constitutional language that created OHA, or in Chapter 10 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes, are these eoncepts mentioned. To be clear, my intention is not to invalidate OHA's pursuit of self-determination or nation-building but simply to suggest that tmstees self-reflect on our priorities based on the language of the constitution and Chapter 10. What I hope might emerge from my eall for OHA to revisit, clarify, and perhaps amend its currently stated vision and mission is that the process will yield a realignment of OH A' s strategic plan with an eye toward a restructuring of OHA's

goveming model.

Personally, I eonlinue to support polhieal self-determination. But, OHA need not eonlinue to be the elephant in the living room on this political objective. For those who pursue federal recognition (whieh does not preclude seeking independence) there is a new center of gravity that emerged from the 'Aha process last year that yielded a constitution that needs to be ratified by some form of an eleetorate free of OHA inlluenee.

For those who seek independence, and there are at least a dozen organizations competing for the high ground on that polilieal objective, there is little agreement on how best to unify those of that persuasion in order to bring clarity on what a "restored" Hawaiian nalion might look like. But I wish them well. Then there is a third altemative, with a significant percentage of Hawaiians in favor of the status quo. Some are essentially happy with their way of life. Others hope to protect millions of dollars in federal entitlement programs now in play that may be threatened by political redesignation of Hawaiians as aboriginal peoples of Hawai'i. All of the above is subjective and I stand to be corrected, criticized, or enlightened except for my hnal observation. Everything on the table for discussion is rooted in the language of section 5-f of the Hawai'i Admissions Act that spells out that the trust responsibility of the state of Hawai'i is to engage in the active pursuit of the "betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians." OHA owes its existence to this provision and has an obligation to clearly live up to its promise. ■ I weleome you to visit my OHA webpage, peterapo.com.

PetEP Apo TrustEE, O'ahu