OHA about power and money

As former chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs,

I find the method to the Honolulu Advertiser’s madness in the recent article

“Unity Elusive for OHA in 1999,” which was written by Yasmin Anwar, extremely

curious and highly suspect.

I am confident that the Hawaiians that have

benefited from the multitude of OHA’s programs during this last year would

agree that the picture painted by this article disregards the positive actions

and initiatives our Board has implemented on their behalf.

Trustee Clayton

Hee, who publicly denounced our organization in the media, is contributing to

the negative stigma that OHA is an unwanted stepchild of the state, incapable

of cohesiveness, solidarity, and camaraderie when this is not at all the

case.

Hawaiians statewide are offended by the trustees who speak

negatively about the organization they are elected to protect.

I am

disappointed in Trustee Hee’s claim that the board is unable to work together,

especially since as the former Budget and Finance chairman he did not have any

meetings for at least five months — leaving many important appropriations

hanging. As a result, the Budget and Finance committee members voted to replace

him.

Mr. Hee suffers from a rare form of amnesia. During his leadership,

his chairmanship was wracked with turbulence and numerous accusations of

impropriety.

As for the Land Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman of the

Board, Hannah Springer, she has been trying to delegate and circumvent her

responsibilities for the past six months, resulting in inactivity in important

areas that required trustee attention.

The problem at OHA has been that

trustees are unwilling to work at all, causing frustration for me, since I am

committed to moving forward for Hawaiians. Responsibility for trustees’ work

ethic cannot be attributed to the former leadership.

The tone of the

article, in my view, was a precursor to the main event, which was Monday’s

reorganization of the board. Simply put, the dissident trustees need an excuse

and a scapegoat.

The truth is this entire situation is about money and

power—don’t let anyone tell you different.

Taking OHA to the federal level

has made many people in high places very nervous. Having a chairman that cannot

be controlled by a political party is a very scary thing for some.

Rowena

M. N. Akana

OHA Board of Trustees

Let’s talk trash

To the

Forum:

Let’s talk trash — the kind that is ending up along our roads, by

the streams and reservoirs, along our pristine hiking trails and everywhere

else it should not be to ruin the beauty of our paradise island.

To be

even more specific, there is a favorite “dumping” place for everything from car

engines to tires, batteries, TV sets, mattresses, refrigerators, household

garbage to derelict autos.

This “place” is on Kainahola Road around the

reservoir and where I go on my daily walk. This area surrounded by streams,

rolling green pastures with cattle grazing and the majestic Makaleha mountains

with waterfalls cascading down its crevices is one of the many beautiful spots

on Kaua’i and should never be contaminated by waste deposited there by

unthinking humans.

So the question is, what do we do to solve the problem?

I notice that after one auto part or sack of trash is discarded there, a great

amount of dumping follows. Because of this, I regularly call head of county

roads to report the mess and request the clean up.

Sometimes the trash is

gone within two days, but other times it takes numerous calls and many weeks to

have the mess disappear.

Here are a few solutions:

1. Have the police

patrol these areas on a more regular basis, catch the violators and put teeth

in the $1,000 litter law that is on the books.

2. If the police are too

understaffed to do this, have the county crews pick up any litter on a weekly

basis.

3. If these two options fail, then how about allotting a few

dollars to the millions Wally Rezentes found to fund a gargantuan pay raise for

the mayor and 32 other administrators to fund a position (police or

trash-picker) and solve the problem?

Our property tax was just increased,

our gas tax was increased and our vehicle weight tax was increased. If these

tax increases are not going for the maintenance of the beautification of our

island, for road repair, beach parks and recreation upkeep, then where is this

money going?

And, if we cannot maintain and upkeep what we have, then why

is our mayor traveling around the world promoting more people to come here? If

you can’t figure this out either, call our mayor (241-6000) and maybe she can

tell you.

Glenn Mickens

Kapaa

Hawaiians better off

today

To the Forum:

Susan Dixon’s viewpoint column in TGI of Dec. 12 on

the recent reconciliation hearings was an excellent and heart-felt presentation

of why she feels America has betrayed the native Hawaiians and must not be

allowed to do it again. I would like to offer an alternate view.

The Dixon

column uses the 1993 Akaka authored Apology Resolution to conclude that the

United States was “guilty” of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It needs

to be recognized that the Resolution was written to portray American conduct as

wrong so the “apology” could be comprehensive and justified. The accuracy of

the Resolution’s statements of fact has been challenged by a number of

thoughtful persons, one of whom concluded that it contained over 100 errors.

But assuming the Dixon thesis, that America was responsible for changing

the Hawaiian government, it is an unwarranted step to conclude that this was a

“betrayal” of Hawai’i’s people.

Let’s look at the facts. A change in

government does not constitute a betrayal of anyone. Rather it depends on what

happens after the change.

Under the Kingdom, the typical Native Hawaiian

lived in poverty performing menial agricultural labor, and had a limited voice

in governmental affairs because the monarchy was not an elective office. Women

were not entitled to vote, and many men lacked the property qualifications to

vote.

Educational opportunities were meager and health maintenance was

disastrous.

The bulk of the depopulation of the indigenous people occurred

during the years of the Kingdom (an event for which the government of America

clearly had no responsibility); indeed, since annexation the native population

has steadily increased.

All Native Hawaiians were accepted as citizens of

the United States and many have been elected to high offices in the state and

counties.

Today, although some pockets of poverty remain, the standard of

living is vastly superior to what it was 100 years ago.

For any claim of

betrayal to be viable the condition of the indigenous Hawaiians would have had

to deteriorate, and the contrary is true.

In addition, although the

monarchs made promises to the native population that they would be given land,

they never were.

However, in 1920 the U.S. Government set aside about

200,000 acres of land for the use of qualifying Native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian

Homes Commission Act had elements of nobility in its concept, although its

administration has been shamefully abused.

Times have undermined the value

of the Act. It was adopted when Hawaii was an agrarian society. Today we are in

a technology age and tourism is Hawai’i’s paramount industry.

For our

native population to be confined in racially segregated poverty enclaves is not

in their best interests and a new arrangement is needed.

The Dixon column

is predicated on the notion that it is appropriate to racially separate our

society and provide to the indigenous people “some form of self-determination,”

a right no other racial group would have.

To grant racial preferences

because of historical injustices has occurred elsewhere – affirmative action is

an example. Some disapprove of the principle entirely and it may well be

defensible only where the injustice was substantial and clear and prejudice is

continuing to prevent equal opportunities.

Those conditions are not

readily apparent in the case of Native Hawaiians.

It has been sensibly said

that we should strive to improve things that we can change, accept things we

cannot change and have the wisdom to understand the difference.

Beginning

in the fifteenth century people from Europe in a continuing stream migrated

westward to the American continents, principally North America, and established

governments to rule the lands they inhabited.

Hawai’i was in the path of

this historic movement of people and, after becoming an American territory, its

citizens elected to become an American state. The course of history can never

be erased and seldom is it reversed.

The compact of statehood is an

inviolable act and as learned in the 1860’s secession it is not an option. In

the foreseeable future, severance of Hawai’i from America is not a realistic

possibility and it would be wise to accept this fact.

The issue of

sovereignty should be mentioned. As the Dixon column suggests while it is of

great emotional content it is a term which in the present context has no clear

meaning.

If Hawai’i is to remain an American state, the usual meaning is

foreclosed, and the opportunities for alternate meanings must await the

determination of the pending Rice v. Cayetano case.

Do the Native Hawaiians

have grievances which need to be addressed? Most certainly they do. But there

is a better way. I have an expectation that if the Hawaiian Kingdom had

continued and a setting comparable to the reconciliation hearings provided, we

would be hearing the same loud voices of protest and expressions of outrage and

grief.

These outbursts are part of the human condition, but they seldom

lead to anything constructive.

Rather what is required is a process

nurtured by reason. The real problems of the indigenous community should be

identified and prioritized. Clearly education and health should be on the list,

but I would not presume to delimit it.

Access to a quality education is

vital for the youth of today to prepare for the technology era we are in. Such

access must be assured for all who seek it. If a child has a learning

disability aid is mandated. Motivation is a key element. Parents must focus on

encouraging their children to learn and this they cannot effectively do if they

are dispirited or preoccupied with things they cannot change.

The notion

that it should be a federal government burden to deal with the needs of our

indigenous people should be reexamined. In my view it is primarily incumbent on

our State and local governments and the community itself to address these

conditions, and I sincerely hope that we are equal to this challenge.

A

better society will emerge when the well being of our Native Hawaiians is

assured.

Walter Lewis

Princeville