(c) Copyright 2016
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
=============
INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016
Full text of each item below can be found below, after the end of the index.
October 2, 2016: Robert Lindsey, Chairman of OHA, commentary in Honolulu Star-Advertiser summarizes how "New [Department of Interior] rule will help Native Hawaiians achieve political self-determination"
Oct 4: College student newspaper in upstate New York provides typical example of how "politically correct" college students view the Department of Interior regulation for creating a Hawaiian tribe.
Oct 6: Mililani Trask, the opponent of Robert Lindsey in the election of OHA trustees, authors commentary in rebuttal to Lindsey "Federal rule denies Hawaiians the right to rule themselves"
Oct 7: Keli'i Akina commentary in Honolulu Civil Beat: Outside OHA, Interior Rule Has Little Native Hawaiian Support -- The Office of Hawaiian Affairs should follow its own survey data and recognize the lack of support for federal recognition.
Oct 11: Hawaii Republican Party issues a press release endorsing Keli'i Akina for OHA trustee (which is a nonpartisan elective office in the state government). Many details supporting him.
Oct 12-13: News report on annual Native Hawaiian Convention regarding the Department of Interior regulation providing a pathway for federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe: "It's our first path to self-determination. We get to decide. Not a state agency. Not a federal agency. We as Hawaiians get to decide what we want for ourselves."
Oct 17: OHA board member Haunani Apoliona, candidate for re-election, defends OHA's record in a response to commentary of October 7 by her election opponent Keli'i Akina.
Oct 18: Conversation between OHA candidates Keli'i Akina and Mililani Trask, seeking to oust incumbent OHA trustees in November 8 election -- 30 minute YouTube video with partial transcript of highlights.
Oct 19: Kona regular newspaper columnist, who was a member of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission and the Kana'iolowalu process, writes a "news report" comparing the views of OHA candidates Robert Lindsey and Mililani Trask regarding nationbuilding.
Oct 28: "OHA Races Offer Stark Choices, But How Many Voters Will Care? -- Incumbents Robert Lindsey Jr. and Haunani Apoliona are squaring off against a pair of outspoken critics, Mililani Trask and Kelii Akina."
November 1, 2016:
(1) "OHA Races Aren't Short On Controversy, Mudslinging
Battles to lead the office established for 'the betterment of Native Hawaiians' are among the more lively on Hawaii ballots this fall."
(2) OHA trustee Rowena Akana monthly column says let's work together to make use of the Department of Interior regulation providing a pathway to a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe.
Nov 4:
(1) Rumor that OHA will spend $7 Million more to provide a ratification process for the proposed constitution of a Hawaiian tribe -- a step required for federal recognition under the regulation recently proclaimed by the U.S. Department of Interior.
(2) A community forum on "The Future of the Hawaiian nation" is set for Farrington high school cafeteria in Honolulu on November 10, 7-10 PM. Panelists will be Robin Danner (chief pusher of Akaka bill and DOI fed rec), Michelle Kauhane (head of Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement), Peter Apo (OHA trustee), John Waihee Sr. (former Governor and head of Kana'iolowalu racial registration process), Ku Kahakalau (founder of Hawaiian-focus charter school and head of consortium of all such schools), Mililani Trask (former head of 20,000-member Ka Lahui Hawaii "nation" and current candidate for OHA trustee), Kalama Niheu (racialist activist), and Kahookahi Kanuha (leader of anti-telescope protests on Mauna Kea).
Nov 7: Free Hawaii blog says "Sources inside the Office of Hawaiian Affairs have informed us that should he be re-elected, Robert Lindsey is planning to step down soon after the election in order to attend to his serious health situation. These same sources have confirmed to us that the person Mr. Lindsey would recommend to the remaining OHA trustees to replace him is Robin Danner.
Tuesday November 8 (election day) and Wednesday November 9, 2016:
(1) Ken Conklin's editorial note urging that the Republican President and Congress in 2017 should include the newly proclaimed Department of Interior regulation providing for federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe on their list of Obama regulations and executive orders to be dismantled;
(2) Keli'i Akina defeated 20-year incumbent Haunani Apoliona for a seat on the OHA board -- Hawaii Office of Elections official report of vote totals including breakdown by precinct;
(3) Keli'i Akina news release and Facebook message about election results;
(4) Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations) reports Akina victory;
(5) Cartoon shows a shredder at work at OHA headquarters [Akina promised he would demand an audit];
(6) Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports Akina victory and Trask defeat;
(7) Honolulu Civil Beat reports Akina victory and Trask defeat
Nov 10:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser "Hawaiian nationalists fear effects of Trump win" describes public forum planned for tonight with 4 tribalists and 4 independence activists. Includes Conklin's online comments describing the racism of both groups.;
(2) Star-Advertiser mini-editorial says Akina victory will make OHA meetings interesting to watch in view of his opposition to OHA's nationbuilding activity.
(3) 3-minute video by Free Hawaii TV congratulates Keli'i Akina for defeating OHA incumbent Haunani Apoliona; says he will work for transparency at OHA and stop OHA effort to tribalize Hawaiians.
Nov 14: This is the date when the Department of Interior "final rule" for a Hawaiian tribe took effect. Ken Conklin published a webpage describing the regulation, providing names of institutions, Republican members of Congress, and conservative commentators who opposed this concept for 16 years, and asked people to contact them and especially the Trump transition team to place this regulation on the list of Obama regulations and executive orders to be nullified by President Trump and the upcoming 116th Congress.
Nov 16: Independence activists provide a YouTube video explaining how to ask President-elect Trump to nullify "Fed Wreck"
Nov 17: Chad Blair, Honolulu Civil Beat, says "Native Hawaiians Don't Know What To Expect From Trump: Some leaders say competing movements for federal recognition and complete independence will continue no matter who is president." Online comment by Ken Conklin
Nov 18: Hawaiian independence activist asks "Who will be held accountable" for OHA sabotaging of Mililani Trask candidacy, and praises Keli'i Akina victory over Haunani Apoliona, noting that Akina has hired an accountant and economist for his OHA staff to help fulfill his pledge to audit OHA expenses and stop spending money on nation-building.
Nov 27:
(1) DOI Rule? Republicans Prepare to Reverse Obama's 'Flurry of Midnight Actions'
(2) Former Governor John Waihee III sent a message in August to John Echohawk, Executive Director Native American Rights Fund, requesting $2 Million, presumably to help hold an election to set up a Native Hawaiian tribe and ratify its proposed constitution as required for federal recognition. The Chairman of the Board of NARF is Moses K. N. Haia III, of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation who was cc-ed on Waihee's funding appeal.
Nov 28: Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and a member of the board of scholars at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, authored an important article in The National Review magazine about the Department of Interior regulation allowing federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe, entitled "Midnight Regulations in Paradise."
December 1, 2016: OHA's monthly newspaper for December has several articles that are politically significant on the topic of building a Hawaiian tribe. The entire newspaper can be viewed and downloded at
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo1216_edit_web?e=2253336/41355400
(1) Derek Kauanoe, head of the "governance" division of OHA -- "A Year in Review of Hawaiian Governance"
(2) OHA staff report of election results from November 8 (vote counts for Akina defeats Apolions, and Lindsey defeats Trask), including brief description of Apolion's 20 years at OHA
(3) 1/3-page advertisement by Apoliona links to her campaign webpage which includes nasty anti-Akina content.
(4) Rowena Akana, at-large trustee, regular monthly column, summarizes her views on what happened during 2016.
(5) Keli'i Akina's first regular monthly column "E Hana Kakou" -- let's all work together. "I seek harmony between being Hawaiian and being American. I am proud to be Hawaiian and proud to be American. At the same time, I am absolutely committed to the advancement of Native Hawaiians and will work to uphold the legal status of Hawaiian assets for Hawaiian beneficiaries. I have fought to protect the foundational Hawaiian entitlements as secured by law, including the Hawaiian Homelands and the Ceded Lands trusts. I affirm the rights of Hawaiian beneficiaries and believe we should not take assets away from Hawaiians."
(6) The OHA financial/policy "annual report" of 20 pages is an enclosure.
Dec 2: Scott Crawford's Hawaiian Kingdom independence blog compares China's control of Taiwan with U.S. control of Hawaii, noting the independence movement in Hawaii gained support from Hawaii people disgusted by Trump's victory in the Presidential election.
Dec 5:
(1) Ken Conklin new webpage: "Three ways President Trump and Congressional Republicans can kill the Department of Interior Final Rule 43CFR50 (authorizing creation and federal recognition of a phony Hawaiian tribe) -- Celebrating the long-term help of the Heritage Foundation and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in fighting creation of an apartheid regime in Hawaii."
(2) Honolulu Star-Advertiser news report: A campaign to bring about a ratification vote for the draft Native Hawaiian constitution has received a boost with a pledge of support from an association of more than 100 Native Hawaiian organizations.
Dec 9: OHA trustees elect Rowena Akana as chairperson by 5-4 vote (Keli'i Akina in the majority) in raucous meeting, ousting former chair Bob Lindsey with trustees Collette Machado, Dan Ahuna, and Peter Apo walking out in protest. OHA CEO Kamana'opono Crabbe spoke up despite being ruled out of order by Akana. He warned of "severe consequences" if trustees voted the wrong way.
Dec 11: Honolulu Star-Advertiser editorial writer lengthy op-ed describes "tremors felt through the Hawaiian-rights landscape lately, surely portents of change ahead in 2017 and beyond": DOI rule, tribal constitution drafted, new OHA trustee Akina opposed to fed rec, nationwide "indigenous" activism, Trump elected and might undo DOI rule. Impact of Rice v. Cayetano decision in 2000.
Dec 14: President-elect Trump's nominee to be Secretary of the Interior, Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, pushed hard for federal recognition for the Little Shell state-recognized tribe, and also cosponsored a bill for federal recognition for a collection of seven Indian groups including six from Virginia. However, Scott Pruitt, Trump's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has a record of opposing tribal demands. Excerpts from three news reports about Zinke, and one about Pruitt, are provided.
Dec 15-16: Costly OHA infighting adds to concerns over trust spending
Dec 16:
(1) Ken Conklin article in This West is OUR West blog: "Trump's Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke needs your help to avoid unjustified tribal recognition"
(2) Heritage Foundation: "Stars Align for the Congressional Review Act" [A thorough explanation of the Act, which allows Congress to repeal any regulation or "final rule" within 60 "legislative days" after it is made official. The clock for counting 60 days starts all over from scratch when the new 115th Congress convenes, so any regulation that took effect during the last half of 2016 can be repealed until at least the end of March.]
Dec 19:
(1) This West Is Our West blog discusses shortcomings of Ryan Zinke as Trump's nominee for Secretary of Interior; how to contact transition team; organization chart of Dept of Interior; copy of article from Indianz.com displaying happiness of tribes with Zinke's appointment.
(2) Hawaiian Federal Recognition: The Lessons From Standing Rock. Did the sovereign status of a Sioux tribe boost its fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline? Would it empower Native Hawaiians?
Dec 23: Interview with OHA's new chair Rowena Akana about her background, and her continuing push for creation of a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe.
December 29:
(1) "Chief of Staff" to Bumpy Kanahele writes commentary in Honolulu Civil Beat online newspaper claiming that Bumpy's cult compound in Waimanalo is a sovereign community and is ready to use the "Aloha coin" as basis for its economy;
(2) Letter to editor in Honolulu Star-Advertiser repeats numerous beliefs of Hawaiian activists and says President Obama could issue an executive order to restore Hawaiian independence.
December 29-30:
(1) Judicial Watch news release reports on 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on voting rights in the Northern Marianas [Guam] which ruled that it is unconstitutional to restrict voting on certain issues solely to residents who are at least 1/4 Chamorro ancestry, and compares that decision with a similar one in Hawaii regarding an election for delegates to a convention to create a constitution for a race-based government;
(2) Michael Barone, columnist for the Washington Examiner, compares the Guam and Hawaii voting rights rulings.
December 30-31, 2016:
(1) Editorial in OHA monthly newspaper for January by Derek Kauanoe, OHA Governance Manager, is a description of OHA's theory of why OHA was created in the 1978 state constitutional convention, focusing on racially exclusive self-determination, how that was undermined by the Rice and Arakaki decisions of year 2000 which allowed all voters regardless of race to vote for and to run as candidates for OHA trustee, and how the only way to get back the racially exclusive self-determination intended by the founding of OHA is to create a Hawaiian tribe.
(2) Editorial news report in OHA monthly newspaper for January describes newly elected trustee Keli'i Akina as a strong supporter of racial entitlement programs and of the right of ethnic Hawaiians to voluntarily choose their own future, and does not mention Akina's opposition to creating a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe. The clear impression created by that column is that Akina is a good boy who falls right in line with all the rest of the trustees and won't make waves.
(3) Honolulu Star-Advertiser publishes the second letter to editor in three days stating sovereigntist historical falsehoods and urging Obama to issue an executive order creating a Hawaiian nation.
END OF INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016. Full text of each item in the index is below.
================
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/10/02/editorial/new-rule-will-help-native-hawaiians-achieve-political-self-determination/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, October 2, 2016, Guest Commentary
New rule will help Native Hawaiians achieve political self-determination
By Robert K. Lindsey
** Ken Conklin's note: Robert Lindsey is Chairman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and is a candidate for re-election on the ballot in November.
Until now, Native Hawaiians were the only major indigenous group in the 50 states who lacked a process for a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
I commend Hawaii's keiki o ka aina, President Barack Obama, for providing a pathway that was previously closed to us. This meaningful development matters, and it is important to understand why.
The new federal rule announced recently by the U.S. Department of the Interior is a tool now available to the Native Hawaiian people. Should we pursue it, a government-to-government relationship can also be a tool for Native Hawaiians to protect what we have and pursue what we deserve.
It is my hope that we will take up that tool with our hands and learn to use it in ways that will create a brighter future for our Hawaii and all of its people.
We deserve that choice, and now we have it.
First, some background:
The state of Hawaii, the United States of America, and the United Nations all recognize that indigenous people have certain rights.
These rights, including the right to self-determination, are based on indigenous peoples' political status -- not race.
In the U.S., the main mechanism for respecting these rights is the government-to-government relationship. With this, indigenous people exercise their right to govern themselves and their resources and the United States engages them as sovereign nations.
Today, indigenous people use their rights and government status to perpetuate their cultures, create jobs for Natives and non-Natives, and protect what is sacred to them, while improving an imperfect system.
Back in 1978, the Hawaii State Constitutional Convention delegates envisioned an Office of Hawaiian Affairs, for Native Hawaiians to "govern themselves and their assets" and "to better their condition."
Since the Rice v. Cayetano decision in 2000, Native Hawaiians have not been able to govern their assets in the way that the Constitutional Convention envisioned.
With this new federal rule, Native Hawaiians can once again pursue the self-governance that was envisioned in 1978, in a manner consistent with today's growing global recognition of indigenous rights.
An important but overlooked aspect of this federal rule is that by simply being on the books, it affirms the legal standing of Native Hawaiian rights and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions.
The federal government has acknowledged, with the force of law, that Native Hawaiians have a right to self-determination.
The federal rule also recognizes the Native Hawaiian people's special political and trust relationship with the United States.
Affirming Native Hawaiians' indigenous status strengthens Hawaiian rights and protects Hawaiian resources. This is what OHA was created to do.
At each step of this process, a majority of the public who actually weighed in, commented in support of the rulemaking.
While many people objected at the public meetings in 2014 (and I defend their right to do so), oral testimony was just one way interested people shared their opinion.
OHA reviewed every oral testimony, letter, email and hand-written comment that the U.S. Department of the Interior included in its record.
We found that a clear majority of people believed that Native Hawaiians deserve the choice of a government-to- government relationship.
Now that choice is here.
--------------------
http://www.thestylus.net/news/view.php/1024405/Hawaiians-gain-chance-to-restore-rightfu
The Stylus (student newspaper of the College at Brockport [State University of New York]), October 4, 2016
Hawaiians gain chance to restore rightful kingdom
By Siomara Germain - copy editor
SIDE BY SIDE
On Friday, Sept. 23, 2016, the U.S. Department of the Interior finalized a rule that would allow the Native Hawaiian community to enter into a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous group left in America who have not been allowed the option to form their own government.
The Native Hawaiians have been through a lot in history. Their part in history is not something that many have learned or have knowledge of. However, some changes could be coming their way – their own government.
According to The Washington Post article, "With Obama's help, native Hawaiians may establish their first unified government since the 1890s" by Juliet Eilperin, "the Interior Department announced Friday it had finalized a rule to allow for the reestablishment of a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community, a status Hawaiians lost more than 120 years ago with the overthrow of their kingdom."
Hawaii was an independent neutral nation before the people who were in power were overthrown illegally in 1893 by a group of sugar barons and businessmen.
According to the article, Robert Lindsey, chairman of the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs, noted in a statement, "Native Hawaiians have been the only major indigenous group in the 50 states without a process for establishing a government-to-government relationship with the federal government."
This article seems one sided. I would be more supportive if it made explicit this is exactly what the Native Hawaiians want. This makes me question whether or not this whole reestablishment of a formal government-to-government pleases the Native Hawaiians. Or, does this please those who control the wealth and resources of the Hawaiian kingdom?
Another question I have is "will Hawaii remain an integral part of the United States?" If they have their own government, will the rules from our government apply to them? Will it make them clash? Will the United States still have power over Native Hawaiians affairs?
This topic is creating controversy because not many people support it. The article goes on to mention that "some scholars and native rights activists argue that since the occupation and annexation of Hawaii was illegal, Native Hawaiians should seek independence rather than reconciliation with federal authorities."
I believe that is exactly what they should do.
According to the same article, "In 1993, Congress enacted the Apology Resolution, which expressed regret on behalf of the U. S. to Native Hawaiians for the country's role in the overthrow of their monarchy."
This is another case of the U.S. trying to right their wrongs because they have taken and oppressed too many groups of people in their history.
If the United States want to help the Native Hawaiians, they should return power to the Hawaiian monarchy's descendants. Let Hawaii be its own independent nation.
Hawaii needs to get as far away from the U.S. as possible because, as history has shown many times, they will be exploited. Hawaiians should govern themselves as they are one of the largest indigenous community in the nation after the Cherokee tribe. They should also be allowed to develop relationships with whomever they want.
Jonathan Osorio, a professor of Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii, called the rule "not a sufficient remedy for what took place 100 years ago."
He is absolutely right.
"My deepest worry about all of this is this is the thing that really ultimately divides our Lahui, our nation, is this offer by the United States to return a bicycle when it took an entire estate," Osorio said.
The United States took an independent government from the Hawaiian kingdom and the citizens. They also took their land and property. The process of a govenrment-to-government relationship is said to be a long one.
The Interior department needs to give more information about this reestablishment of a formal government-to-government with the Native Hawaiians and how exactly it will work.
I believe that it could be worth the wait if it means the Native Hawaiians will get back what has belonged to them since the beginning.
Rhea Suh, who served as Interior's assistant secretary for policy, management and budget and now heads the Natural Resources Defense Council, said "One of the untold stories of this administration is the president's leadership and commitment to native peoples."
That's great that the president is taking actions to strengthen the United States government and the Native Hawaiians population but that will mean nothing if the Native Hawaiians are not given what is legally theirs and we all know that is not going to happen.
-----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/10/06/editorial/federal-rule-denies-hawaiians-the-right-to-rule-themselves/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, October 6, 2016, guest commentary
Federal rule denies Hawaiians the right to rule themselves
By Mililani Trask
Self-determination, as defined in international human rights instruments, is the right of all peoples to freely determine their political status, and by virtue of that right to freely pursue their economic, cultural and social development.
Under this definition, the new federal rule announced by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) is a denial of the Hawaiian Peoples' right to self-determination.
Drafted in Washington by federal bureaucrats, the rule ensures that the new Hawaiian nation will not have any land, will not be able to raise funds through taxation and economic development, and will not be able to bring historic claims to the federal courts for redress. Reparations are owed by the United States and the state of Hawaii for the adverse ramifications of the overthrow and the system of wardship that resulted from the passage of the Admission Act.
It is doubtful that many people, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, have the time to read the 172-page rule sent electronically from D.C. But the seven-page paper accompanying it is an easy read that clarifies the true intent and impact of the rule.
That paper -- "Frequently Asked Questions on Part 50 - The Final Rule for Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community" (see http://808ne.ws/2dtCkSS) -- makes it clear that the Hawaiian Nation will have none of the powers and authorities currently granted by the U.S. to the Indian nations.
Hawaii is the only state in the Union where there are two state agencies overseeing the lands and resources of indigenous peoples. These agencies control a percentage of revenues (Office of Hawaiian Affairs) and land (Department of Land and Natural Resources) set aside by the United States and the state of Hawaii for Native Hawaiians, who are wards of the state.
Recognized Indian nations control their own lands, territories and resources. They have the power to zone their lands for economic undertakings and for the construction of housing, schools and medical facilities. They raise revenues through taxation, and their national establishments are exempt from federal and state taxation.
Federal statutes specifically allow for Indian nations to sue the United States directly in federal District Court to enforce their treaty rights, and for restitution. Native Hawaiians will have none of these rights under the new DOI rule.
In his recent opinion piece, OHA Chairman Robert Lindsey Jr. asserted that the new rule is a "tool for Native Hawaiians to protect what we have and pursue what we deserve" ("New rule will help Native Hawaiians achieve political self-determination," Island Voices, Oct. 2). This is simply not the case.
As someone who helped craft the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and as an attorney who has been working on this issue for decades, I speak from an in-depth understanding of the law on indigenous rights, and as a defender of the rights of the Hawaiian people.
Lindsey also asserted that "affirming Native Hawaiians' indigenous status strengthens Hawaiian rights and protects Hawaiian resources. This is what OHA was created to do."
Yes, indeed. But it remains to be seen whether OHA has in fact fulfilled its sacred trust and dealt in good faith with the Hawaiian people and all the people of Hawaii.
OHA must be held to the highest standards of governance and accountability. To not do so is to betray the mission with which it was entrusted and break faith with the people of Hawaii.
Questions about OHA's stewardship of the assets entrusted to it must be asked. And answered. It is the least the public in general, and Native Hawaiians in particular, deserve.
Mililani Trask is an attorney and sovereignty activist; she is a candidate for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee.
---------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/10/outside-oha-interior-rule-has-little-native-hawaiian-support/
Honolulu Civil Beat, October 7, 2016, guest commentary
Outside OHA, Interior Rule Has Little Native Hawaiian Support
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs should follow its own survey data and recognize the lack of support for federal recognition.
By Keli'i Akina
Editor's Note: Keli'i Akina is a candidate in the Nov. 8 general election runoff for Trustee At Large for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. He faces incumbent Hunan Apoliona, who has accepted our invitation to reply to this post. We will publish that response as soon as we receive it.
The Department of Interior has recently announced a procedure for the creation of a federally recognized Native Hawaiian governing entity. In response, Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chair Robert Lindsey has reiterated the supportive position held by long-term OHA trustees, including Haunani Apoliona, who have authorized the spending of tens of millions of dollars on the Akaka Bill and other failed attempts to gain federal recognition.
The trustees are on record as having spent more than $33 million on the Akaka Bill and additional millions on other failed programs such as the Native Hawaiian Roll and Nai Aupuni.
Over the course of two decades, these OHA trustees have lavishly spent Hawaiian Trust funds on federal recognition knowing full well that the majority of Native Hawaiian people have not wanted them to do so. Based on data from their own surveys, the trustees have known that native Hawaiians have overwhelmingly wanted these funds to be spent on meeting the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education and healthcare.
Hawaiians feel it is both a tragedy and a scandal that OHA trustees have spent millions on political governance schemes instead of helping the 27,000 individuals on the Hawaiian Homelands waiting list to get homes.
Chairman Lindsey, perhaps inadvertently, revealed the fact that the trustees have known of the low priority Native Hawaiians give to federal recognition when he positioned himself for re-election in the primary and general election voter guides published by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs newspaper, Ka Wai Ola.
There, Lindsey says, "Our lahui (i.e., the native Hawaiian people/nation), when surveyed in 1978 (OHA's founding) and recently, have made it clear: 'bread and butter' issues (education, health, housing, and jobs) are what's important to them. It wants OHA to focus on these issues. In 2016 the majority of respondents see nation-building as a bottom of the barrel issue. OHA must refocus, reboot and rethink its basic priorities if it is to be in alignment with the wishes of our people."
Haunani Apoliona, also seeking re-election, said in the same voter guides, "As a current OHA Trustee I am committed to OHA's majority-approved position. However, as a (future) re-elected trustee I am committed to OHA's refining existing strategies consistent with additional input we seek from the majority of Native Hawaiians."
Apparently, the incumbent trustees realize that to get re-elected, they must downplay the fact that they have ignored native Hawaiians and wasted precious funds on a federal recognition scheme that native Hawaiians reject.
Could we say that they speak with forked tongues?
Trustee Rowena Akana encourages the voting public to hold the OHA trustees accountable when she states in her Ka Wai Ola column, "So this election, seek change and elect new blood! Elect New People! Electing the same Trustees will not bring any meaningful change to OHA!"
About the Author
Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., is the president/CEO of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
----------------------
http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=845fb1aa8ab3a817a0be98519&id=ffa06fdcc3&e=[UNIQID]
Hawaii Republican Party Press Release, October 11, 2016
PRESS RELEASE: HAWAII REPUBLICAN PARTY ENDORSES KELI'I AKINA FOR OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS TRUSTEE AT LARGE
HONOLULU (October 11, 2016) - Chair Fritz Rohlfing released the following statement:
The Hawaii Republican Party endorses Keli'i Akina in the upcoming election for Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) At-Large Trustee.
All State of Hawaii registered voters, regardless of ethnicity, have the right and duty to vote for OHA trustees. This is not only in keeping with the Constitution of the United States, it is based upon the history of the Hawaiian Kingdom in which citizenship was open to all people regardless of ethnicity.
Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., is a leader dedicated to transforming Hawaii's economy, government and society. His watchword is: "E Hana Kakou" - Let's work together!
Over the past several years as a public policy advocate at the legislative, congressional and international levels, Dr. Akina has become a leading defender of the Aloha Spirit. In these forums he has effectively made the case for free markets producing optimal prosperity and encouraging positive social cooperation.
As a native Hawaiian and skilled chanter, Dr. Akina has dedicated his life to the education and financial advancement of all native Hawaiians and everyone who makes Hawaii their home.
Dr. Akina believes that it's time to reform OHA to become a driving force in preserving the Aloha Spirit and advancing native Hawaiians and all people through housing, education, healthcare, and economic prosperity.
Dr. Akina is a graduate of the Kamehameha Schools, Northwestern University (B.A.) and the University of Hawaii (M.A. and Ph.D.) and is a member of the Pacific Century Fellows (a Hawaii version of the White House Fellows program).
Currently, he is President/CEO of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a public policy research institution dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited, accountable government.
Dr. Akina was a candidate for Trustee at Large of the OHA in the 2014 General Election run-off in which he garnered 93,000 votes.
OHA has become an influential player in Hawaii's economy with growing land-holdings and revenue streams. OHA's actions affect the pocket-books and liberties of all residents of the State of Hawaii. OHA is everyone's business.
OHA is a state government agency responsible for stewardship of resources belonging to the people of Hawaii. OHA is accountable to and has a mandate to represent the will of all the people of Hawaii.
The Hawaii Republican Party strongly encourages all of its members and all Hawaii citizens to vote for Dr. Akina for OHA Trustee At Large to help create a better future for everyone in Hawaii.
Learn more about Keli'i Akina at
http://www.keliiakina.com/.
For more information and to stay connected, please like us on Facebook at
www.facebook.com/HawaiiRepublicanParty , follow us on Twitter
@gophawaii , and visit our website at
www.gophawaii.com .
----------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/33378894/native-hawaiian-convention-tackles-self-determination
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations), October 12-13, 2016
Native Hawaiian Convention tackles self-determination
By Mileka Lincoln, Reporter
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
Self-governance has always been a hot topic of discussion for Native Hawaiians, but recent events made it even more of a focus at this year's 15th Annual Native Hawaiian Convention.
"It's our first path to self-determination. We get to decide. Not a state agency. Not a federal agency. We as Hawaiians get to decide what we want for ourselves," explained Kaleiaina Lee, one of about 300 participants from all over the state who attended the three-day event at the Sheraton Waikiki.
Officials say the question is what will Native Hawaiians choose? Options range from the creation of an independent nation to the establishment of federal recognition similar to that of Native American tribes.
Just last month, the Department of Interior announced an administrative procedure that will allow a unified Native Hawaiian government to enter into a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States.
"I commend the Obama Administration for promulgating and finalizing a rule that will enable a process of government to government relations between the federal government and a Native Hawaiian entity -- whatever the Native Hawaiians themselves want to do to proceed with that kind of relationship," said U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono (D – Hawaii).
The new DOI rule comes on the heels of the creation of a draft constitution formed by a group of Native Hawaiians this past February after a month-long discussion and debate.
"The path that we have been going down hasn't been in our hands and this constitution and these nation-building efforts provides us the opportunity build a nation but also to regain control of our language, our culture and our history," said Ka'omaka Aki, a member of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement.
The 15-page document serves as a blueprint for the future structure and function of a Native Hawaiian government, but doesn't stipulate what it should look like.
"What we had to get people to understand is let's just build a vehicle. Let's just build a means to get us where we want to go. And let's let the people decide through this Democratic process -- once we get a government up and established -- where it wants to end up," said Colin Kippen, who contributed to the constitution draft.
The constitution calls for a unicameral elected democracy lead by an executive branch and balanced with a judicial system.
"What's really great about this Constitution is that it empowers Native Hawaiians to malama our culture for every one," said Robin Danner of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
Advocates for Native Hawaiian self-determination say 35 out of 50 states have fully functional Native governments focused entirely on the well-being of that indigenous culture.
"We will finally have a recognized entity, an organization, a government -- very similar to a county government -- that their number one mission is the well-being of Native Hawaiians. That is something all of Hawai'i needs," said Danner.
There were several concerns raised -- even a lawsuit -- regarding the use of state funding to hold an election strictly for Native Hawaiians to participate in. In an effort to avoid any conflict -- advocacy groups have been independently raising money for a constitution ratification vote. They say they have about $300,000 already, but expect to need about $2 million in order to also hold government elections.
-----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/10/oha-focused-on-native-hawaiian-communitys-well-being/
Honolulu Civil Beat, October 17, 2016, guest commentary
OHA Focused On Native Hawaiian Community's Well-Being
OHA's response to federal government's nation-building rules was misconstrued in a recent commentary by Keli'i Akina.
By Haunani Apoliona
Editor's note: Haunani Apoliona is a candidate for trustee-at-large in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Her opponent is Keli'i Akina. This commentary is a response to a Community Voice in which he criticized her practices as an incumbent OHA trustee.
Keli'i Akina is way off the mark in his misleading commentary on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' reaction to the U.S. Department of Interior's recent announcement regarding a Native Hawaiian governing entity.
As the executive director of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, my opponent has joined with his organization's major investors to champion highly inflammatory information designed to undermine Native Hawaiians and OHA.
Despite being Native Hawaiian, he is choosing to be used by political forces to hinder the growing strength of the Native Hawaiian community, which is focused on regaining a voice in building and shaping its future well-being.
It is obvious from his alarmist commentary that he has not been paying attention to OHA's meaningful contributions over the years to empower Native Hawaiians and strengthen Hawaii. He ignores "Ka 'Olelo A Ka Luna Ho'omalu," published in 2010 to mark 30 years of OHA's successful accomplishments on behalf of Native Hawaiians.
Additionally, had he been paying attention to comparable accomplishments in policy, programs, and governance, he would know that OHA has given out more than $34 million in low-interest loans to nearly 2,000 Hawaiian consumers, who have borrowed the money to start businesses, improve homes, consolidate debts and continue their education.
He would also know OHA provides more than $14 million in grants and sponsorships annually to community-based organizations that advance our strategic efforts to improve the conditions of Native Hawaiians.
In addition, he would know that OHA awards an estimated $500,000 in scholarship money annually to about 300 Native Hawaiian students. At the same time, he would know that OHA has committed $90 million over 30 years to help the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands facilitate affordable housing for our people.
Above all, he would know that his commentary completely ignores a 2008 federal court ruling, which explained that OHA trustees are reasonably exercising their fiduciary judgment when they expend trust funds in support of the Akaka Bill, and that such action is consistent with the requirement that trust funds be used for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians.
His commentary also ignores a 2010 federal appeals court opinion that recognized under the Akaka Bill, lands, resources and assets could be transferred to a Native Hawaiian government.
In other words, the courts recognize that Native Hawaiian self-governance is important to addressing issues important to Native Hawaiians.
Finally, my opponent finds fault in my response to a Civil Beat questionnaire in July, when I offered perspective on adherence to OHA "board majority decision," which should rightfully stand as policy when properly enacted. Perhaps my opponent would undermine board and parliamentary rules if unsuitable to him.
He also insinuates that refining "existing strategies consistent with additional input from the majority of Native Hawaiians" is questionable or, as he puts it, "speaking with forked tongues."
Obviously, he fails to understand the essence of "'oia'i'o and 'olelo pono."
My demonstrated commitment to Native Hawaiians, along with my 35-plus years of service to Native Hawaiians, helps me to see beneath the surface of complex issues facing OHA.
I will continue to advocate for lawful policies that help Native Hawaiians, which is simply what my opponent apparently does not know that we do, as trustees.
About the Author
Haunani Apoliona is trustee at large for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
---------------------
https://www.facebook.com/AkinaForOHA/posts/1014802565312182
Akina For OHA campaign Facebook page, October 18, 2016
Watch this TV Show: Why everyone should vote AKINA & TRASK for OHA Trustee!
Excerpts: Akina opened the discussion, stating, "...what's at stake is far beyond anyone's political agenda." (1:12)
Trask stated, "The issues that are decided at OHA are issues that are going to impact the entire state. Every critical issue of the islands involves Hawaiians." (2:55)
The wide-ranging discussion took critical aim at OHA's policies on homelessness, Kakaako development, Hawaiian Homelands, Federal Recognition, and more. Akina and Trask agreed that It's time for new leadership at OHA.
Akina said, "[There's] all this money that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has - half a billion dollars - and it's not being used [adequately] to help the homeless with housing or provide jobs or education or to provide health care." (5:50).
Trask agreed and added: "We know that in the past 20 years about 33 million dollars has been spent on the OHA plan for federal recognition." (8:44)
Akina continued, "And one of the things that has brought you (i.e., Trask) and me together is the fact that we are both adamantly opposed to fraud waste and abuse in government. People don't realize that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and organizations that it has started... are not spending the money properly." (6:57)
Trask: "I'm glad you point out that we do have many things in common. Why are we working together? One of the strong things we share is a commitment to accountability in government and transparent government." (16:45)
Other comments
Akina: "We need new leadership at OHA. We need to bring about reform at OHA. Because everybody understands that something is not going right. In a lot of ways OHA evades scrutiny and somehow comes underneath the radar."(17:45)
Trask on Federal Recognition of native Hawaiians: "OHA wants to retain wardship - have the state provide it with the revenue, but they are not willing to work with their own people to provide critical needs like housing and poverty alleviation. We have to stop making the goal of self-governance be the opportunity to suck at the state and federal teet." (19:10)
Akina: "The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in its collusion with the Department of interior and groups like Na'i Aupuni, is not really about advancing native Hawaiians." (19:45)
In conclusion, both Akina and Trask urged all voters, whether ethnically Hawaiian or not, to vote for OHA Trustees in the upcoming election.
Trask: "Hawaii is just too small and the need is just too great to have people believe they can't get involved just because of an ethnic difference.... Unless we get the support of the non-Hawaiian voters, we are just not going to be able to clean up the situation at OHA... We need the other voters to join us to help clean it up". (26:37)
Akina: "We work together to keep our government transparent. We work together to fight waste, fraud and abuse. We work together to help people understand that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is government. It's everyone's government. And everyone needs to pay attention, because, if we don't pay attention, it will become everyone's problem." (27:56)
Paid for by the Kelii Akina Campaign Committee, PO Box 61232, Honolulu, HI 96839
** Ken Conklin's note: An embedded video allows viewing of a 30-minute conversation between Keli'i Akina and Mililani Trask that was originally broadcast on the ThinkTech network on July 18, 2016. Online comments from July are visible only by going to the ThinkTech YouTube podcast at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE-FtsVmN6s
Akina and Trask: Working Together and Challenging the Office of Hawaiian Affairs OHA
Published on Jul 18, 2016
When significant institutions like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs need to be reformed, community leaders have a reason to work together for the good of all people. That's the case with Keli'i Akina and Mililani Trask who are both challenging OHA and the state of Hawaii to quit wasting millions of dollars on failed political schemes such as Na'i Aupuni and redirect those funds toward meeting the real needs of Hawaiians.
ThinkTech Hawaii streams live on the Internet from 11:00 am to 5:00 pm every weekday afternoon, Hawaii Time, then streaming earlier shows through the night. Check us out any time for great content and great community. Our vision is to be a leader in shaping a more vital and thriving Hawaii as the foundation for future generations. Our mission is to be the leading digital media platform raising pubic awareness and promoting civic engagement in Hawaii.
----------------------
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/opinion/columns/oha-candidates-break-down-gov-gov-positions
West Hawaii Today [Kona], October 19, 2016
OHA candidates break down gov to gov positions
by Lei Kihoi/ My Turn
Do we want a Native Hawaiian government to government relationship with the U.S?
The Department of Interior (DOI) created a "pathway" via Part 50 Rule (FR50) setting procedures for re-establishing a formal government to government relationship between a Native Hawaiian Nation and the U.S.
These rules, promulgated after extensive hearings, resulted in the majority of Hawaiians (via in-person/written testimony) expressing widespread support for a government to government relationship with the U.S.
The discourse below outlines OHA Hawaii candidates, Trustee Robert (Bob) Lindsey and Mililani Trask's response to FR50.
OHA Chair Lindsey is former legislator and asset director of Kamehameha Schools with a business degree. Trask, attorney/founder of Ka Lahui, resides in Hilo, has advocated for Hawaiians and hails from a family of Trasks who have incessantly fought for civil liberties.
In September, I met with Bob personally at his Waimea home. Unlike reports to the contrary, Bob appeared in excellent health. Greeting me warmly at the front door, his gait was lively and he was attentive addressing my queries in detail.
Mililani responded by written/verbal communication and referenced her Sept. 16 Star-Advertiser commentary as she was unable to meet because of two scheduling conflicts.
Question: Response to FR50?
Lindsey: I am elated. FR50 is good for Hawaiians and Hawaii. Hawaiians, the largest indigenous group in the U.S, can now choose a government to government relationship with the U.S., putting them on "equal par" with other native groups.
If they choose this pathway Hawaiians will remove themselves from the auspices of the 14th Amendment, which has resulted in race-based attacks on its institutions (i.e. Kamehameha Schools, OHA), assets, ceded lands, etc. FR50 moves Hawaiians from a race to a political classification resulting in Hawaiians negotiating terms (land, education, etc.) as a Nation of Hawaiians, rather than a Race of Hawaiians.
Similarly, being exempt from the 1st Amendment, Hawaiians can freely exercise their "land based/elements" religious practices, not recognized by the U.S. Constitution.
FR50 is good for Hawaii because Hawaiians will control resources like education, housing, income. Commanding their life processes generates happiness, self-esteem -- building blocks for positive self-identity creating an affirmative ripple effect on political/economic/social institutions of Hawaii and the World.
Trask: DOI Rule is BS. I do not support a state/federally created Hawaiian Nation. I do support the formation of a Hawaiian Nation by Hawaiian Peoples under our right of self-determination. Under this definition, the new federal rule announced by the DOI is a denial of the Hawaiian Peoples' right to self-determination.
First step towards sovereignty is education, to get everyone on the same page. The Hawaiian Educational Council sent two proposals to OHA for this but both were kept from the Trustees and the Kanaiolowalu Board.
FR50 ... makes it clear that the Hawaiian Nation will have none of the powers and authorities currently granted by the U.S to the Indian nations. Recognized Indian nations control their own lands, territories and resources. They have the power to zone their lands for economic undertaking and for construction of housing, schools and medical facilities ... raise revenues through taxation ...
Question: Assuming a Native Hawaiian Nation is re-established, and Hawaiians exercise a government to government relationship with the U.S., how does OHA anticipate transference of assets to the Hawaiian Nation?
Lindsey: OHA's current strategic plan includes transfer of its land/assets to the Native Hawaiian government. Additionally, HRS 6K-9 states, "the State shall transfer ... the island [of Kahoolawe] and its waters to the sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the U.S. and the State of Hawaii." This is a start of the Native Hawaiian land base that is reasonably expected to grow.
Hawaii law acknowledges Hawaiians as "indigenous peoples" with distinct rights under the state/federal Constitution/UN Charter. Once re-established, this Native Hawaiian Nation can negotiate with governmental entities (federal/state/county) for the transference of land to the Hawaiian Nation.
Trask: Read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). State/federal lands in Hawaii cannot be transferred to the "New Nation," the only land base will be Kahoolawe. In the first FAQ, the DOI says only Kahoolawe. In the second, they say no state or federal lands. Its pretty clear The OHA strategy is not allowed under the DOI Rule.
Do we want a Native Hawaiian government to government relationship with the U.S?
Lindsey says Yes. Trask says No.
My view: FR50 requires that Native Hawaiians have an "intact" Nation which includes (1) Certified Roll of Native Hawaiians; (2) Constitution. Kanaiolowalu has a Certified Roll of 120,000 Hawaiians. A Constitution drafted at the February 2016 Aha is pending 2017 ratification.
Once the Nation is established, FR50 requires an election by its electorate. To be recognized by the U.S., approximately 30 percent of the minimum baseline population must be more than 50 percent Hawaiian. Consequently, assuming 30,000 of the Native Hawaiian electorate vote in favor of federal recognition, 9,000 (30 percent) of this 30,000 must be more than 50 percent Hawaiian.
Both candidates have expressed their choice.
Now, the choice is yours.
Lei Kihoi resides in Kailua-Kona. She is a former appeals, Constitutional, legislative attorney, rancher and commissioner, Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, Kanaiolowalu.
------------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/10/oha-races-offer-stark-choices-but-how-many-voters-will-care/
Honolulu Civil Beat, October 28, 2016
OHA Races Offer Stark Choices, But How Many Voters Will Care?
Incumbents Robert Lindsey Jr. and Haunani Apoliona are squaring off against a pair of outspoken critics, Mililani Trask and Kelii Akina.
By Chad Blair
The ideological differences couldn't be more stark in the two races for seats on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees.
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/08/incumbents-look-to-hold-off-reformers-in-oha-trustee-elections/
They feature incumbents who believe OHA is doing a good job and two well-known challengers who argue very much the opposite. One even heads an organization that has sued to stop OHA-funded efforts to create a Native Hawaiian governing entity.
The question is, how many voters will care enough to mark their ballots in the races?
More than 40 percent of voters in the Aug. 13 primary -- more than 100,000 people -- chose not to select a candidate for either the Hawaii Island or at-large seats on the OHA board.
Hawaii's voter turnout is abysmal enough, but it's far worse for OHA. And it's not a new problem.
For example, while OHA races are the only statewide elections in Hawaii besides governor, lieutenant governor and U.S. senator, far many more primary voters cast ballots in the Senate race even though Democrat incumbent Brian Schatz was a prohibitive favorite.
So, how to improve turnout in OHA elections? Advertise, advertise, advertise.
That's the strategy of the four candidates who did best in the primary but did not get more than 50 percent of the vote, thus forcing the general election runoffs.
Hawaii Island trustee Robert Lindsey Jr., OHA's board chair, and challenger Mililani Trask are raising and spending thousands of dollars in their attempts to prevail Nov. 8.
Trask gave Lindsey a political wake-up call by edging him by 3,200 votes in the primary. Craig Kahui, the other candidate, picked up 21,000 votes in a race that saw 150,000 people vote.
In the at-large contest, longtime incumbent Haunani Apoliona, a former OHA chair, received twice as many votes as the second-place finisher, Kelii Akina, or about 61,000 votes to 32,000. But five other candidates drew a combined 55,000 votes.
Akina and Apoliona each hope those others votes will go their way this time. And all four candidates would love to convince the 100,000-plus voters who skipped the OHA races in the primary to reconsider this time around.
Voters Don't Have Their 'Cues'
Neal Milner, emeritus professor of political science at the University of Hawaii Manoa, said few voters pay attention to OHA races because they don't have the usual "cues" they depend on to make their choices.
If a voter is a Republican, for example, and a Republican is running, the voter will likely go ahead and choose that person even if they don't know much about the race. But the OHA seats are nonpartisan.
Another cue comes from social groups, including friends and family. But the OHA races may well be unfamiliar to everyone in those groups.
"I can't remember having one conversation about OHA with my friends," said Milner.
Other reasons, he said, are that many voters have no connection to OHA, even though a significant percentage of the state population is Native Hawaiian or related to Hawaiians.
"If you surveyed what people know about OHA, it would be an F grade," he said.
There is also a sense, as Milner put it, that OHA races "are none of my business."
He said he disagreed with the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision Rice v. Cayetano that determined non-Hawaiians could vote in OHA races. Another court case, Arakaki v. Hawaii, allowed non-Hawaiians to run for OHA seats.
For those who do bother to vote in OHA races, name recognition is a "huge factor," said Milner.
Apoliona, a former OHA chair, has been in office since 1996 while Lindsey has served since 2007.
But Trask is a former trustee and a prominent figure for her work in Hawaiian independence and geothermal development.
Akina leads the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and has been in the news frequently for his legal challenges to the OHA-funded Nai Aupuni process on Hawaiian self-governance as well as public advocacy for libertarian and conservative causes.
In spite of the voter apathy, there is a feeling that these two races are sparking some interest.
"The fact that Mililani Trask and I are well-known advocates and watchdogs has raised the level of interest in the OHA race and has countered the usual feeling nothing will ever change," said Akina.
Explaining The Blank Ballots
Akina said a significant reason for so many blank ballots in OHA elections is that few Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians "realize how much OHA affects everyone's lives. When people realize the potential negative and positive impacts OHA can have on everyone, they get motivated to vote."
OHA is a quasi-governmental agency with a mission to improve the lives of Native Hawaiians. OHA's areas of concentration are health, education, culture, preservation of land and water, achieving economic self-sustainability and governance.
In recent years OHA says it has given more than $800,000 in scholarships to Native Hawaiian students going to college, more than $34 million in loans to help Native Hawaiians start businesses and improve homes, and $16 million to organizations aiding Hawaiians such as the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
Trask said so many ballots are left blank because many non-Hawaiians don't know they can vote "and because voters are used to fair representation in our existing procedures. This is not the case with OHA. In all other races, the voters vote for those who represent their interest. Kauai voters vote for Kauai representatives in the Senate and House. This would provide for true democratic representation and accountability."
The outsize population of Oahu also skewers election outcomes.
"In the case of the OHA races, these democratic processes were discarded in order to allow Oahu voters to control every seat on the OHA Board of Trustees," said Trask. "Oahu voters determine who will represent Molokai, Lanai, Maui, Hawaii and Kauai. The same people get in every election year, by providing program services, grants, et cetera, to Oahu projects and people."
Trask, a former OHA trustee herself, said there is "a lack of accountability" among OHA trustees, something she blames on the failure to pass legislation to initiate reforms.
'Aloha, I'm Akina. Kelii Akina.'
To raise their profile, the OHA candidates are trying a mix of traditional advertising -- TV, radio, campaign signs, sign waving -- with social media, especially Facebook.
Akina is airing a campaign jingle on radio stations. The candidate introduces himself as if he's James Bond:
Aloha, I'm Akina. Kelii Akina.
It's time for a watchdog to stop OHA from wasting your money on a race-based nation the majority of Hawaiians simply don't want.
Let's all tell OHA to use our money instead for jobs, housing, education, and healthcare -- which is what most of us want.
The campaign advertisement closes with a chorus of "Akina, Akina, Akina for all! Akina!"
You can listen to the jingle here:
http://tinyurl.com/jo8qpky
It's one of two that Akina has paid to air on local radio stations. He spent almost $28,000 on his campaign through the primary, according to his latest spending reports filed with the state.
Nearly $7,000 of it went to several radio stations in the days leading up to the Aug. 13 election. Another $200 paid for the jingles themselves.
Akina's opponent, Apoliona, is also trying to elevate her profile and solidify her support. She has raised and spent nearly as much as Akina, much of it for advertising.
Trask spent $4,600 on her primary race, with most of it going for Facebook ads and signs, decals and shipping fees.
In addition to the jingles, Akina has been visiting Rotary Clubs, Hawaiian Homesteaders, church groups, neighborhood boards, coffee gatherings in homes and businesses groups. He said all that has helped his campaign put together a "grassroots network" via email and friend-to-friend contacts.
Apoliona said she's relying a lot on "traditional advertising" to reach voters. That includes green and white "Apoliona for OHA" yard signs and bumper stickers, but also rack and business cards.
She has also purchased ad space in Mid-Week and Kai Wai Ola, OHA's own newspaper, and accepted "free media" opportunities via Olelo Community Media and candidate questionnaires sponsored by the League of Women Voters and local media outlets (including Civil Beat and Kai Wai Ola).
"On top of all that, I have been using radio and TV ads to reach voters on all islands," she said. "To find votes for my campaign, I have also been using my website and a 30-second video, which reassures faith in my ability to make a difference."
But Apoliona added that her campaign is "largely being driven" by social media like Facebook "to share vignettes, endorsements and other information with thousands of supporters."
Lindsey, Trask's opponent, is getting help in radio ads from former Gov. John Waihee and OHA colleagues Dan Ahuna and Peter Apo. He also launched his first-ever website
http://www.bob4oha.com/
and picked up endorsements from the Hawaii Carpenters Union and United Public Workers, which can translate into manpower when it comes to sign-waving.
Lindsey says all the recent activity has encouraged his campaign "to get across messages that validate my commitment to acting with integrity, civility and in the interest of OHA."
Lindsey, who outspent Trask by 2-to-1 in the primary (primarily on print ads), has since held a campaign fundraiser (asking up to $500 at the Pacific Club on Aug. 31) and paid for a television commercial (one that reminds viewers that OHA is a large and wealthy landowner, and that Lindsey has the support of two major Hawaiian leaders).
Lindsey also has the endorsement of U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, while the Hawaii Republican Party has encouraged its members to back Akina in his race against Apoliona.
Trask seems emboldened by her primary win, and she says her campaign strategy "is to work with everyone, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians."
She says that she and Akina are raising questions about "real issues" such as OHA trustees' expenses, including for international travel, as well as lack of transparency and possible violations of state ethics and sunshine laws.
"Check the blogs to see what the issues are," she said. "The people are discussing the real issues. You won't find them in the media, that's for sure."
--------
** Ken Conklin's online comment:
Media ads must be short and attention-grabbing because air time is very expensive. The 30-second radio ad for Akina has a cute upbeat jingle and uses repetition to ensure voters will remember the name "Akina." But of course the ad cannot explain his positions on the issues or why he's the best candidate.
'Olelo TV allowed all 4 candidates to create longer videos at no charge, where they can introduce themselves and describe the reasons why they are running for the OHA board.
I encourage everyone to view the following 16-minute video on the 'Olelo website WHICH FEATURES ALL 4 CANDIDATES ONE AFTER ANOTHER:
http://olelo.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=30&clip_id=57399
--------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/11/oha-races-arent-short-on-controversy-mudslinging/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 1, 2016
OHA Races Aren't Short On Controversy, Mudslinging
Battles to lead the office established for "the betterment of Native Hawaiians" are among the more lively on Hawaii ballots this fall.
By Zuri Aki
Wow! How's this for an election year?
What with all the mud-slinging going on between our two major party presidential candidates, it's no wonder that we nearly missed the ecosystem-collapsing distress calls of the Great Barrier Reef, the impending doom of over 100,000 white collar jobs due to automation (#CareerChoicesArrgh!), and that Icelandic Parliament member, who breastfed her infant daughter, while defending her bill. She put into perspective our own problem of hypersexualizing the female form to such a degree that something as natural as breastfeeding is regarded as obscene.
With record-matching low voter turnout in the state of Hawaii, you would think we were suffering from entertainment drought in the theater of politics, but we most certainly aren't. The race for Honolulu Mayor is speeding down the tracks and who could forget – even if we wanted to – that unfiltered candidate, who wanted to "Make Honolulu Great Again" (in her own twisted way)?
But, I suppose this isn't like the movies, where loads of entertainment mean box-office-breaking turnout. Maybe we just get turned off and ignore the "lesser of two evils" choice and find something to do – anything else – that doesn't put us in a term-long state of depression until the next election season.
Hey, they say, "no vote, no grumble," and perhaps, to a degree, there's some solid advice there. We can't always have our cake and eat it, too, right? The lesser of two evils isn't the ideal, obviously, but there is a lesser. So, which one would you rather have?
There's another big race this election season that has gone relatively unnoticed in our local news media, but it's blowing up in certain social media circles. It's the race for a trustee position in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The trustee election is one of those races that gives many people pause, because the position specifically serves the betterment of Native Hawaiians, and most people in the state are not Native Hawaiian.
I've heard my fair share of, "I'm not Native Hawaiian, so should I vote for OHA trustee?" If you're wondering that right now, I can't say if you should. I can only ask that if you do, please be informed about your choice -- and what I say here isn't everything you need to make an informed choice.
The 1959 Hawaii Admission Act, the U.S. law that made Hawaii the 50th state of the union, provided that a portion of the income generated by "ceded lands" shall be used for one or more of the listed purposes, which included the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians. OHA was constitutionally established in order to fulfill that Admission Act provision. Part of the agency's purpose is the betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians.
Why is that important? The 1993 Apology Resolution, signed by President Bill Clinton, explained that the United States participated in the "suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people" and urged support for "reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people."
The State of Hawaii revenue that is set aside for the betterment of – specifically – the Native Hawaiian people and managed by OHA, exists because of U.S. policy. It's also part of that reconciliation – and that necessary healing process – between Native Hawaiians and the United States. It's also important because the "betterment of Native Hawaiians" is reliant on benefits, programs and services that are sustained by OHA's income.
OHA receives 20 percent of the ceded lands revenue. OHA is tasked with the betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians, whose numbers are comparable to 40 percent of the Hawaii resident population, with a disproportionate amount of funding to do it. OHA trustees (and their work force) have done a darn good job at working with what they got.
Akina vs. Apoliona, Trask vs. Lindsey
With that said, the focus of this OHA race has been on issues concerning the effective management of OHA funds and political pathways that offer Native Hawaiians a chance to better their conditions. There are two challengers in this election that don't appear to shy away from the mudslinging, and their positions on the management of OHA – and sometimes allegations of hypocrisy or questionable practices – leave much room for concern.
These two candidates are Kelii Akina and Mililani Trask, almost polar opposites when it comes to indigenous peoples' rights, but also seemingly running as a slate – that only Akina would imply in his social media posts with Trask.
Akina challenges long-time OHA trustee Haunani Apoliona. He has been questioned regarding connections with the Koch brothers and is tied to the right-wing organization Judicial Watch. His affiliation with individuals and organizations that are rather infamous for their opposition to the interests of minority communities doesn't exactly scream out "Trustee for an agency responsible for the best interest of a minority group of people!"
Akina's approach to changing OHA includes deviating from established U.S. policy recognizing the Native Hawaiian right to self-determination. It pretty much undermines the purpose for which OHA was created. Ironically, he also speaks against the "waste" of OHA funds, and yet, he practically opened the year with an ongoing lawsuit against OHA, which wasted OHA money, costing its beneficiaries.
Trask, on the other hand, challenges OHA trustee/uncle Bob Lindsey. She offers criticism of OHA leadership, calling for transparency and accountability; she stated it in her Civil Beat candidate Q&A and offered them up again as her top two priorities in her Star Advertiser Q&A. Hey, we like a candidate who is transparent and accountable, but while that always seems to be the selling point, we are, from time to time, left disappointed.
Trask, in her 2014 Hawai'i State Ethics Commission Candidate Disclosure form, listed Innovation Development Group, Inc. and Huena Power, LLLP as clients that she personally represented before state agencies. In essence, she was a paid lobbyist for these two organizations.
In that same year, state Rep. Chris Lee criticized Trask for attacking him in an editorial because he would not serve the interests of Trask and her employer, IDG. Lee noted that as a "paid lobbyist" for IDG, Trask was getting "thousands (for her) campaign for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs" from IDG so "she can continue to push the projects her employers seek."
While Trask noted her lobbying activities in her candidate disclosure form, it does not appear as if she actually registered as a lobbyist with the state Ethics Commission. Where's the transparency and accountability in that? I think Lee said it best: "If there is one lesson in politics, it is that special interests with millions of dollars on the line will do anything to get what they want."
It begs the question, is Trask running for OHA trustee to really address transparency and accountability issues (if these are, in fact, issues), or having failed to successfully lobby OHA support for her employer in the past, has she now taken it upon herself to secure the trustee seat for her own personal interests?
We have some big races ahead of us, and I urge all registered voters to get to the polls on Nov. 8. Some of these races might seem like a "lesser of two evils" deal, but remember, one of them is going to get elected even if you don't vote -- so, just vote. And then run as a candidate the next time around.
---------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo1116_edit_web?e=2253336/40305739
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], November 2016, regular trustee column
The U.S. Department of the Interior announces a pathway to nationhood
by Rowena Akana, trustee at-large
Ano'ai kakou. Let me begin by expressing my warmest aloha to all the candidates who had
the courage and commitment to participate in this year's election. Campaigning can be a blood sport, but now it is time to put aside our differences and get back to bettering the lives of our constituents.
On Friday, September 23, 2016, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced a "final rule
to create a pathway for reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community." "The final rule sets out an administrative procedure and criteria that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior would use if the Native Hawaiian community forms a unified government that then seeks a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States."
According the DOI, "The final rule builds on more than 150 Federal statutes that Congress enacted over the last century to recognize and implement the special political and trust relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community. It also considered and addressed extensive public comments during the rule-making process, which included public meetings in Hawaii and the mainland United States."
The time has come for all us to come together in spirit and put some meaningful effort into re-establishing the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the Federal government to reorganize our Native Hawaiian Governing Entity. Once done, we will be able to protect all of our Hawaiian trust assets from the constant threat of lawsuits. This is why I have always supported state and federal recognition.
As I traveled around the state, I spoke to many people who were confused about the process towards nationhood. I can only conclude that OHA has not done enough to educate the public. This situation has to change. Trustees are going to have to speak up about the many positive results that Hawaiian Nationhood would bring for both Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians. I assure all of you that, after listening to your mana'o, I will do everything that is humanly possible to address your concerns.
What is also needed is your participation. You must challenge EACH Trustee to be accountable to you. It is unfortunate that you cannot assume that Trustees will do this on their own. Like any organization, from time to time, especially when one faction has been in power for too long like it has been at OHA, "the people" need to become actively involved. Otherwise we will risk having to deal with complacency and the abuse of power. What we face today as Hawaiians is no different than what has occurred over the past 100 years. We are still fighting off assaults on our culture, the deterioration of our rights to our lands, and attacks from racist organizations.
Let us begin to work together for the cause of recognition. Let us begin to agree on the things that we can agree to and set aside the things we differ on and move forward together for the future generations of Hawaiians yet to come.
As we approach the close of 2016, I would like to wish each of you a very safe and happy holiday season, and may the Lord in his grace bless each of you and your families and take you safely into 2017. Happy Thanksgiving!
Aloha pumehana.
---
Interested in Hawaiian issues & OHA? Please visit my website at www.rowenaakana.org for more information or e-mail me at rowenaa@oha.org.
---------------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com
Free Hawaii blog, Friday November 4, 2016
ALERT - $7 MILLION MORE FROM OHA FOR NA'I AUPUNI CONSTITUTION RATIFICATION
Please forward this to all Hawaiians and our supporters.
We want to make you aware of some very important information that has been brought to our attention.
A person claiming to be "Ka'ala Franklin" has been spreading rumors and lies throughout the community about Mililani Trask, who is challenging incumbent Robert Lindsey for the Hawai'i Island OHA trustee seat.
Highly reliable sources have informed us that Ka'ala Franklin is not this person's real name.
Sources tell us this person is actually a field agent for the Robert Lindsey re-election campaign.
She is also one of Hawai'i state senator Brickwood Galuteria's campaign team members.
If you recall, Brickwood was a Na'i Aupuni or NAG 88 convention attendee and he, along with John Waihee Sr. and others associated with Na'i Aupuni are campaigning hard against Mililani Trask and for the re-election of Robert Lindsey.
Highly reliable sources have told us why - Robert Lindsey has promised them - if re-elected - an additional seven million dollars in OHA funding to pay for another illegal "vote" to ratify the flawed Na'i Aupuni "fed wreck" constitution - the one that came from the last illegal vote.
By voting Robert Lindsey off the OHA board on Tuesday, November 8th, the fed wreck scam won't get seven million dollars more of OHA money to spend and the fed wreck nightmare will thankfully come to an end.
We ask that you vote for Mililani Trask on Tuesday, November 8th.
Mahalo.
------------------------
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=2530
Community forum on the future of the Hawaiian nation.
On behalf of the Aha Aloha Aina Organizing T.E.A.M we would like to invite you to Aha Aloha Aina Presents: Community Forum on the Future of the Hawaiian Nation. Please feel free to share with your network and ask them to use the fb event page to confirm they going.
Thursday November 10th 7-10pm
Farrington HS Cafeteria- 1564 N. King St. Honolulu, HI 96817
(enter through Kalihi Street gate)
Speakers invited include:
Robin Danner, Michelle Kauhane, Peter Apo, and John Waihee Sr.,
Ku Kahakalau, Mililani Trask, Kalama Niheu, and Kahookahi Kanuha
If you would like to help our AAA organizing team or have any questions please email ahaalohaaina@gmail.com. For more information on Aha Aloha Aina go to our website
www.ahaalohaaina.com
** Ken Conklin's note: Here are brief descriptions of each panelist:
Robin Danner (chief pusher of Akaka bill and DOI fed rec for about 16 years), Michelle Kauhane (head of Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement), Peter Apo (OHA trustee), John Waihee Sr. (former Governor and head of Kana'iolowalu racial registration process), Ku Kahakalau (founder of Hawaiian-focus charter school and head of consortium of all such schools), Mililani Trask (former head of 20,000-member Ka Lahui Hawaii "nation" and current candidate for OHA trustee), Kalama Niheu (racialist activist), and Kahookahi Kanuha (leader of anti-telescope protests on Mauna Kea).
--------------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/2016/11/alert-robert-lindseys-plan-to-have.html
Free Hawaii blog, Monday November 7, 2016
ALERT! - ROBERT LINDSEY'S PLAN TO HAVE ROBIN DANNER SUCCEED HIM AT OHA
Please forward this today to all Hawaiians and our supporters.
In light of the fact that voting day is tomorrow, November 8th, we want to make you aware of some information that has just been brought to our attention.
Sources inside the Office of Hawaiian Affairs have informed us that should he be re-elected, Robert Lindsey is planning to step down soon after the election in order to attend to his serious health situation.
These same sources have confirmed to us that the person Mr. Lindsey would recommend to the remaining OHA trustees to replace him is Robin Danner.
Robin, who is the current SCHHA chairman, is also the culprit and mastermind behind turning Hawaiians into a US federally recognized tribe and also supports building the thirty meter telescope atop Mauna Kea.
By now, many of you have probably seen the recent photograph of Robin standing along side Robert Lindsey, actively campaigning for his re-election.
In light of this new information that Mr. Lindsey would seek to have Robin Danner replace him as OHA trustee, that photograph now takes on an entirely new and ominous meaning.
The appointment of Robin Danner as an OHA trustee would be a devastating blow to every single Hawaiian and a huge victory for those who continue to manipulate Hawai'i and Hawaiians to enrich themselves financially.
Therefore the defeat of Robert Lindsey in his bid for re-election is absolutely crucial.
Because this has been disclosed at the very last minute, we strongly urge you to share this information immediately with as many other potential voters as possible who are still undecided who to vote for or are planning to leave the OHA trustees portion of their ballot blank.
Given what's at stake, we hope that you, as well as every one you know of voting age, will vote against Mr. Lindsey tomorrow and elect Mililani Trask in his place.
Mahalo.
--------------------
** Ken Conklin's editorial note on Wednesday November 9, 2016: In light of the election of President Trump, we can hope he will follow through on his pledge to dismantle a large number of Obama's executive orders and regulations. The one we care most about is the newly proclaimed Department of Interior regulation providing a pathway for federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe. I expect that at some point there will be a list of regulations to dismantle through executive orders in the various administrative departments; and also a list for Congress. Republicans will also be keeping control of both the House and Senate, where there will probably be an omnibus bill to overturn a long list of regulations and executive orders. I hope our friends in D.C. will pursue the dismantling of the Hawaiian tribe regulation through both the administrative and legislative branches. Anyone who has contacts in Washington should be lobbying them as soon as possible to make sure our main issue is included in their agenda.
------------------
Hawaii statewide final election results November 8, 2016 general election
http://elections.hawaii.gov/wp-content/results/histatewide.pdf
Hawaii statewide precinct by precinct results (1201 pages)
(interesting to compare results for precincts dominated by different ethnic/income groups)
http://elections.hawaii.gov/wp-content/results/precinct.pdf
------------------
https://www.facebook.com/robin.t.stueber/posts/10211141944252537?notif_t=tagged_with_story¬if_id=1478708274303312
Keli'i Akina news release and Facebook message, November 9, 2016
SHARE WIDELY - Keli'i Akina Wins Seat as OHA Trustee -
Vows to Challenge Financial Practices and Race-Based Nation Plans
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- November 9, 2016 -- Keli'i Akina, Ph.D. has won the General Election race for Trustee-at-Large in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, garnering 163,699 votes. Akina successfully challenged long-term incumbent Haunani Apoliona who earned 156,158 votes. A historic 73.1% of all voters cast a vote in the OHA Trustee-at-Large election. (Figures based on Final Print-out.)
Dr. Akina said, "I want to thank Trustee Apoliona for her years of service to the people of Hawaii, and I welcome her continued input on the advancement of native Hawaiians, something to which she has devoted her entire life. I also want to thank all voters who cast votes in the OHA election. You participated in record numbers and demonstrated that OHA is relevant and of concern to the entire community. Finally, I especially want to thank all of my supporters for your faith in me, financial contributions and tireless campaign volunteer work."
Akina ran on a platform of uniting Hawaii and cleaning up OHA's financial practices. He repeatedly told voters that, if elected, he will work to: (1) Shut off OHA's wasteful spending on race-based, federal recognition schemes that most Hawaiians do not want; (2) Focus on meeting the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education, and health-care; and; (3) Bring truth and transparency to the OHA board.
As an OHA Trusteeship is a part-time board position, Akina will continue to serve as President/CEO of the Grassroot Institute, an independent public policy think-tank.
Dr. Akina is available for interviews.
###
Paid for by the Kelii Akina Campaign Committee/ PO Box 61232, Honolulu, HI 96839
-------------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/33674033/ohas-newest-trustee-opposes-native-hawaiian-sovereignty
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations), Wednesday, November 9th 2016
OHA's newest trustee opposes Native Hawaiian sovereignty
By Rick Daysog, Reporter
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
He sued the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to stop its funding of Native Hawaiian sovereignty programs and has criticized some of the state agency's spending, which he calls wasteful.
"This is a tremendous opportunity to bring real change to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The most important is to stop spending on wasteful projects such as race-based federal recognition, which most Hawaiians don't want," Akina said.
Akina defeated former OHA chairwoman Haunani Apoliona, who has served at OHA for about two decades.
He won by appealing to the vast majority of non-Hawaiian voters, who weren't even able to vote in OHA races until the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Rice v. Cayetano ruling in 2000, which struck down race-based voting.
Given the high participation Tuesday, political analysts said voter scrutiny of OHA will likely increase.
"Akina campaigned on this. Other candidates who want to challenge OHA trustees will probably use a similar tactic, which is to say that this is public money and that everyone can vote," said Colin Moore, University of Hawaii political science professor.
Akina said he's not in favor abolishing all of OHA's programs. But he is against taxpayer money being used to lobby for native Hawaiian sovereignty.
He said one trustee has estimated that OHA has spent more than $30 million on that effort over the past several years.
"We need those assets to be spent on housing and jobs and education and healthcare," he said.
OHA will swear in its newest trustee on Dec. 9.
-----------------------
Akina Victory Gets OHA Shredder Going (cartoon)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210828038313949&set=gm.866859560082014&type=3&theater
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/11/09/hawaii-news/akina-winning-over-apoliona-as-lindsey-defeats-rival-trask/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 9, 2016
Akina winning over Apoliona as Lindsey defeats rival Trask
By Susan Essoyan
Keli'i Akina, president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, seemed headed for a surprising victory over Office of Hawaiian Affairs veteran Haunani Apoliona, after trailing narrowly in early returns.
OHA Chairman Robert Lindsey defeated challenger Mililani Trask, 44.6 percent to 32.5 percent, with almost all votes counted.
Akina waged a spirited campaign against Apoliona, who has served continuously on the board since first being elected in 1996. He had 37.3 percent to her 35.9 percent of the votes for the at-large seat in a tally near midnight, with the remaining votes blank.
It was Akina's second campaign for OHA and he recognized the challenge of taking on a well-known incumbent.
"Name recognition is a huge advantage for any candidate who has it, but we've made use of all forms of media to build our own name recognition," Akina said.
"This has been a great opportunity to do something good for the people of Hawaii, both Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians. The public has responded tremendously to our message that it's time for all people to work together."
Akina had made some headlines himself as plaintiff in the lawsuit that wound up stopping the Na'i Aupuni Hawaiian self-governance election, which he considered racially discriminatory. The institute he leads is devoted to individual liberty and limited government.
As the polls closed Tuesday evening, Apoliona looked back over her tenure, which includes a decade as OHA chairwoman.
"It definitely has been a building process," she said. "It's all about empowering Native Hawaiians in our efforts for self-determination, social and economic development. Having the opportunity to serve for these 20 years, you have the chance to see the improvements and the bigger challenges that await OHA."
Lindsey, a retired land assets division director for Kamehameha Schools, was seeking his third term. He sees his role as being "a thoughtful rudder in leading the board" and "a quiet, rational voice in times of crisis."
In the primary, Trask had edged Lindsey for the Hawaii island seat by less than 2 percentage points in a three-way race.
A former trustee herself, Trask campaigned as a critic of OHA, calling on it to be more transparent, accountable, and focused in its efforts.
"OHA can't continue to be everything to everyone," Trask said. "Trustees must consider and prioritize their areas of service to beneficiaries."
All voters statewide may cast ballots in OHA elections. In the past, the top vote-getters in November were declared the winners. But since 2014, OHA elections have had primaries.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is governed by nine trustees who serve four-year terms. Four were up for election this year.
Molokai Trustee and 20-year OHA veteran Colette Machado received more than half of the votes in the primary and won outright. Trustee Dan Ahuna was unopposed for his Kauai seat.
Many voters leave the OHA portion of their ballots blank. First-time voter Tobi Watanabe, a University of Hawaii student, decided to weigh in on the races although she didn't know a lot about the candidates.
"I voted for Bob Lindsey," she said after casting her ballot at Stevenson Middle School. "That was solely based off things I heard on the radio. If it wasn't for Bob Lindsey's radio commercials, I wouldn't have known who he was."
----------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/11/lindsey-apoliona-take-early-leads-in-oha-races/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 8, 2016
OHA Chair Lindsey Holds On To Seat, Akina Edges Past Apoliona
Longtime incumbent trustees faced tough challengers.
By Chad Blair
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board Chair Bob Lindsey Jr. beat back a challenge from Mililani Trask in the race for the Hawaii Island seat Tuesday night.
Lindsey had 44.6 percent of the vote to Trask's 32.5 percent in results released about 11:30 p.m.
But Trustee Haunani Apoliona appeared to have lost her seat to challenger Kelii Akina in the contest for the OHA at-large seat.
Apoliona had 35.9 percent to Akina's 37.3 percent as of the fourth printout. A final printout was expected sometime early Wednesday morning.
OHA races usually do not attract many voters. Although non-Hawaiians are allowed to vote and run for the seats, many voters often leave the OHA portion of their ballots blank.
But this year's race has attracted a lot of attention because it pitted two status quo incumbents (Lindsey and Apoliona) and two challengers (Trask and Akina) who want to change the way OHA operates.
OHA is a quasi-state agency charged with helping the state's indigenous people through improving education, economic subsistence and health, among other areas. It is funded by the state from ceded-land revenues.
OHA has made headlines over the past decade through its efforts to obtain federal recognition for Kanaka Maoli from the U.S. government, its use of land assets to grow revenue, its initial support (later withdrawn) for a giant telescope on top of Mauna Kea and its financial assistance to fund a group that seeks self-governance for Hawaiians.
Lindsey and Apoliona believe OHA, under their leadership, has chartered a course that benefits Hawaiians.
Trask, a former OHA trustee, argues that OHA has mismanaged its finances and lacks transparency, while Akina, whose politics lean libertarian-conservative, opposes nation-building and wants more accountability from the agency.
All four candidates have spent thousands of dollars to advertise and promote their campaigns.
In a statement issued late Tuesday night, Lindsey said he was encouraged by the results so far.
"I look forward to the final printout," he said, "but I remain extremely optimistic about our chances of continuing to make a meaningful contribution to efforts to strengthen the future path of Native Hawaiians as well as ensure that OHA is well managed and its financial situation remains sound."
------------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/11/10/hawaii-news/hawaiian-nationalists-fear-effects-of-trump-win/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 10, 2016
Hawaiian nationalists fear effects of Trump win
By Timothy Hurley
The future of a Hawaiian nation has suddenly found itself in the shadow of a huge cloud with the stunning election of Republican Donald Trump as president.
Hawaiian leaders say Trump not only could waylay the ongoing efforts to create a Hawaiian nation but also could work to hinder entitlements and help engender an atmosphere of bigotry and racial prejudice.
"The Trump backlash is going to affect all minorities, especially those with federal entitlements," Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Peter Apo said.
Of particular concern in Hawaii, Apo said, is that Trump could block the pathway to federal recognition as laid out by President Barack Obama through a federal rule proposed by the Department of the Interior.
"It's not likely that Obama's executive order will pass muster by a Trump administration," Apo said.
For years, Republicans blocked the Akaka Bill, the proposed legislation named for former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka that attempted to establish federal recognition for Native Hawaiians through Congress.
On the other hand, Trump is not your garden-variety Republican and is known to be unpredictable, Apo said.
"If anything, we would reach out to the Trump administration through the Department of the Interior to see what kind of reaction we would get," he said.
While former OHA Trustee Moanikeala Akaka, a supporter of independence, said she wouldn't mind if Trump pulled back on the proposed federal rule, the election of Trump otherwise is nothing short of frightening.
"As one who has been fighting for justice for Hawaiians for five decades, it is frightening," said Akaka, a Hilo resident. "I'm afraid he will put our people further back from getting the justice we rightfully deserve in our own homeland."
Akaka said she's bothered by Trump's "racist views" against Mexicans and Muslims, among others, and she's afraid that attitude will reach over to Hawaii.
Akaka also said she's afraid Trump won't stop at the proposed DOI rule. She said she's also worried he'll block Obama's recent expansion of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, a move she strongly supported.
"But nobody knows what he's going to do. Does he know?" she said.
Not all Hawaiians view Trump's presidency with dread. OHA Trustee-elect Keli'i Akina said the majority of Native Hawaiians should welcome a president who would oppose federal efforts to "tribalize" Hawaiians.
"OHA's own sponsored research shows that Hawaiians don't want government spending on nationhood, but on the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education and health care," Akina said. "I believe those would be priorities for a Trump administration."
'Dead in the water'
Dr. Kalama'oka'aina Niheu of the 'Aha Aloha 'Aina coalition agreed there's a good chance the DOI rule is "dead in the water."
But if it isn't, she said, she's fearful that Trump will pursue "the worst degree of exploitation and subjugation" of the Hawaiian people by negotiating rights away from the Hawaiian people.
"Trump has no sympathy or good will toward people of color, especially those of the First Nations," Niheu said.
Niheu said Trump's victory is a reflection of what's happening in America, from the favoring of corporate interests over the individual, to the increasing gap between rich and poor, and the country's inability to protect its minorities or their rights.
Niheu's organization will hold a community forum on the future of the Hawaiian nation from 7 to 10 tonight in the Farrington High School cafeteria.
Aha Aloha Aina, a coalition of Hawaiian organizations, businesses and Hawaiian leaders, was formed in response to the state-initiated Na'i Aupuni nation-building campaign and has held more than 30 meetings to counter the effort with discussions about independence.
The Na'i Aupuni convention in February produced a constitution that awaits ratification by the Hawaiian people. Convention participants have been raising money in hopes of launching a campaign that will lead to a ratification election.
Jade Danner, a convention participant, said she was despondent at 2 a.m. while ruminating about what Trump's ascendancy to power means for federal recognition and the benefits and protections it would provide to Hawaiians.
But as the day went on, Danner, a former aide to Sen. Akaka, said she became more circumspect with a wait-and-see attitude.
"The election of Trump is a blow, but not all is lost -- not at all," she said. "The fact is we have a lot of work to do at home before we can exercise the option for the proposed federal rule."
What's more, Trump's position on indigenous rights is not known, she said.
"And if he doesn't know about those rights, indigenous leaders will do their level best to educate him," she said.
For Niheu, Trump's election represents an opportunity for the Hawaiian people to unite and reset the nation-building process "in a real way rather than a manufactured way."
Niheu criticized OHA for squandering at least $33 million of Native Hawaiian trust funds on an nation-building effort that now appears to be doomed.
"For the past 15 years OHA has ignored the people," she said. "We need to start evaluating and honoring resources in the community and listening to their concerns."
A critical time
Speakers invited to tonight's forum include Hawaiian leaders Robin Danner, Michelle Kauhane, former Gov. John Waihee and Apo, all of whom support federal recognition. Representing independence will be Ku Kahakalau, Mililani Trask, Kaho'okahi Kanuha and Niheu.
"We are asking those leaders who pushed for this 'Hawaiian constitution' be accountable for the unilateral decisions they are making on behalf of our entire lahui (nation). Now more than ever it's critical for the kanaka maoli community to unite to protect our rights in a way that truly listens to, uplifts, educates, and honors our people," Niheu said.
Apo said he has a previous commitment.
-----
** Ken Conklin's online comment:
Article says: "Speakers invited to tonight's forum include Hawaiian leaders Robin Danner, Michelle Kauhane, former Gov. John Waihee and Apo, all of whom support federal recognition. Representing independence will be Ku Kahakalau, Mililani Trask, Kaho'okahi Kanuha and Niheu."
I'm going to use Hillary Clinton's now-famous label to describe all 8 of them: they belong in a "basket of deplorables." The word "racist" describes them perfectly.
The first 4 support creation of a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe, whereby anyone with a drop of the magic blood can belong to a racially segregated government of the race, by the race, and for the race -- a government whose whole purpose is to grab as much land, money, and political power as possible at the expense of everyone unfortunate enough to not belong to the favored race.
The second 4 support turning the entirety of Hawaii into an independent nation where there would be two classes of citizenship -- the 20% of Hawaii's people who have a drop of the magic blood would first-class citizens with exclusive rights to "sacred lands" and a racial entitlement to control Hawaii's policies regarding immigration, environment, foreign affairs; while the other 80% of Hawaii's people who lack the magic blood would be second-class citizens whose rights to own land would be limited to specific areas and whose rights to vote or hold a position in the government would be limited to certain topics.
Both types of Hawaiian racists assert special rights to political and economic power based on race -- the very definition of racism. The first 4 are racial separatists under a tribal model, and the second 4 are ethnic nationalists who want Hawaii to resemble South Africa when it had an apartheid regime where a minority ruled over a far greater majority based solely on race.
Please read my book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State." 27 copies are in the Hawaii Public Library system. A detailed table of contents, and the entire chapter 1, can be read on the internet at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
----
** Ken's additional on-line comment:
In light of the election of President Trump, I hope he will follow through on his pledge to dismantle a large number of Obama's executive orders and regulations. The one I care most about is the newly proclaimed Department of Interior regulation providing a pathway for federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe. I expect that at some point there will be a list of regulations to dismantle through executive orders in the various administrative departments. There will also be a list for Congress. Republicans will be keeping control of both the House and Senate, where there will probably be an omnibus bill to overturn a long list of regulations and executive orders. I hope our friends in D.C. will pursue the dismantling of the Hawaiian tribe regulation through both the administrative and legislative branches. Any Hawaii defender of unity and equality who has contacts in Washington should be lobbying them as soon as possible to make sure our main issue is included in their agenda for both the Trump administration and for Congress.
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/11/10/editorial/upset-win-will-make-oha-interesting-to-watch/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 10, 2016
Off the News [mini editorial]
Upset win will make OHA interesting to watch
One of the big surprises of this election (locally, that is) was the upset win of Keli'i Akina for a seat on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs board of trustees. Akina is president, CEO and chief policy director for the nonprofit Grassroot Institute, which has sat on the opposite side of OHA on some issues. Akina emphasizes on his campaign website that he and the organization recognize "the legally protected status of Hawaiian entitlements." But Akina says OHA should "stay out of the business of Hawaiian nationhood." It will be interesting to sit in on OHA board meetings now.
---------------------
https://youtu.be/KZgsnznAt_4
Free Hawaii TV, Thursday November 10, 2016
3-minute video
AKINA WINS - IS FED WRECK FINALLY DEAD?
The "Fed Wreckers" Lost A Huge One Yesterday. By Defeating Haunani Apoliona, Keli'i Akina Now Brings Truth & Transparency To OHA. He'll Also Shut Down OHA's Push To Turn You & Your 'Ohana Into A US Tribe. Watch Our Report To See Why This Is A New & Exciting Beginning & What This Means For You & Your Future. Then Share This Video With All Your Family & Friends.
https://youtu.be/KZgsnznAt_4
---------------------------
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/Repeal43CFR50.html
New webpage by Ken Conklin: "Repeal 43 CFR 50 -- Asking the Trump team, and members of the 115th Congress and their staffers, to repeal this executive order issued at the end of the Obama administration, which provides a pathway for a very small percentage of ethnic Hawaiians to rip apart the lands and people of Hawaii by creating a brand new Indian tribe and getting federal recognition for it."
The purpose of this webpage is to ask anyone who knows how to contact the Trump transitional team, or future Secretaries or high-level policy staffers in the Department of Interior or Department of Justice, to forward a message to them asking for an item to be placed on their list of Obama regulations and executive orders to be repealed. The purpose is also to ask that you contact Republican members of the 115th Congress, or their chief policy staffers, to forward that same message to them -- the relevant committees are the House Committee on Natural Resources, House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate Judiciary Committee.
The message asks for repeal of a "final rule" -- an executive order -- proclaimed by the Department of Interior, published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016 and taking effect as law on November 14, 2016. It is 43 CFR 50. It provides a pathway whereby a small percentage of 600,000 ethnic Hawaiians can create a government for a "Native Hawaiian" tribe and obtain federal recognition for that tribe even if the vast majority of ethnic Hawaiians oppose the idea or refuse to participate, and without the approval of the 80% of Hawaii's people who have no Hawaiian native ancestry. Such a tribe never existed but is in the process of being created specifically to conform to requirements in 43 CFR 50, in order to legalize numerous racial entitlement programs for 600,000 people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. The regulation is effective November 14, 2016.
This concept was rejected by Congress from 2000 through 2012; but the Obama administration is usurping the power of Congress to proclaim it unilaterally.
Hundreds of nationally known writers, civil rights activists and institutions have published articles and reports opposing this concept throughout the period 2000-2016. The names of some of them, and links to full text of their publications, are provided below. Please send this message to any of them you can contact.
--------------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com
Free Hawaii blog, November 16, 2016
"HELP TRUMP DUMP FED WRECK"
The Surprising Win Of Donald Trump Brings Yet Another Surprise.
The Chance Of US Federal Recognition Actually Happening In Hawai'i Has Plummeted.
Even Though Some Are Still Trying To Make It A Reality, Thereʻs A Simple Way For You To Let US President-Elect Trump Know You Oppose It.
Watch This To Discover A Very Easy Way To Tell Trump To Dump Fed Wreck.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know. [3 minute video]
-------------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/11/native-hawaiians-dont-know-what-to-expect-from-trump/
Honolulu Civil Beat, November 17, 2016
Native Hawaiians Don't Know What To Expect From Trump
Some leaders say competing movements for federal recognition and complete independence will continue no matter who is president.
By Chad Blair
On election night, John Waihee was on a Hawaiian Airlines red-eye flight from Honolulu to New York City.
The former Hawaii governor, who supported fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, did not know who had been elected president until the pilot made the announcement after landing.
"The entire plane went silent," Waihee recalled. "Not a sound."
The nation and world are in an uncertain state in the wake of Donald Trump's surprise ascension to the presidency. In the islands, some Native Hawaiians are wondering how they might be impacted -- especially their movements toward self-governance and independence.
Asked Monday about the prospects for Hawaiians under Trump, Waihee, the state's first governor of Hawaiian ancestry, admitted, "I have no idea."
Waihee recommended patience.
"I don't know how he's going to react, frankly, and the best thing to do would be to wait and see how everything unfurls," said Waihee. "One thing that we know is that this is not the first challenge that native people have had with any president. It goes up and down politically."
Several Hawaiian leaders have indicated since Trump's election that efforts toward self-governance, such as the Nai Aupuni convention earlier this year, will continue no matter who occupies the White House.
Endeavors to reinstate an independent nation continue as well.
Some Hawaiians insist the Hawaiian Kingdom, overthrown in 1893 by American-supported business interests, still exists. Many of them believe international law supercedes federal law when it comes to native rights.
For now at least, the U.S. Department of the Interior's rule-making process on federal recognition -- the one finalized in late September -- remains intact.
Who Defines Self-Determination?
Hawaiian nationalists like Mililani Trask interpret Trumps's election as having "trumped" the DOI rules, as she puts it. She said the DOI is "DOA" -- dead on arrival.
Trask, who made her remarks along with others at a public forum last week on the future of a Hawaiian nation, said she doubted whether most Hawaiians had bothered to read the 172-page DOI ruling.
If they did they'd learn, Trask said, that the purpose of the federal rule is not to give Hawaiians self-determination but rather to facilitate the ability of some Hawaiians to gain control of congressional programs that benefit Hawaiians.
What federal recognition will not accomplish is a return to Hawaiians of land and resources, she said, with the exception of the uninhabitable island of Kahoolawe. Trask argues that the DOI process would result in Hawaiians relinquishing independence.
"This process does not give us the right of self-determination under international law," said Trask, who formerly led an independence group called Ka Lahui. "Native Hawaiians should determine their own political status."
Robin Danner, the founder of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, feels otherwise about federal recognition. The election of Trump, she said, "has no impact, no bearing" on the DOI process. "It's pau."
Danner, who spoke at the same forum as Trask at Farrington High School in Kalihi, said "there is nothing for President Obama or Trump to do," meaning that it is now up to Hawaiians. She wants Hawaiians to be in control of their own businesses and education, something she believes federal recognition will help.
DOI spokesperson Amanda Degroff confirmed that the final rule to create a pathway for re-establishing a formal government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians is unchanged.
She also emphasized that the decision to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government "is one for the Native Hawaiian community -- not the federal government -- to make as an exercise of self-determination."
Danner also dismissed as "selling snake oil" the notion that the only option for Hawaiians is independence versus federal recognition. It's not one or the other, she said, but both.
"We must take every tool, whether state or federal or international," she argued. "That is the reality."
Earlier this week, her council sent out a press release titled "Policy Advocacy in a Trump Administration." It called for finding areas of "common ground" in the administration, just as the council would with any new president.
"Let's start to think through what kinds of tax reform issues to pursue, what kinds of U.S. Treasury investments to push that appeal to both D's and R's (bonds, tax credits, Community Development Financial Institutions programming), that directs much needed funding resources to our communities, to capitalizing our farmers and businesses, and so on," wrote Danner.
There is also a third option for Hawaiians: to do nothing.
Kelii Akina, who upset an incumbent trustee in the Nov. 8 election to serve on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, ran on a platform that called for shutting off OHA's spending on nation-building.
While echoing Waihee's advice that it's too early to predict how Trump's presidency will affect Hawaiians, Akina said, "OHA's own internal research reveals that what the Hawaiian people want most is not a wasteful and divisive nationhood project, but jobs, education, health care and housing."
He concluded: "These are exactly the things that President-elect Trump said are his highest priority. Focusing on these needs rather than pouring more resources into nation-building could greatly benefit Native Hawaiians."
Party Sympathies
In recent years, federal support for Native Hawaiian rights has generally been greater among Democrats than Republicans.
In 1993, when Waihee was governor and Bill Clinton was president, Congress enacted the Apology Resolution to Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for its role in the overthrow, and committed the federal government to a process of reconciliation.
Clinton was also president in 2000 when Interior and the Department of Justice issued a report citing the need to foster self-determination for Hawaiians under federal law.
The so-called Akaka bill on federal recognition, a precursor to the DOI rule-making that was named after former Hawaii Sen. Daniel Akaka, a Democrat, passed a Democrat-controlled House and later a GOP-controlled House (Democrat Rep. Neil Abercrombie championed the legislation) but fell short under a Republican-controlled Senate.
Opposition to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act centered on concerns that it was race-based and thus unconstitutional.
Linda Lingle, Hawaii's Republican governor from 2002 to 2010, lobbied aggressively for the Akaka bill's passage. Some officials in the George W. Bush's administration did not support the bill, but Lingle worked with the Justice Department to assuage concerns.
In the end, however, the bill never made it out of Congress. Akaka retired in 2012, the same year that Dan Inouye, who also championed the legislation, passed away.
There is little indication from Trump's policy statements thus far that indigenous and Hawaiian issues are even on his radar, although Trump himself in the past fought Native Americans to advance his business interests.
But there are also concerns about what a Trump Department of Justice, a GOP Congress, a GOP-dominated U.S. Supreme Court and Trump appointees to lower federal courts might try to do when it comes to native rights, programs and initiatives.
While legal tests of matters such as Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy have failed (the private school gives preference to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry), courts ruled that non-Hawaiians can vote for and run as OHA candidates.
Last year, Akina and the conservative Judicial Watch sued to halt the OHA-funded Nai Aupuni's plans to hold an election for delegates to a Hawaiian convention.
There have also been disputes about the state's Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, which grants homestead lands to qualified applicants, over issues such as delays in awards, eligibility requirements and funding of the agency.
Sense Of Urgency
Trump's election has added urgency to the belief that Hawaiians need to mobilize and unify.
That was a theme at the Farrington High forum, which was organized by Aha Aloha Aina, a group working toward total independence from the U.S.
It drew several hundred people including Hawaiians representing a variety of views such as Walter Ritte, Kealii Lopez, Leon Siu, Kalama Kalama Niheu, Ku Kahakalau, Shane Pale, Healani Sonoda-Pale, Davis Price, Ikaika Hussey, Andrew Perez, Michelle Kauhane, Kahookahi Kanuha, Hinaleimoana Wong-Kalu and Maile Meyer.
(You can view the entire three-hour forum via H. Doug Matsuoka's YouTube link.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qUz3Ix5cxo
In addition to the reality of a President Trump, the need for Hawaiians to come together was stressed by several participants. Hawaiians with different positions need to stop looking at each other as "enemies on opposite sides of the battlefield," Price said.
As forum moderator Hussey put it, "We all awoke to a very different world," noting that Trump had already indicated an oil executive would likely run the Environmental Protection Agency.
The need for Native Hawaiians to reconcile and compromise has been a challenge for decades.
OHA Trustee Peter Apo, who did not attend the Farrington forum, said he was skeptical the pro-self-governance and pro-independence sides -- as well as Hawaiians who favor neither path -- could ever be compatible.
"From my perch, no, I don't believe the two are reconcilable," said Apo, who favors federal recognition and wants to see the DOI process come to fruition. "But the final arbiter of that question ought to be for Hawaiians to vote on it in a democratic process. That is my No. 1 position."
--------------------
** Ken Conklin's online comment
A Republican will soon be President. And Republicans will control both the Senate and House in the 115th Congress.
It is Republicans who blocked the Akaka bill in the Senate for 13 years, from 2000 to 2013 through personal "holds" and also a two-day fillibuster. Hundreds of articles in nationwide publications were authored by well-known conservatives. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission warned three times against both the Akaka bill and, more recently, the Department of Interior rule-making process.
All those people are being contacted to repeal the Department of Interior "final rule." President Trump can add it to his list of hundreds of Obama regulations and executive orders he promised to nullify. In Congress, language can be added to repeal it in bills that fund the Department of Interior. The job will be done.
New webpage about how to "Repeal 43 CFR 50", including links to 16 years of publications opposing this concept as illegal and immoral, at
http://tinyurl.com/zkbd22p
---------------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/2016/11/who-will-be-held-accountable-by-healani.html
Free Hawaii blog, November 18, 2016
WHO WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE?
By Healani Sonoda-Pale
This election year the Hawai'i State Democratic Party machine put their time, money, energy, and underhanded tactics into stopping Mililani Trask for OHA Hawai'i Island Trustee, they were (its safe to say) blindsided.
Mililani Trask made no qualms about what she thought of the Department of Interior Rule which provided immunity to the State and Federal governments from Hawaiian lawsuits and created a Native Hawaiian tribe whose only land base is the bomb ridden island of Kaho'olawe much of which is uninhabitable.
Part of their underhanded tactics used against Mililani Trask was the libelous ad that suggested Mililani had somehow taken money from OHA and even misdirected people into thinking that Mililani was the incumbent - taking advantage of the 2/3 non Hawaiian vote who for the most part may not pay much attention to what OHA is all about and actually doing.
But as November 8th came and went the Democratic Party machine in Hawai'i and their agent OHA - who had wasted 33 million dollars on their failed campaigns for federal recognition and caused a huge rift in the Hawaiian community - were successful in stopping who they deemed was the greatest threat to the creation of a federally recognized tribe from infiltrating OHA - Mililani Trask.
But they were wrong.
Totally unexpectedly Keli'i Akina defeated Haunani Apoliona, a "yes" (wo)man for the Democratic party and the behind the scenes leader of OHA.
Kealii Akina is the CEO of Grassroots Hawai'i a right wing organization that has a national network of conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation.
Grassroot Institute Of Hawai'i is the organization that sued OHA to release the Kana'iolowalu check registers (after OHA refused to comply) and sued to stop the Na'i Aupuni elections.
Along with the fact that Trump, a right wing Republican, won and the fact that the US Congress is now under Republican control, Keli'i Akina as OHA Trustee At Large elect is ideally situated to fulfill his promise to stop "race based" nation building.
Whether we agree with Keli'i or not on his reasons for doing what he is doing I am merely stating the facts and my analysis.
Now for the reckoning.
As we move ahead post Elections we are faced with these facts -
1. Keli'i Akina has hired an accountant and economist for his OHA Staff hell bent on cleaning up OHA and stopping any more wasteful spending on federal recognition.
2. Mililani Trask is in the process of filing a lawsuit against Bob Lindsey, his campaign manager Kuhio Lewis, and John Aeto for the libelous ad which costs her the election.
3. As we come to terms with the fact federal recognition via the Department of Interior Rule is dead in the water and that the Rule may very well be repealed or deemed unconstitutional by the new Right Wing US leadership - we need to ask ourselves who do we hold accountable for the damage done to the Hawaiian community for these failed federal recognition campaigns?
Who will step up and take responsibility for millions of Hawaiian Trust dollars wasted, for the bitter divisions created in Hawaiian communities and families, the passing out of stolen Hawaiian names and information, and the overall misinformation provided to the Hawaiian people?
How can we trust the leaders we have who supported this fiasco - some of whom got paid for their silence and/or cooperation?
As the reckoning unfolds post elections we still need to be vigilant as ever Lahui or the Democratic Party version of federal recognition may rear its ugly head again.
This legislative session we will be calling for the repeal of Act 195 giving legislators and leaders a chance to right the wrongs they did to the Hawaiian people.
--------------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/18659/DOI-Rule-Republicans-Prepare-to-Reverse-Obamarsquos-lsquoFlurry-of-Midnight-Actionsrsquo.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Sunday November 27, 2016
DOI Rule? Republicans Prepare to Reverse Obama's 'Flurry of Midnight Actions'
by Bob King and Nick Juliano, Politico, 11/27/16
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-regulations-231820
(excerpt)
Obama's agencies push flurry of 'midnight' actions
But in Congress, Republicans are warning them to stop and are preparing to repeal those regulations en masse.
by Bob King and Nick Juliano, Politico, 11/27/16 (excerpt)
... As many as 98 final regulations under review at the White House as of Nov. 15 could be implemented before Trump takes office. Seventeen regulations awaiting final approval are considered "economically significant," with an estimated economic impact of at least $100 million a year.
Miffed congressional leaders are warning the agencies to halt their work on so-called midnight regulations, specifically objecting to Obama's call earlier this year for "audacious executive action." In a letter to agency heads on Nov. 15, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and every House committee chairman cautioned them "against finalizing pending rules or regulations in the Administration's last days."
"Should you ignore this counsel, please be aware that we will work with our colleagues to ensure that Congress scrutinizes your actions -- and, if appropriate, overturns them."
Trump has promised to wipe out as much of Obama's regulatory agenda as he can, saying he will cancel "all illegal and overreaching executive orders" and eliminate "every wasteful and unnecessary regulation which kills jobs."
One powerful weapon at Republicans' disposal is the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that essentially allows lawmakers and the president to impose a death penalty on regulations they oppose. Come January, Congress can use the law to repeal any rule that an agency finished after this past May 30, using simple-majority votes -- and afterward, agencies will be forbidden to enact any regulation that is "substantially the same."
Republicans are seeking to make that tool even more powerful by pushing legislation allowing Congress to repeal bunches of regulations en masse instead of one at a time. Some GOP lawmakers are compiling lists of 100 regulations they'd like to kill in the first 100 days, POLITICO reported last week -- lists that would include already-completed rules as well as those Obama's agencies are completing in their year-end sprint.
Other rules may fall victim to court challenges, such as the Obama administration overtime regulation -- set to take effect Dec. 1 -- that a judge in Texas blocked on Tuesday. And Trump's administration may decide not to defend them...
read ... flurry of 'midnight' actions
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-regulations-231820
-----
How to Ask President-Elect Donald J Trump to Reverse DoI Federal Recognition Rule:
Go to www.GreatAgain.gov -- click on 'Share Your Ideas'
SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear President-Elect Trump:
Please repeal DOI Administrative Rule 43 CFR Part 50 (RIN 1090-AB05).
Mahalo,
Signed
***
-----------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/18654/Documents-Reveal-Waihee-Hustles-Indians-for-2M.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Sunday, November 27, 2016
Documents Reveal Waihee Hustles Indians for $2M
By Andrew Walden
Would you trust John Waihee III with another $2M to turn Hawaiians into a fake Indian tribe?
He hopes somebody will.
That's the upshot of redacted documents leaked to Hawai'i Free Press by a source near the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/Article%20Attachments/Waihee%20Tribe%202M%20Money%20Grift%20Aug%202016.pdf
Peeling away a large black redaction at the head, we discover Waihee addressed an August 8, 2016 plea for $2M to "Mr. John Echohawk, Executive Director Native American Rights Fund, 1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302".
Are the redactions to conceal the tribal nature of Waihee's push for federal recognition? Each of the three redacted sections hides a reference to the Native American Rights Fund (NARF). According to its website, NARF believes Hawaiians "are Native Americans." The group's website explains, "NARF's foremost priority is to protect and secure continued tribal existence."
http://www.narf.org/our-work/preservation-tribal-existence/
The Chairman of the Board of NARF is Moses K. N. Haia III, of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation who was cc-ed on Waihee's funding appeal.
Waihee's "Ask" refers potential donors to www.HawaiianNation.com
http://www.hawaiiannation.com
and www.AlohaLahui.com
http://www.alohalahui.com
for more information and indicates: "The Tides Foundation, a 501(c)3, has established the Aloha Lahui Collective Action Fund. This fund serves as the vehicle to receive donations from a variety of sources for the purposes of advancing nation-building. As of August 2016, about $250,000 has been raised from a variety of sources, including individuals, Native Hawaiian organizations and businesses, and small grants."
$250K is peanuts considering the billions of dollars in assets held by Hawaiian Trusts, but then who would want to give more money to Waihee and his cronies after they used the Kanaiolowalu Roll to suck millions out of OHA?
We asked Waihee for comment, but have received no reply.
According to our source, Waihee operative Norma Wong is still shopping the proposal to "funders in California" as of last week. This implies that NARF did not pony up. A timeline included with the leaked documents proposed $750K in payments to Waihee's group before the November 8 Presidential election, another $250K in December and another $1M between March and July, 2017.
Who is accountable for how money is spent? AlohaLahui.com explains: "A small committee including former Gov. Waihee and participants from the 'Aha. A central ledger will be kept in coordination with Tides and given to the Nation upon inception."
In other words, "you'll never see these books."
In 2015 the complete Kanaiolowalu check register was released in response to an Open Records request by Grassroot Institute. The register shows that self dealing by Waihee's gang of political insiders consumed almost all of the $2.999M of OHA money spent on the Roll.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/14889/categoryId/112/Full-Text-Hawaiian-Roll-Commission-Releases-Financial-Records.aspx
AlohaLahui.com features photos of John Waihee, Naalehu Anthony, and Amy Kalili laughing, as if they were on the way to the bank. Kalili is on a page headed "love of a nation" and Anthony is on a page headed "donate now."
Akamai readers will remember Anthony and Kalili starred in the video short: "Kanaiolowalu: How to make your girlfriend rich"
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/15002/Kanaiolowalu-How-to-Make-Your-Girlfriend-Rich.aspx
after Anthony's Roll Commission contracted over $600K in Kanaiolowalu Roll media work to a firm directed by Kalili.
A proposed budget included with the leaked documents follows the Kanaiolowalu pattern. Many of $2.168M in expenses are nebulous, making it easy for the usual suspects to score padded communications and media contracts: $1M is for elections, "including voter base support", $709K is for "communications", another $315K is for "stipends and fees", "data management and services", and "mailings."
Waihee in 2012 was held civilly responsible and forced to pay part of $1.3M in restitution for the $39M RightStar burial contract scam.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/former-governor-waihee-three-others-agree-to-pay-1-3-million-legal-settlement
He is currently suspended from the Hawaii Bar Association for non-payment of dues.
https://hsba.org/HSBA/Directory/Directory_results.aspx?ID=a4f30f47-185c-4d87-9618-a21ad176e815
John Waihee's interest in Indian tribes begins from the Broken Trust scandal. In 1995 as a Verner Liipfert partner, Waihee recommended the corrupt thieving broken trustees of Kamehameha Schools relocate KSBE corporate HQ to the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation in South Dakota in order to shield their criminal activities from State and Federal prosecutors.
As NARF explains: "With sovereignty, tribes can determine their own governments. They can determine their own membership. They can regulate issues such as real property, commerce and trade, domestic relations, criminal and civil conduct, and tax activities. Tribes can administer justice to enforce their regulatory laws. Tribes also have the power to exclude persons from tribal territory."
It is fortunate that so much of the money spent on creating a fake Indian tribe is being wasted.
PDF: Waihee $2M Money Pitch
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/Article%20Attachments/Waihee%20Tribe%202M%20Money%20Grift%20Aug%202016.pdf
-------------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442496/native-hawaiian-government-race-based-violation-equal-protection
National Review, November 28, 2016
Midnight Regulations in Paradise
by ILYA SHAPIRO
In another end run around Congress, Obama moves to allow native Hawaiians a race-based government exempt from U.S. law.
Like Rasputin, the push for a separate, race-based "native Hawaiian government" refuses to die. As I've now written about for almost a decade, it is the fondest dream of some politicians to institute a two-tiered system of law in Hawaii, putting some citizens under the jurisdiction of a wholly separate government based only on their racial makeup.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/color-their-skin-or-content-their-character
For many years, this push came in the form of the "Akaka Bill,"
http://www.civilbeat.org/topics/akaka-bill/
named after its primary sponsor Senator Daniel Akaka (D., Hawaii). The Akaka Bill took several forms over the years as it was repeatedly introduced -- and rejected -- in several Congresses since 2000. But its core goal remained consistent: to create a government within the Hawaiian islands whose membership would be defined not by geography but by blood, which means an exemption from state and federal law for those with enough native Hawaiian lineage to pass the government's test.
With the retirement of Senator Akaka in 2013, it seemed that the Akaka Bill was on its last legs. But as with so many other issues, the Obama administration is now attempting to achieve through unilateral executive action what it could not pass through the legislative process.
The Department of the Interior recently finalized a rule that would allow the federal government to establish formal government-to-government relations with a native Hawaiian government,
http://www.civilbeat.org/topics/akaka-bill/
if such a government should ever come to exist.
The administration's justification for acting without congressional authorization comes from a longstanding statute delegating to the Interior secretary the "management of all Indian affairs and of all matters arising out of Indian relations." But citing this statute simply begs the question, because it assumes that a newly created native Hawaiian government would be akin to the Indian tribes that receive a special status under the explicit terms of the Constitution.
This false analogy to Indian tribes runs throughout the regulation, as where the FAQ declares that a native Hawaiian government should be encouraged because "the Federal government has a longstanding policy of supporting self-determination and self-governance for Native peoples throughout the United States."
Such analogies were also used to defend the Akaka Bill -- and they are just as wrong now as they were then. The special legal status of certain Indian tribes was a constitutional compromise that arose from unique historical circumstances. A legislative authorization to deal with preexisting Indian tribes does not legitimize carving out a new government that has never existed before within the borders of the United States.
And it is fair to say that the proposed entity would be a new government in every sense of the word. The administration's own FAQ
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/external_faqs_on_part_50_final_rule_9.21.16_final.pdf
isn't shy about the powers a potential native Hawaiian government would have, admitting that it "could establish courts or other institutions to interpret and enforce its laws" and that "Federal courts could defer to those laws enacted by that Native Hawaiian government and the decisions of the Native Hawaiian courts."
In no uncertain terms, this move offers people of a certain race the ability to exempt themselves from the laws of the United States. And make no mistake, this would be a race-based government, because as the FAQ makes plain, "only persons with Native Hawaiian ancestry could be members if a formal government-to-government relationship is reestablished."
How do you test whether someone has native Hawaiian ancestry? A potential member must either have "at least 50 percent Native Hawaiian ancestry" or "descend from the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii." In other words, the government's test is one based solely on race, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the law.
The good news is that the Interior Department can't actually create such a government on its own. The "recognition" it anticipates will never come to pass unless those whom the government has defined as native Hawaiians vote to organize their own government. Further, that vote itself would also violate the equal-protection clause, because only people of a certain race would be allowed to participate. The Supreme Court has already blocked one such race-based election,
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/hawaii-election-limit-extended/
in Hawaii in 2015, which was ultimately cancelled before it could be definitively ruled unconstitutional.
Nonetheless, the federal bureaucracy will do everything it can to put its thumb on the scale in favor of such a divisive referendum. As the FAQ admits, the new rule "permits the [Interior] Department to provide technical assistance upon request by the Native Hawaiian community," including "expertise related to the community's ratification process." Of course, the Trump administration should immediately act to rescind that rule, and Congress can also reject it via the Congressional Review Act. But regardless of any executive or legislative action, Hawaii is one of the most diverse and integrated states in the nation, where the spirit of aloha means inclusion, not division. As long as Hawaiians themselves continue to understand that, no regulation can force them to believe otherwise.
-- Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and a member of the board of scholars at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
---------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo1216_edit_web?e=2253336/41355400
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], December 2016, page 4
A Year in Review of Hawaiian Governance
by Derek Kauanoe
In 2016, two Hawaiian governance developments took place. In February, more than 100 Hawaiian participants drafted and "passed" a constitution to propose to Hawaiians. This was accomplished through a monthlong Hawaiian convention with diverse participants from throughout Hawai'i and the Continent. Second, at the end of September, the Department of the Interior published an administrative rule for recognizing a Hawaiian government. These are two completely distinct developments that can and should be conceptualized in different ways. Hawaiian history provides us with an example for conceptualizing these developments.
Internal v. External Affairs
Kamehameha I understood the difference between his government's internal affairs and its external affairs. With this understanding, Kamehameha had an agreement with King George III. Years later, King George IV articulated this agreement to Kamehameha II's entourage when he said, "I will attend to the evils from without. The evils within your Kingdom, it is not for me to regard." One Hawaiian scholar explains this arrangement, "Kamehameha retained control over the internal affairs of his kingdom, while Britain maintained the external affairs."
With this historical context, we can view the drafting of a constitution (and its future ratification) by Hawaiians for Hawaiians as an internal affair. The Department of Interior's rule is relevant to a future Hawaiian government's external affairs because it is specific to the external relationship the Hawaiian government could have with the United States.
The government-to-government relationship between indigenous governments and the United States is similar to Kamehameha I's historical relationship to the British Crown. In the U.S., federally recognized indigenous governments on their land bases are generally protected by the U.S. government from external entities (such as state or county governments). Kamehameha I's agreement required the British Crown to protect the Hawaiian government from other external entities.
Native Hawaiian Constitution
Hawaiians ratifying a Hawaiian Nation constitution is an important part of developing our own internal affairs. The proposed constitution from the February 2016 Hawaiian convention has several important components to discuss.
The constitution states, "The primary purpose of Government is to meet the needs and priorities of its citizens, protect their rights, and care for the 'aina." Citizenship in the Nation is by choice and does not affect American citizenship. Hawaiian is the national language and English is one of two official languages. The constitution recognizes rights of individual Hawaiians and collective rights of Hawaiians as a group. It also emphasizes the importance of Hawaiian culture and Hawaiian management of cultural and natural resources. If at any time citizens want to change the constitution, there are three ways to do so. A government-to-government relationship means that a Hawaiian government is protected by the federal government to pursue the goals and mandates of its constitution while operating on its land base.
DOI Rule
How we determine our own individual relationships (business, friendships, romantic) is a useful analogy for conceptualizing the DOI rule. Although we might not write it down on paper, we have our own preferences and criteria for our own relationships. In looking for a business partner, we may want a partner with certain skill sets. In choosing our own friends, we may want someone who has some values or perspectives similar to our own. For life-long partners, we may want someone we can rely on and actually live with for the rest of our lives. Criteria and preferences are natural parts of a committed relationship.
The DOI rule is basically the preferences and criteria the United States wants in a partner for a government-to-government relationship. Although the rule is much more comprehensive than can be explained in this short column, there are some generally important preferences and criteria that should be mentioned.
The DOI wants to make sure that the Hawaiian government it gets into a relationship with has general support from a lot of Hawaiians. It also wants to make sure that the Hawaiian government does not make people citizens who do not want to be Hawaiian Nation citizens. The DOI requires that the Hawaiian government "protect and preserve Native Hawaiians' rights, protections, and benefits" as well as "the liberties, rights, and privileges of all persons." It also wants to make sure that the Hawaiian government's leaders are democratically elected by Hawaiian Nation citizens. Such preferences and criteria are reasonable.
Hawaiians now have another tool available for protecting our lands and culture, perpetuating our language, and improving Hawaiian well-being. That tool is made available to a Hawaiian government if it wants. Building a Hawaiian government (an internal issue) is separate from the relationships a Hawaiian government might pursue later with entities outside of itself (an external issue). Although distinct, these internal and external affairs are related. A Hawaiian government that forms under the proposed constitution will decide whether to pursue a government-to-government relationship under the DOI rule. A Hawaiian government may choose not to pursue that relationship or it may choose to do so at a time that is most appropriate or preferable. Hawaiian interests and well-being are both advanced by having this choice.
Derek H. Kauanoe is Governance Manager at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. He can be reached at derekk@oha.org.
----------------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo1216_edit_web?e=2253336/41355400
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], December 2016, page 5
Voters select OHA Trustees
By Ka Wai Ola staff
November's General Election brought change to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees with the addition of new Trustee Keli'i Akina.
Investiture of the OHA board, along with the State of OHA address, will be televised on 'Olelo TV Channel 54 on Dec. 9 starting at 10 a.m. A live web-stream will also be available on 'Olelo's YouTube Channel – www.youtube.com/olelocm. Follow #ohahawaii on social media for OHA's updates from the ceremony.
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
Hawaii Resident Trustee
> Lindsey, Robert K. (Bob) 194,479 - 44.4%
> Trask, Mililani B. 142,461 - 32.6%
Blank votes: 100,436 - 23.0%
Over votes: 176 - 0.0%
At-Large Trustee
> Akina, Keli'i
163,701 - 37.4%
> Apolliona, Haunani
156,158 - 35.7%
Blank votes: 117,565 - 26.9%
Over votes: 128 - 0.0%
Source: Office of Elections
After 20 years serving on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees, Haunani Apoliona will be turning her focus to other ways to work with the Native Hawaiian community.
Prior to being elected to OHA's board in 1996, Apoliona spent 19 years in a number of positions at ALU LIKE, including president and CEO. From 2000 to 2010, she led OHA's board – the longest any Board of Trustees Chair has held that leadership role.
Aside from her public service, many know Apoliona as a slack-key guitarist, Hawaiian composer and member of the Na Hoku Hano-hano award-winning band Olomana.
"The board is losing her deep knowledge and experience as well as determined leadership." said Chairperson Robert Lindsey Jr. "But we must now turn our attention to honoring the outcome of the election and working together to address the issues facing our organization."
------------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo1216_edit_web?e=2253336/41355400
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], December 2016,
page 17 is a 1/3 page ad paid for by the Apoliona campaign, thanking people for their support. It cannot be copy/pasted, and it is not a photograph. Instead, it is a very large internet link. If you click on it (which I did while trying to copy/paste the contents), it takes you to
http://www.apoliona.org
where there's a lot of anti-Akina stuff.
------------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo1216_edit_web?e=2253336/41355400
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], December 2016, page 19:
Monthly trustee column by Rowena Akana, Trustee at-large
Wrapping-up 2016
Congratulations to all of the candidates who were elected to office in 2016. Campaigning
is a grueling process but the real work is about to begin. I look forward to working with all of you in the 2017 Legislative Session to better the conditions of Native Hawaiians.
The Constitution of the Native Hawaiian Nation
On February 26, 2016, the majority of the Na'i Aupuni 'aha participants voted to adopt
The Constitution of the Native Hawaiian Nation. As one of 154 individuals that participated in the 'aha, it is very difficult to put into words what an awesome experience this was for me. Not only was this an important historical turning point in our history, but it was moving to see people who were often on opposite sides of an issue come together for the good of the whole and finally draft the governing documents needed to restore our nation.
Forced Land Sales Bills
During the 2016 legislative session, Kamehameha Schools led the charge against legislation that would have forced Hawai'i's landowners to sell leasehold lands to their lessees. If HB 1635 or HB 2173 had become law, private land developers could have moved in to condemn and redevelop historical lands that were passed down from generation to generation of Hawaiians.
Thankfully, on February 8th, KS announced that the House cancelled the hearing for HB 1635 and HB 2173, which effectively killed the bills. However, 2017 brings a new legislative session with new legislators who are unfamiliar with the issue. Let us all be maka'ala (watchful).
Wishing our dear Princess a very happy 90th birthday
It was with great admiration and respect that I dedicated this column to honoring Her Royal Highness Princess Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawananakoa who celebrated her 90th birthday on April 26th. Age has not slowed her efforts to help the Hawaiian people and to preserve and protect in perpetuity the legacy passed down to the present generation.
"One Voice, One Message"
On August 24th, the BAE Committee and OHA's CEO proposed a new policy called "One Voice, One Message," which required that all external communications be submitted to the CEO for review and approval prior to execution or engagement.
If this policy were to be approved, Trustees will no longer be able to publically voice their
opposition to any board decision without facing severe sanctions for speaking out against the majority. Thankfully, the proposal was deferred due to concerns about it being unconstitutional. I will continue to strongly oppose this undemocratic policy if it returns to the board table.
The U.S. Department of the Interior announces a pathway to nationhood
On September 23, 2016, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced a "final rule to create a pathway for reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community." It is now time for all of us to work together for the cause of recognition. While the board has NOT voted to accept the rules as written, let us begin to agree on the things that we can agree to and set aside the things we differ on and move forward together for the future generations of Hawaiians yet to come.
Merry Christmas
May each of you have a joyful and merry Christmas surrounded by family and friends. Stay safe out there. Aloha Ke Akua.
Interested in Hawaiian issues and OHA? Please visit my website at www.rowena akana.org for more information or email me at rowenaa@oha.org.
-------------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo1216_edit_web?e=2253336/41355400
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], December 2016, page 20
Monthly trustee column by Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., [newly elected] Trustee at-large
E Hana Kakou
I am humbled to have been chosen by the people of Hawai'i to take on the role of OHA Trustee-at-Large. This awesome responsibility is made even more so because I must step into the shoes of Trustee Haunani Apoliona, who is an outstanding steward of Hawaiian values and a dedicated public servant. I want to thank Trustee Apoliona for her tireless years of service to the people of Hawai'i, and I welcome her ongoing input on the advancement of Native Hawaiians. We continue to need you, Trustee Apoliona.
The 73 percent of all voters who participated in the Trustee-at-Large election this year is unprecedented, demonstrating that OHA is relevant and of concern to the entire community. To all voters, I say mahalo. And I commit myself to be accountable to you.
Please allow me to share my heart, and communicate my position on several issues important to the Hawaiian people.
First of all, I promote the great Hawaiian value of Aloha, which unites all people as expressed in the 1840 Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution: " 'God hath made of one blood (koko) all nations of men to dwell on the earth,' in unity and blessedness." Therefore, I seek harmony between being Hawaiian and being American. I am proud to be Hawaiian and proud to be American.
At the same time, I am absolutely committed to the advancement of Native Hawaiians and will work to uphold the legal status of Hawaiian assets for Hawaiian beneficiaries. I have fought to protect the foundational Hawaiian entitlements as secured by law, including the Hawaiian Homelands and the Ceded Lands trusts. I affirm the rights of Hawaiian beneficiaries and believe we should not take assets away from Hawaiians. I also affirm the private property rights of the Ali'i trusts, such as the Kamehameha Schools, to fulfill the wills of their benefactors. I am, after all, a proud alumnus of Kamehameha Schools as are my four children. And for my fellow Kanaka Maoli who seek various models of self-determinism, I affirm their First Amendment right to advocate for independence or nationhood.
I consider it a sacred responsibility to serve in OHA, and I will work with my fellow trustees to build a strong, transparent and effective OHA that empowers the quality of life of present and future generations of Hawaiians. As trustees, we must protect and grow the assets of OHA in order to meet the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education, and healthcare, as well as for economic empowerment.
I ask for your help and prayers in the spirit of "E Hana Käkou" (Let's work together!) to meet the needs of OHA's beneficiaries.
------------------------------
** The OHA annual report appears to be a separate enclosure which begins after page 24, and runs for 20 pages including lots of propaganda and photos and some actual dollar valuations.
This newest annual report is not yet available separately but will eventually be posted, when the high-paid bureaucrats get around to it, at
http://www.oha.org/about/annual-reports/
-----------------------------
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=2556
Hawaiian Kingdom Independence Blog
Hawaii ... an independent country under prolonged illegal occupation
** Scott Crawford's blog
China/Taiwan ... U.S./Hawaii
Here in Hawaii, the election of Trump as the next U.S. president resulted in an outpouring of support for the notion of restoring Hawaii's independence. My Facebook feed was filled with the discussion in the days following the election, with many folks who aren't necessarily everyday outspoken supporters of independence suddenly finding it a very palatable consideration in light of the prospect of a Trump presidency. The groundwork has been laid both within our own political institutions and in the international community, in ways that are much more pervasive than most folks even within the movement realize, to initiate the transition when the time is right, and there is widespread feeling that now is the time.
Well now as president-elect, Mr. Trump has likely taken an action to further the support for Hawaii's independence in another important location--China.
From the Wall Street Journal:
---
President-elect Donald Trump spoke with the president of Taiwan on Friday, a conversation that breaks with decades of U.S. policy and could well infuriate the Chinese government. The conversation between Mr. Trump and President Tsai Ing-wen runs counter to the longstanding effort by Beijing to block any formal U.S. diplomatic relations with the island off China's coast. Chinese leaders consider Taiwan a Chinese territory, not a sovereign nation. ... There was no immediate response from Beijing, and posts citing foreign media reports about the call were being removed from Chinese social media sites Saturday morning. Reaction could be so severe as to include sanctions against U.S. companies, said Victor Shih, associate professor in the school of global policy and strategy at the University of California at San Diego. "China and the U.S. have both worked very, very hard to create a status quo where Taiwan has de facto autonomy without any international legal standing," he said. "And with one phone call -- I think -- Trump did in fact undermine the status quo quite a bit."
---
I have noted a previous incident in which U.S. support for Taiwan reportedly yielded statements of support for Hawaii's independence among Chinese officials. The idea of "arming" Hawaiian independence groups, as reported in this previous incident, is (as I noted) ridiculous because among other things Hawaiian independence groups are and have always been completely nonviolent, and that it would be stupid and futile. However, "the larger point here is simply that there are certainly elements within the Chinese government who are quite aware of the history of the U.S. claim to sovereignty in Hawaii, and the movement to end the occupation."
Should the Trump administration continue to pursue diplomatic initiatives that violate the "one-China" policy, it is certainly conceivable that the Chinese government could respond with diplomatic moves of its own in support of Hawaii's independence.
These are huge stakes in international diplomacy. Such is Hawaii's political-strategic importance. But the main thing now is to continue to plant the seed, and to remember that Hawaii can and must be its own actor in this geopolitical drama, in our own interests, not just a pawn for the interests of others.
----------------------
Ken Conklin new webpage: "Three ways President Trump and Congressional Republicans can kill the Department of Interior Final Rule 43CFR50 (authorizing creation and federal recognition of a phony Hawaiian tribe) -- Celebrating the long-term help of the Heritage Foundation and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in fighting creation of an apartheid regime in Hawaii."
The three methods include the Congressional Review Act which allows Congress to pass a joint resolution that overturns any administrative regulation proclaimed within the latest 60 "legislative days"; an Executive Order by President Trump; a sentence or paragraph in any bill passed by Congress that provides funding for the Department of Interior. Advantages and difficulties of each method are discussed, and the conclusion is that all three methods should be pursued. The webpage provides summaries and links to articles opposing creation of a Hawaiian tribe that were published by scholars and leaders of the Heritage Foundation, by Republican members of Congress, and by conservative writers during a period of more than a decade.
See
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/3WaysToKill43CFR50.html
-----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/05/hawaii-news/ratification-of-hawaiian-constitution-gains-kokua/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, December 5, 2016
Ratification of Hawaiian constitution gains kokua
By Timothy Hurley
A campaign to bring about a ratification vote for the draft Native Hawaiian constitution has received a boost with a pledge of support from an association of more than 100 Native Hawaiian organizations.
The Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and its Policy Center leadership are planning to launch a campaign to educate the community about the constitution and join efforts to raise private capital dedicated to holding a ratification vote.
Former Gov. John Waihee described the announcement as good news. He said $265,000 has already been raised by the group that convened following the Na'i Aupuni Aha, or constitutional convention, in February.
"Our hope is to hold the ratification vote in 2017, but that, of course, is contingent on our raising sufficient funds," Waihee said.
The constitution, approved by an 88-30 vote at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Course in Maunawili, describes a government led by executive, legislative and judicial branches and representing only descendants of the indigenous people who lived in the islands before 1778, or Western contact.
Na'i Aupuni, the organization set up by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and underwritten by OHA trust funds, was originally supposed to pay for the ratification vote.
But the nonprofit bowed out shortly after the convention, saying it would be better to raise private funds going forward to avoid the same potentially lengthy legal challenge it faced when the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and other groups accused it of using public funds for a racially exclusive election.
A group of aha participants soon joined up with Waihee to map out a pathway to ratification. The plan called for raising $2 million to educate Native Hawaiians about the new constitution, register new voters and stage a ratification vote.
Under the plan, a second election would be held if the constitution is ratified, allowing the new nation to select its officers, including a president, vice president and 43 members of a unicameral legislature.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, meanwhile, published a regulation allowing a Native Hawaiian nation to apply for formal recognition by the United States. The move by the Obama administration offered a path to the nation-within-a-nation status that was blocked by Republicans in Congress for years.
But then Republican Donald Trump was elected, spreading a cloud of uncertainty over the process. Many are wondering whether the new president will find a way to overturn the regulation. If not, will he reject an application once submitted? Does he even care?
Michelle Kauhane, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement president and CEO, said her organization decided to step up its support of the ratification vote campaign, in part to counter what she called a widespread misconception that Trump will upend the law.
Kauhane said some folks are under the impression that the rule was created through executive order and is therefore easily rescinded by the president.
But that's not true, she said, because the Part 50 rule was instituted through the notice-and-comment rule-making process, making it a fully codified regulation that would take as much effort to reverse as it took to create, including public hearings.
CNHA Policy Center Chairwoman Robin Puanani Danner said she intentionally avoided asking the president for an executive order because administrations change and executive orders are too easy to undo.
"Think of all of the federal regulations on the books, and if it were easy, administrations would be stripping federal regulations left and right every four or eight years," said Danner, also chairwoman of the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly.
But Ilya Shapiro, a member of the Grassroot Institute Board of Scholars, urged the Trump administration to act immediately to rescind the rule.
Writing last week in the National Review, Shapiro, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., also urged Congress to reject it through the use of the Congressional Review Act, a law enacted in 1996 that allows the reversal of a rule issued in a previous session of Congress.
The act has been used only once in 2001, to reverse President Bill Clinton's final rule on ergonomics, but the law might find new life once Trump takes office because the White House, Senate and House will be controlled by the same party.
Kauhane, who was an aha participant who voted in favor of the constitution, said the document deserves an up-or-down vote by the Native Hawaiian people.
"Is it perfect? No," she said. "But I really believe it was the best work accomplished by a diverse group of Native Hawaiians working together during that time."
Kauhane said CNHA spent the past three years helping to push the federal government rule-making process, and that now that it's finalized it's time to focus on educating the community about the draft Native Hawaii constitution.
CNHA is expected to organize six or seven symposiums across the state and on the mainland describing the content of the constitution and its implications for Native Hawaiians.
"For the next year our priority is getting information out into the community," Kauhane said. "With federal recognition embedded in the Code of Federal Regulations, it will be up to future leaders over the next decade to pursue or leave on the table."
Former Gov. Waihee said the money raised so far has come from 141 individuals and organizations and is being held by the Tides Foundation's Aloha Lahui Collective Action Fund.
The campaign's alohalahui.com website asks Hawaiians to help raise a nation by offering a donation, while its sister Hawaiiannation.com website describes the nation-building process and includes a copy of the constitution.
Meanwhile, the 'Aha Aloha 'Aina, a coalition of more than 40 Hawaiian organizations and businesses, has been holding a series of community meetings condemning the Native Hawaiian constitution.
Coalition leaders claim the constitution is part of a state-controlled and predetermined effort to reduce the Native Hawaiian people into an Indian tribe and to block any path toward independence. In the process, the leaders fear, the state would seize nearly 2 million acres of Hawaiian crown lands, or ceded lands.
More than 2,000 people reportedly have attended the informational meetings across Hawaii and on the mainland, during which attendees have been encouraged to back out of their Native Hawaiian voter registration or, at the least, vote no in the ratification election.
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/09/hawaii-news/raucous-oha-meeting-elects-new-leader/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, December 9, 2016
Raucous OHA meeting elects new leader
By Timothy Hurley
Veteran trustee Rowena Akana was elected chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees on Thursday, edging out incumbent Chairman Robert "Bob" Lindsey of Hawaii island during a rancorous meeting that saw three members walk out in protest.
"Good luck, everybody," Collette Machado said as she left the OHA boardroom following the vote. Dan Ahuna and Peter Apo also walked out.
Newly elected trustee Keli'i Akina helped to make a difference in his first OHA meeting, voting with a 5-4 majority to install the new leader. Also voting for Akana, a trustee since 1990, were John Waihee IV, Leina'ala Ahu Isa, Hulu Lindsey and Akana.
Ahu Isa, an at-large trustee, was elected vice chairwoman, while Hulu Lindsey of Maui was selected chairwoman of the Committee on Resource Management.
Akina, president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, an organization that has found itself at odds with OHA, said he voted for the leadership change because Akana has demonstrated a greater commitment to future fiscal sustainability.
In an interview after the meeting, Akana said she plans to instill a renewed transparency and accountability at OHA and bring back some programs that were eliminated over the last 14 years, including health, education and self-help housing programs and a mentoring program for young leaders.
In addition, she said she wants to establish more partnerships to achieve greater results for the Native Hawaiian community.
"I don't think we're doing enough to serve our beneficiaries," she said.
Akana said she wants to change the way OHA does business.
"We're spending a lot of money, but we're not making a dent where it needs to happen," she said. "We have a budget of $53 million, and last year only $8 million went to grants. We are top-heavy with people making $120,000 or more, but we don't see the results."
Akana added that at least three-fourths of the current OHA budget goes to salaries, fringe benefits and administrative costs.
"That's serious," she said.
Akina's Grassroot Institute's opposition to OHA includes going to court in an attempt to stop its nation-building efforts. It has also taken opposing positions on the Department of Interior rule on federal recognition and on the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
The annual organizational meeting was heated and tension-filled from the beginning, featuring interruptions and shouting, charges of corruption and unethical behavior, and squabbles over meeting rules and procedures.
Akana, who as senior trustee ran the meeting, banged her gavel at least a dozen times and, at one point, threatened to remove Apo after he said there would be serious consequences for Akana if she ignored the agency's bylaws.
"This is what we're going to be looking forward to in the future?" an exasperated Ahuna said.
Machado said she couldn't vote for Akana because of "certain character flaws," including that Akana is punitive and will work to "reduce openness."
Reading from a prepared statement, Apo said he would be supporting the incumbent chairman for what he's not:
"Chair Lindsey does not lie. Chair Lindsey does not play clandestine political games. Chair Lindsey does not engage in rancor. Chair Lindsey does not demean the institution and those who work for it as a political strategy to make it appear that he is going to save OHA from the rest of us. Chair Lindsey does not cross the lines of ethical behavior. Chair Lindsey does not spread falsehoods about colleagues behind closed doors."
Apo added that Robert Lindsey brings a high moral standard to his leadership style.
"What a breath of fresh air in the midst of the high passion and turmoil that too often defines our operating culture," he said.
But Ahu Isa said her efforts to generate more revenue for the agency were thwarted by representatives of Lindsey on at least three occasions.
"I guess people forget that you're going to run for chair again, because they kind of dismissed me as if I were nothing," she said. "So that's why I'm trying to give our organization a chance."
Just before the vote, OHA CEO Kamana'opono Crabbe spoke up despite being ruled out of order by Akana. He warned of "severe consequences" if trustees voted the wrong way. He said "two serious matters" involving ongoing public land negotiations with the governor could be undermined by a change in leadership.
"Your vote will determine whether we will be successful in those public land negotiations," he said.
Asked about the "serious matters" and "severe consequences" afterward, Crabbe responded, "No comment."
Akina, attending his first meeting after knocking off incumbent Haunani Apoliona in November's election, said that as a newcomer, his vote for Akana was based on his own due diligence.
"I had to read through the minutes, comb through the comments and the positions taken by the trustees; I had to look through the financial documents, read through the fiscal sustainability reports," he said.
In addition, Akina said he put together a team of economists and advisers to examine OHA's financial statements and came up with a report of recommendations that Akana embraced.
Called "Crucial Recommendations for Achieving Fiscal Sustainability," the 13-page report calls for a reduction of expenditures to reverse a recent trend of spending more than the agency has been earning, as well as to aggressively seek additional revenues.
"We must find creative and responsible ways to increase the revenues of OHA for the sake of beneficiaries. Projects like Kakaako development need to be fast-tracked," he said.
The report also calls for an end to depleting the fiscal reserve. This is necessary, he said, to protect "the intergenerational equity" of the trust rather than spending it down at the current rate.
It also urges the implementation of a new planning and budgeting system and for reinstating the Budget and Finance Committee.
On Thursday, Akina urged the trustees to keep their eye on their mission.
"There are many things we spend on, but what we have to do is ensure that the spending is focused on the betterment of Hawaiians -- housing, jobs, education, health care. Not political programs," he said.
"The new chair has committed to fighting for the fiscal sustainability of OHA and to seeing that the funds are used for the betterment of Hawaiians," Akina said.
-----
Ken Conklin's note: For Keli'i Akina's memo to his fellow trustees describing the principles which led him to vote for Rowena Akana to be chair, see
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/18715/Akina-OHA-Crucial-Recommendations-for-Achieving-Fiscal-Sustainability.aspx
And for Akina's 13-page financial analysis of OHA's assets and budget, see
"Crucial Recommendations for Achieving Fiscal Sustainability" at
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/Article%20Attachments/Crucial%20Recommendations%2011.29.2016.pdf
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/11/editorial/insight/turning-points-on-native-hawaiian-affairs/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Sunday December 11, 2016, Op-ed by editorial writer
Turning points on Native Hawaiian affairs
By Vicki Viotti
There have been tremors felt through the Hawaiian-rights landscape lately, surely portents of change ahead in 2017 and beyond. Just to recap:
>> An administrative route toward achieving federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as a political entity has been codified. It's not exactly carved in stone, but it's not something easily erased even by a political turnover in the White House.
>> A constitution for that political entity has been drafted, and a drive to raise money for a ratification vote is gearing up.
>> A new trustee -- one who has long opposed the whole nationhood push -- has been elected to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, where he has already aligned himself with the winning side in a turnover of leadership. These developments are already stirring controversy, on the board and among some beneficiaries, and more conflict is certain to ensue.
>> Solidarity among native peoples around their issues has become a practice nationally. The Dakota Access Pipeline protest, like the Thirty Meter Telescope demonstrations here, involved diverse indigenous participation (see story, Page E4).
These are likely to propel events forward into the new year, shifting the discussion around sovereignty into higher gear. But they are, according to someone on the journey for years, simply way stations on a much longer historical trek that veered in a new direction 16 years ago.
The real turning point in the Native Hawaiian rights movement, said former Gov. John Waihee, was none of these developments but the landmark Rice v. Cayetano ruling in 2000.
That decision struck down the Hawaiian-only voting restriction as unconstitutional. But it also contained the first indication from the U.S. Supreme Court that entitlements on the basis of race to a group lacking federal recognition could be a problem, Waihee said: That signaled a shift, given the history of federal trust relationships with Hawaiians.
Federal recognition became the goal, because Hawaiians now had to be seen as a political entity to withstand the court's scrutiny. In the past, he said, the federal government had seemed to endorse some "give back" of benefits to Hawaiians.
For example, Waihee said, the lands "ceded" to the federal government by the Republic of Hawaii after the 1893 overthrow were given back to the state, imposing the condition that Native Hawaiians be among the beneficiaries. The federal government kept the land of other territories it has taken over, signifying that Hawaii was a special case, he said.
"For 20 years it was never a problem," Waihee said. "What changed was the makeup of the court. Rice v. Cayetano went before one of the most conservative courts in the United States."
Just one step
Efforts to get federal recognition through Congress failed, and in its last few years, the Department of the Interior under President Barack Obama has issued an administrative rule that establishes an alternative pathway for Native Hawaiians, one that's parallel to recognition rules for other native groups.
Previously, "the rule for recognition for indigenous people within the United States specifically excluded Hawaii," Waihee said. "That's why this rule is important.
"So in a sense it's like we hit a milestone, but the journey continues," he said. "There are a lot more steps."
Theoretically, the rule could be undone by the new administration of President-elect Donald Trump, he said, "but it's not that easy a process."
In February, a constitution was drafted at a convention held on Oahu. The next step would be a ratification vote, Waihee said, but the strategy is to raise funds privately for that effort to avert legal challenges.
In recent weeks the nonprofit Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and its Policy Center leaders have been planning an outreach campaign to educate the community about the constitution and help fundraise for ratification.
A grant issued through other nonprofits from OHA originally was meant to underwrite the constitutional convention, but that association between the state agency and a nation-building campaign was challenged in U.S. District Court by a group of plaintiffs led by Kelii Akina.
Akina, as a newly elected OHA trustee, voted with a 5-4 majority to name Rowena Akana as board chairperson on Thursday, ousting incumbent Robert Lindsey and sparking protest from Lindsey supporters.
Akina also is executive director of the nonprofit think tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii; its website states that the group is "concerned that the state of Hawaii's efforts to form and gain federal recognition of a race-based, sovereign nation are not in the best interest of Native Hawaiians nor the general population."
Controversial election
Akina's election has sparked an outcry from the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, which adopted a resolution at its convention asserting that he should either resign as OHA trustee or leave his post at Grassroot.
His principal opponent in the election was 20-year incumbent Haunani Apoliona, who chaired OHA's board for 10 years. Apoliona, a civic club member, agrees with the resolution. The philosophy of Grassroot runs counter to the mission of OHA, she said.
"The foundational question is if Kelii Akina has these principles he stands on ... and that whole philosophy, from that position and his active personal involvement in attempting to undermine Native Hawaiians' interests," Apoliona added.
She pointed to the lawsuit, which has been dismissed because it became moot with the cancellation of the grant-funded delegate election to the convention, which was convened by unelected participants.
For his part, Akina emphasized that the plaintiffs agreed with the federal court, but emphasized that the case was dismissed without prejudice. In other words, if there is another constitutional conflict, he said, opponents will be back in court.
"When it comes to Hawaiian self-determinism, or the pursuit of independence or sovereignty, I encourage Hawaiians to get involved using our First Amendment right to express ourselves," he said in an interview last week.
"But when it comes to using the funds of the public through a state office, we are limited and need to be certain we are adhering to the constitutions of both the state of Hawaii and the United States," Akina added. "So that suit was about monies being used inappropriately by state agencies in order to pursue a private aim."
On his campaign website, Akina said he is "completely committed to the protection of the primary Hawaiian entitlements as secured by law," including the ceded lands and the Hawaiian homeland trusts.
"The priority for OHA needs to be the betterment of the Hawaiian people, and that means providing opportunities for housing, jobs, education and health care," he added in the interview. "OHA's own surveys show that their Native Hawaiian beneficiaries would rather funds be spent on those purposes than on pursuing nationhood."
Short-term needs
Nevertheless, the nationhood drive remains in the forefront among issues. Zuri Aki, a recent graduate of the William S. Richardson School of Law, was a key participant in February's convention and was the principal drafter of the constitution that is now headed for ratification.
Not everyone supports federal recognition, and Aki acknowledged that he had been among those who wanted independence above all outcomes, but now sees that short-term needs will be overlooked if Native Hawaiians hold out for that.
"The overthrow was an international wrong," he said. "But in my studies, I've learned sometimes you can't get everything you want. If independence is a dream, we can't get that right now.
"Until then, we have to take care of ourselves within the system where we find ourselves."
-------------------------
-------------------------
Dec 14: President-elect Trump's nominee to be Secretary of the Interior, Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, pushed hard for federal recognition for the Little Shell state-recognized tribe, and also cosponsored a bill for federal recognition for a collection of seven Indian groups including six from Virginia. However, Scott Pruitt, Trump's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has a record of opposing tribal demands. Excerpts from three news reports about Zinke, and one about Pruitt, are provided.
----------
https://zinke.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/historic-vote-house-committee-passes-two-zinke-billsrecognition-little
Congressman Ryan Zinke government website, September 8, 2016
Press Release ** Ken Conklin's excerpts
In Historic Vote, House Committee Passes Two Zinke Bills:Recognition of Little Shell and Certainty for States and Tribes Act
(CONGRESS) September 8, 2016 – Today the House Committee on Natural Resources advanced two of Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke's bills, the Certainty for States and Tribes Act and legislation to federally recognize the Little Shell Chippewa Tribe. Both pieces of legislation were offered by Senator Steve Daines in the U.S. Senate.
Regarding the Recognition of the Little Shell
Daines and Zinke both introduced this federal recognition bill while serving in the House (Daines then introduced it in the Senate this Congress). It was the very first bill Rep. Zinke introduced. The State of Montana recognized the Little Shell Tribe in 2000; however, they have been seeking federal recognition for more than 100 years. This is the first time in Congressional history the House Natural Resources Committee voted to recognize the Little Shell. A different bill containing federal recognition of the Little Shell passed the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on March 18, 2015.
"The Little Shell Tribe appreciates Congressman Zinke's steadfast efforts towards restoring our federal recognition. He has been a great ally to our people," said Chairman Gerald Gray of the Little Shell. "His Little Shell Restoration Act will right the wrong that my people have suffered for over one hundred and fifty years by providing us the dignity and respect that we deserve. We hope the House will take action quickly and pass Mr. Zinke's Little Shell Restoration Act this month."
"It's is a good day for the Little Shell. Today, for the first time ever, the House Natural Resources Committee voted to federally recognize the Tribe," said Rep. Ryan Zinke. "The greater bill is not perfect but I stand in solidarity with Chairman Gray and the Tribe and I will work to pass it on the House floor as a stand-alone provision. The tribe has been waiting generations for this and it was truly a group effort. I was honored to carry the bill in the House and it was the first piece of legislation I introduced. I'm hopeful for a quick conclusion to this long overdue recognition. Montana is home to the great warrior tribes and certainly the Little Shell represents that warrior spirit."
Related Items:
Zinke Introduces Legislation to Extend Federal Recognition to the Little Shell Tribe
Zinke Calls on House to Advance Little Shell Recognition
House Holds First Hearing for Little Shell Federal Recognition in Years
----------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-bc-mt--tribal-recognition-20150929-story.html
Chicago Tribune, September 29, 2015
Montana, Virginia tribes make case for federal recognition
by MATT VOLZ, Associated Press
Seven Native American tribes in Montana and Virginia made their case Tuesday before a congressional panel to grant them federal recognition that would give them tribal sovereignty and make them eligible for U.S. government benefits from education to health care.
The hearing before the House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs was on legislation sponsored by U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Montana, and U.S. Rep. Robert Wittman, R-Virginia.
If they pass, the bills would make the members of the seven tribes eligible for government services and benefits from the U.S. Interior Department and its Bureau of Indian Affairs, whether or not they have tribal reservations. More importantly, the legislation would help the tribes to protect their identity and restore their dignity, Wittman said.
"It would offer us finality," said Gerald Gray, chairman of Montana's Little Shell Band of Chippewa Cree Indians. The tribe has been trying for recognition for nearly 40 years but has become "the can that keeps being kicked down the road," he added.
Chickahominy tribe chief Steve Adkins spoke for the six Virginia tribes seeking recognition.
"We have stayed together as Indian people, these six tribes, for hundreds of years," Adkins said. "Today, we ask you for justice."
Currently, there are at least 566 federally recognized Native American tribes.
Besides an act of Congress, the landless tribes could achieve federal recognition through the U.S. Interior Department. In June, the U.S. Interior Department revised its rules that could make it easier for landless tribes to be formally recognized.
The agency has denied 34 petitions for recognition and granted 18 since 1978, including the Pamunkey tribe of Virginia earlier this year.
Assistant Interior Secretary Kevin Washburn said his agency doesn't object to Zinke's and Wittman's bills, acknowledging that Interior's approval process remains rigorous and lengthy.
Zinke's bill would give the Little Shell 200 acres of land in central Montana for the tribe to use as its base. The legislation would require the tribe to take a census of enrolled members, with membership determined by the tribe's constitution.
The same provisions are in a Senate bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, and U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, R-Montana. That legislation advanced from Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in March, and is awaiting action by the full Senate.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $40 million to enact the bill between 2016 and 2020.
The Little Shell have been landless since the late 1800s, after Chief Little Shell and his followers in North Dakota broke off treaty negotiations with the U.S. government, settling in Montana and southern Canada.
"I think this is a case where the Chippewa have been wronged and we have the chance to right it," Zinke said.
The state of Montana recognized the tribe in 2000.
Wittman's bill, which is co-sponsored by four members of Virginia's congressional delegation, seeks recognition for the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan and the Nansemond tribes.
The Chickahominy Indians lived near Jamestown and were among the first tribes to greet the 17th century English settlers. The other tribes' histories also record encounters with the early white settlers.
"They were the main reason why Capt. John Smith was able to survive and why the settlement of Jamestown was able to survive," Wittman said.
All six tribes have received state recognition from Virginia.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $78 million to enact the Virginia bill between 2016 and 2020.
----------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/14/breaking-news/former-seal-zinke-tapped-to-lead-interior-department/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, December 14, 2016
Former SEAL Zinke tapped to lead Interior Department
by Associated Press
BILLINGS, Mont. >> Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana made no secret of his ambitions to join a Donald Trump Cabinet, and yet his nomination as interior secretary is in some ways an unlikely fit for the retired U.S. Navy SEAL.
Zinke, 55, was an early supporter of the president-elect and publicly expressed his interest in a Cabinet post when Trump visited Montana in May.
Like other Western states, Montana's wide-open, rugged landscape has a huge federal presence. The Interior Department and other U.S. agencies control almost a third of its land and even more of the underground "mineral estate" that holds vast amounts of coal, oil and natural gas.
As with several other Trump Cabinet nominees, Zinke has advocated for increased energy drilling and mining on those lands and expressed skepticism about the urgency of climate change.
The Republican lawmaker also has been a vocal supporter of keeping public lands in the government's hands. That's a central political issue in Montana, where hunting and fishing access is considered sacrosanct.
News of his selection was welcomed by Montana's Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and at least one conservation group, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. The president of the Missoula, Montana-based hunting group, Land Tawney, called Zinke a "potential ally" in the effort to balance energy development with preservation.
"There are places too important for drilling, and in other places we can do phased development. Mr. Zinke understands that," Tawney said.
Other groups slammed the selection. The Northern Plains Resource Council accused Zinke of "shortchanging the public" with his opposition to pending Obama administration moves to reform the federal energy leasing program.
Zinke spent 23 years as a Navy SEAL, serving in Iraq, Kosovo and elsewhere. He was awarded two Bronze Stars for combat missions in Iraq. He currently serves on the House Natural Resources and Armed Services committees and describes himself as "a steadfast advocate for Montana veterans and military personnel and families."
--------
http://www.indianz.com/News/2016/12/07/tribal-sovereignty-foe-slated-to-join-do.asp
Indianz.com [blog aggregator of tribal news], December 7, 2016
Tribal sovereignty foe Scott Pruitt slated to join Donald Trump's administration
Republican president-elect Donald Trump has chosen a noted tribal sovereignty foe to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
As Oklahoma's attorney general, Scott Pruitt has fought tribes on jurisdiction, immunity and taxation fronts. His efforts in one major court case were so extreme that an advocate for Native women described them as "beyond disturbing."
"I am at a loss for words," Dawn Stover, the executive director of the Oklahoma Native Alliance Against Violence, told The Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribal Tribune after reading Pruitt's brief in Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, which was one of the most closely-watched U.S. Supreme Court cases in recent history.
In another case, Pruitt sued the leaders of the Kialegee Tribal Town for trying to build a casino on an Indian allotment. But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in clear terms, said they are protected by sovereign immunity.
Despite the strong rebuke, Pruitt tried to get the Supreme Court to sanction his efforts. Even though the justices eventually rejected his petition, leaving the 10th Circuit ruling in place, his lawsuit to this day kept the small tribe from pursuing an economic development opportunity open to nearly every other in the state.
A third sovereignty dispute is ongoing. In April, the Citizen Potawatomi Nation won a major ruling that protected its businesses from state taxes.
But Pruitt has once again appealed. In briefs filed with the 10th Circuit, his office argues that the tribe's victory, which came in the form of an arbitration order that was upheld in federal court, cannot be enforced.
In a November 5 brief, Pruitt's subordinates said "it is not unheard of for states to be able to impose sales taxes on tribal sales of goods to non-members, as the United States Supreme Court specifically noted with regard to this tribe," citing a 1991 case involving the Citizen Potawatomis.
But Pruitt's views on tribal issues aren't the only ones of concern. Democrats say he is the wrong person to lead the EPA because he is trying to dismantle -- again through the courts -- the climate change programs he would be responsible for overseeing.
"Pruitt's record is not only that of being a climate change denier, but also someone who has worked closely with the fossil fuel industry to make this country more dependent, not less, on fossil fuels," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who has emerged as a strong ally of tribes, particularly in the fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline, said in a statement.
In addition to addressing climate change, the EPA has taken on a greater role in ensuring that treaties are considered during federal decision-making processes. The agency has developed guidance and a memorandum of understanding on the matter but the directives could be ignored or changed by the incoming Trump administration.
"Tribal treaty rights are the law of the land," Gina McCarthy, the outgoing administrator of the EPA, said during the White House Tribal Nations Conference in September.
Pruitt's position is subject to confirmation by the Senate. Hearings will be scheduled during the 115th Congress, which begins in January and he can count on support from some key Republicans like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), who currently serves as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"In his appearances before the Environment and Public Works committee, Pruitt has demonstrated that he is an expert on environmental laws and a champion of states' roles in implementing those laws," Inhofe said in a statement.
----------------------
http://khon2.com/2016/12/15/costly-oha-infighting-adds-to-concerns-over-trust-spending/
KHON2 TV, December 15-16, 2016
Costly OHA infighting adds to concerns over trust spending
By Gina Mangieri
Mounting legal costs and allegations of wasteful spending are being lobbed by both sides of a bitterly divided Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and some say the Hawaiian community is paying the price.
The November elections were followed by a power shift on the OHA board, and Always Investigating has learned that legal fights have resulted in massive fees with even higher bills possible.
Lawsuits against OHA by its own -- new chairwoman, Rowena Akana, and one of its newest members, Kelii Akina -- have cost upward of $1.5 million in public trust funds.
"Both of you have consistently raised the issue about fiscal sustainability," trustee Peter Apo said at a Thursday OHA board meeting. "Based on your actions, it's kind of like inviting the fox into the chicken coop dressed as a chicken."
Akana's lawsuit over OHA's process leading up to its Nimitz office and retail building purchase, and Akina's role in legal challenges over Hawaiian governance and election issues, stand to rack up more legal fees.
"The $531,000 spent on it (Akana's lawsuit so far) was spent by this board trying to keep me from going to court over the sunshine law," Akana pointed out in response to Apo, "so I didn't incur those costs. You did. You know, when you let the cat out of the bag, you've got to finish it."
"Other plaintiffs, the majority of which are Native Hawaiian beneficiaries of OHA, felt that OHA had done some things that were unconstitutional," Akina said of his organization, Grassroots Institute, taking part in lawsuits against Hawaiian election processes. "You blamed me for the expenditure, but in reality, it was not my suit that caused the spending of that money. It was the need for OHA to defend itself."
Akana took over the divided board just a week ago after a secret-ballot election led to a partial walkout.
Now former trustees such as Haunani Apoliona and Oz Stender are speaking out, and Kauai's trustee, Dan Ahuna, says the board should do no more business under Akana until all legal matters are resolved.
"Surprisingly this person judged to have breached her fiduciary duties was elected by five trustees including herself to provide leadership of the breach Native Hawaiian public trust. Auwe," Apoliona said in public testimony at the board meeting. "It is imperative that you now correct your action."
It's costly infighting that's wearing on the nerves of Hawaiian beneficiaries who question just how deep the spending goes.
"Everybody on this table, your hands are dirty," testifier Rupert Rowe told the board.
"There's a lot of terrible things that have been done with OHA and OHA money," testified Healani Sonoda-Pale of the group Protest Nai Aupuni. "We want to know where that leftover money from Nai Aupuni went. Did it come back to OHA? OHA wasted approximately $33 million. Can you imagine what you could do with $33 million in failed campaigns to create a federally recognized Hawaiian nation? We would like something very specific, line item, and whose friends got paid in this whole scam."
New trustee Akina campaigned on transparency and redirecting spending toward core benefits for the community.
"The vast majority of Hawaiian beneficiaries want that money spent on bread and butter issues, housing, jobs, education, and health care, and not on governance," Akina said.
The meeting started with Akina being considered and then losing the vote for a finance committee vice chairmanship. He was voted down by opponents who questioned how he can serve both OHA and head the Grassroots Institute, which was a plaintiff against Native Hawaiian vote roll and election efforts.
"Grassroots Institute has led the charge to dismantle Hawaiian institutions," Ahuna said. "The trend here, you have shown over and over that you not only disavow our mission, but it seems you are dead set against it."
"My action to call OHA to a stop of a misuse of money was not only to keep OHA constitutional," Akina responded, "it was also to be in compliance with the will of our beneficiaries."
Committee leadership aside for now, more legal expenses could be ahead as challenges mount over Akina's very presence on the board.
"I believe that he should either resign from OHA or resign from the Grassroots Institute as the civic clubs have suggested," Lilikala Kameeleihiwa testified.
"My staff and I sat with the state Ethics Commission and discussed this matter," Akina said, "and found they considered there was no conflict of interest so long as we do not use our influence to benefit my non-profit."
The lawsuits are at various stages of settlement talks or determinations on who is ultimately liable for lawyer fees. This as the new board leadership promises tighter reins on OHA spending.
We're tracking this and other spending concerns raised with OHA and we'll be following up with what we find.
---------------------
http://thiswestisourwest.com/index.cfm/states/hawaii1/trump-s-secretary-of-interior-ryan-zinke-needs-your-help-to-avoid-unjustified-tribal-recognition/
Uniting Western States -- Protecting Our Rights -- This West is OUR West, December 16, 2016
Trump's Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke needs your help to avoid unjustified tribal recognition
By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
President-elect Trump's nominee to be Secretary of the Interior is Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke. There are many factors in his background and values which make him an outstanding choice for this position. But there is one factor in Mr. Zinke's background which causes grave concern for Hawaii citizens who have fought hard for 17 years against the creation of a phony Hawaiian tribe which has never existed. Because of this factor in Mr. Zinke's background it is very important for Congressional Republicans to take away his ability to approve an application for federal recognition which the phony Hawaiian tribe will certainly submit at some point in Mr. Zinke's term of service, or perhaps even years later under a Democrat administration. The way to deprive any current or future Secretary of Interior of the ability to recognize a Hawaiian tribe is for Congress to use the 60-day law whereby any regulation published in the Federal Register can be rescinded if Congress disapproves it within 60 legislative days. The main difficulty in using the 60-day rule to block a Hawaiian tribe is to make sure the issue of the Hawaiian tribe does not get forgotten when there are so many other Obama midnight regulations of urgent national importance grabbing the attention of Republicans in Congress who will be working to repeal them.
What is the worrisome factor in Mr. Zinke's background? Montana has a state-recognized tribe which has been seeking federal recognition for a long time -- the Little Shell band of Chippewa Indians. During his term as Montana's only Congressman, Mr. Zinke introduced a bill to grant federal recognition to the Little Shell band. He pushed for it so aggressively that he also logrolled, cosponsoring a bill to grant federal recognition simultaneously to 7 Indian groups including 6 in Virginia plus his Little Shall band. He has repeatedly spoken and written as an advocate for tribal sovereignty. Was he merely doing his job as a zealous advocate for a special interest group of citizens of his own state? Or was he exhibiting a more general attitude that will make him an enthusiastic supporter of federal recognition for a phony Hawaiian tribe that has not yet been created, along with dozens or even hundreds of other Indian groups seeking federal recognition?
If anyone thinks Mr. Zinke's work on behalf of the Little Shell band does not show him to be predisposed to grant recognition to a Hawaiian tribe, then it's important for Republicans in Congress, and civil rights activists opposed to tribal sovereignty, to talk with him before he meets privately with Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz (who serves on the Indian Afairs Committee), and certainly before he has his confirmation hearing, where he might feel compelled to make commitments whose ramifications he does not understand. The way to persuade Mr. Zinke not to grant recognition to a Hawaiian tribe, despite his championing of recognition for the Little Shell band, is to tell him two facts: (1) The Hawaiian "tribe" is nothing like the Little Shell or any other genuine tribe, and clearly fails to meet the usual requirements for federal recognition; and (2) The fake Hawaiian tribe has the potential to become America's largest tribe which would grab the lions' share of money from a federal Indian tribe budget already under pressure to make cutbacks. The Little Shell band, and other small tribes, don't stand a chance if the 600,000 pound Hawaiian gorilla gets into the room.
What is the phony Hawaiian tribe?
Census 2000 counted 401,000 people who checked the box as "Native Hawaiian." Census 2010 counted 527,000 of them. Simple extrapolation indicates there are now more than 600,000. No single Indian group in America has so many people. Half live in Hawaii, where they are 20% of the population, thoroughly intermarried and mixed throughout every neighborhood, occupation, and economic level. The other half live in every one of the other 49 states. Probably 3/4 of ethnic Hawaiians each have more than 3/4 of their genealogy being other than Hawaiian. In Hawaii there are hundreds of racial entitlement programs exclusively for people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. This is a racial group which has never had its own separate government -- the Kingdom of Hawaii (1810-1893) was multiracial; anyone born or naturalized in Hawaii had full voting and property rights; most of the cabinet members and department heads were Caucasians along with perhaps 1/4 of the members of the legislature. The proposed Hawaiian tribe, which would be restricted solely to ethnic Hawaiians, would be nothing like the multiracial Kingdom being touted as its predecessor to now be "reorganized."
The main reason why Hawaii state politicians and ethnic Hawaiian leaders want to create a federally recognized tribe is to provide legal protection for hundreds of racial entitlement programs, which are probably unconstitutional but bring megabucks in federal grants and have fueled the growth of large, politically powerful organizations. It is contrary to the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause for a state government or its agencies to engage in racial discrimination using taxpayer dollars; but federal Indian policy says it's OK for recognized tribes to do that.
From 2000 through 2012, perhaps 20 different versions of the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (the Akaka bill) were continuously under consideration in Congress to create a Hawaiian tribe where none has ever existed. Senate Republicans blocked it all those years. In December 2012 Senator Inouye died and Senator Akaka retired. From 2013-2016 there has been no Hawaiian tribal bill in Congress. Instead, ethnic Hawaiian groups worked with the Obama Department of Interior to develop a pathway to create a tribe and to confer federal recognition upon it. After two years of secret meetings, the Department of Interior in Summer 2014 suddenly released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making and held public meetings in Hawaii and on the mainland, followed by a period of written comment from the public. In October 2015 the DOI published a revised Notice of Proposed Rule-Making followed by 90 days of written public comments. Then on October 14, 2016 DOI published a "final rule" in the Federal Register, to take effect on November 14.
What is the midnight regulation which Congress should repeal within 60 legislative days after it was proclaimed?
The final rule, 43 CFR 50, provides a process whereby ethnic Hawaiians can create a governing document, hold an election to ratify it and to elect officers, and the officers can then petition the Secretary of Interior for federal recognition. Recognition will be granted if as few as five percent (30,000 out of 600,000) of ethnic Hawaiians (one-drop rule) ratify the governing document, which must include as few as 9,000 out of perhaps 60,000 who have at least 50% native blood quantum. For more information, including text of the massive 43 CFR 50, see
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/Repeal43CFR50.html
43 CFR 50 is a sleeper regulation -- it lurks in the background, like a sleeper terrorist waiting for years to get an order to commit mayhem. So long as this regulation remains on the books, any Republican or Democrat Secretary of Interior now or in the future will be authorized to grant federal recognition to the phony Hawaiian tribe whenever Hawaii's tribal "chiefs" believe the time is right to submit an application.
43 CFR 50 probably cannot be rescinded merely by a Presidential Executive Order, because this regulation itself was adopted not as an Executive Order but only after prolonged multiple periods of notice and comment. The best way to rescind it is to use the 60-day rule; but that will require Republicans in Congress to take action promptly and to use the budget reconciliation process that avoids any filibuster (that's the process the Democrats used to pass Obamacare).
Somebody needs to tell Congressional Republicans to get this job done, even while hundreds of nationally important Obama midnight regulations are the focus of attention for the 60-day rule. If the 60-day rule is not used against 43 CFR 50, then the only remedy will be the much more difficult process of inserting language into a future budget bill that provides funding for the Department of Interior.
---------------------
http://www.thiswestisourwest.com.
Permalink
http://us14.campaign-archive2.com/?u=3e22f30a9cd0695de396ca706&id=92d250ade1&e=feffb74a4d
This West Is Our West, December 19, 2016
For those of us who are concerned and/or disappointed in the nomination of Ryan Zinke for Secretary of the Interior, we are asking that you contact Trump's transition team and others shown below, and/or other avenues you may be aware of in order to post comments. Though we may be limited in what change we can effect, we think it is truly worth the effort. We may not be able to effect a change in Trump's selection, but it certainly appears that we need to do some intense educating of both President-Elect Trump and Ryan Zinke, particularly on the tribal issues.
Trump contact sites:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contact
President's Transition team
https://greatagain.gov/how-to-connect-with-the-president-elects-transition-team-5d920a6ba3da#.2hfj5njy0
Facebook transition team (there are avenues to comment under the posts):
https://www.facebook.com/Transition2017/?fref=ts
Other contacts:
Rep. Ryan Zinke, MT: 202-225-3211, Fax 202-225-5687, Email
https://zinke.house.gov/contact/email
Jeff Sessions, US Senator from Alabama
https://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-jeff
Roger Stone: served as an advisor to the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump. There is a "contact" button on his website:
http://stonecoldtruth.com/
Steven Bannon: became chief executive officer of the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump in August 2016. Bannon has been named chief strategist and Senior Counselor for the Presidency of Donald Trump. Bannon was executive chair of Breitbart News, but took a leave of absence from Breitbart in order to work for the campaign. Steve Bannon is on Facebook and Twitter. If anyone has another way of contacting him, we would love to post it.
You may also wish to contact the following:
Sen. Steve Daines, MT: 202-224-2651, Fax 202-224-9412,
http://stevedaines.com/contact/
Rep. Rob Bishop, UT & Chair, House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs
http://robbishop.house.gov/contact/
Rep. Don Young, AL & Chair, House Natural Resources Committee
http://donyoung.house.gov/contact/
Rep. John Fleming, LA & Chair, House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans http://fleming.house.gov/contact/
Rep. Mike Conaway, TX & Chair, House Committee on Agriculture
http://conaway.house.gov/contact/
Rep. Glenn Thompson, PA & Chair, House Subcommittee on conservation and Forestry
https://thompson.house.gov/contact-me
Sen. John Barrasso, WY & Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining
https://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form
Sen. Mike Lee, UT & Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power
https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
Sen. Pat Roberts, KS & chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry
https://www.roberts.senate.gov/public/?p=EmailPat
Sen. David Perdue, GA & Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry and Natural Resources
https://www.perdue.senate.gov/connect/email
Another avenue worth pursuing is to contact any other Senators you may know, asking that the Senate "not approve" this choice, or simply share your concerns. Any other ideas or thoughts are welcome as well.
We encourage you to share this information widely with your email lists and on websites.
For more information and articles covering our concerns, and why this is so important, read more here.
http://thiswestisourwest.com/
If you have any doubts as to why this is important, read below.
"Indian Country" has reported their excitement with this nomination. "Indian Country" is very pleased with Congressman Ryan Zinke as the new Secretary of Interior. Check out the article below from www.indianz.com - a major Indian Country News website:
----
Indianz.com, Thursday, December 15, 2016
http://www.indianz.com/News/2016/12/15/republican-with-better-tribal-record-tap.asp
Republican lawmaker with a better tribal record tapped for Interior Secretary
This time it's official -- Republican president-elect Donald Trump has tapped a lawmaker with a more favorable record on tribal issues to head up the Interior Department. Since joining Congress in 2015, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Montana) has supported tribes on water, taxation, health care, federal recognition, economic development, energy, violence against Native women, and sovereignty matters.
If he is confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, he would be the key person in the incoming administration that deals with Indian issues. But Trump didn't mention tribes at all as his transition team made the official announcement on Wednesday. Instead he indicated that other issues on Interior's plate, including public lands management and exploitation of natural resources, were his priorities.
Zinke, however, didn't leave Indian Country out. The announcement noted that he is an adopted member of the Fort Peck Tribes in Montana. "Most important, our sovereign Indian Nations and territories must have the respect and freedom they deserve," Zinke said. As Montana's sole representative in the House, Zinke has championed a number of causes for tribes in his state. The very first bill he introduced after taking office in January 2015 was H.R.286 to extend federal recognition to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians. While the bill did not become law after it was added to a controversial recognition reform measure, Chairman Gerald Gray counted Zinke among the tribe's "allies and friends" in a statement posted on Facebook on Tuesday. And that support could prove crucial because the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency at Interior, is still considering whether to grant federal status to the descendants of Chief Little Shell.
Another one of Zinke's initiatives was more successful. He helped secure passage of a long-delayed water rights settlement for the Blackfeet Nation. H.R.5633, the Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement Act, was included in S.612, a national water bill that awaits signature from President Barack Obama. "Water is more than a drinking source to the Blackfeet, it's their life source and we must respect and honor their culture and rights," Zinke said in a press release on Tuesday in which Chairman Harry Barnes offered praise for the lawmaker. Zinke's experience with water rights will prove crucial should he be confirmed to the Interior post.
The BIA and the Bureau of Reclamation, another agency at the department, play critical roles in negotiating and implementing settlements across Indian Country. And in yet another area of interest, Zinke would have the authority to make changes at Interior that he wasn't able to achieve through legislation. He could revive a committee of tribal and state officials that deals with mineral resource issues, something he tried to do with H.R.5259, the Certainty for States and Tribes Act.
Zinke's pro-energy stance could turn out to be helpful for some within Indian Country. He has repeatedly accused the Obama administration of engaging in a "war on coal" which he said hindered economic development opportunities for the Crow Tribe. But his push for a coal export terminal that would have benefited the tribe came at the expense of another. During his re-election campaign, he accused his Democratic rival of taking "blood money" from the Lummi Nation, whose leaders opposed the project.
Zinke derided the Lummis as a "wealthy tribe" but did not explain that they opposed the terminal because it would infringe on their treaty-protected fishing rights. The Obama administration halted the project in May in direct response to those concerns. But now that Zinke has been tapped for the president's Cabinet, his departure from Congress could open the door for Denise Juneau, a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation who was his rival in the race.
Federal law requires an election to fill a vacancy in the U.S. House although she hasn't committed to running again. "I look forward to a little time off to re-adjust the sails and think about what it is I want to do and accomplish," Juneau, who was hoping to become the first Native woman in Congress, told Montana Public Radio on Monday. Confirmation hearings for Zinke are expected to take place early next year, after the 115th Congress convenes. He would go before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. "As a westerner, Ryan understands the challenges of having the federal government as your largest neighbor and I couldn't think of a better fit for Secretary of the Interior," Sen. Steve Daines (R-Montana) , who serves on the committee, said in a press release on Tuesday, before the official announcement.
Trump had been considering another Republican lawmaker with a less favorable tribal record for the Interior job. But Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Washington) basically withdrew herself from the running as Zinke's stock rose. "It was an honor to be invited to spend time with the President-elect, and I'm energized more than ever to continue leading in Congress as we think big, reimagine this government, and put people back at the center of it," McMorris Rodgers said on Facebook on Tuesday.
-----
Ryan Zinke was also a co-sponsor of a bill on the tribal forestry issue by a Democratic Congressman from New Mexico that was included in the Energy Bill S.2012. He was also a supporter of the CSKT Water Compact, an unconstitutional "taking" of on and off-reservation water in Montana.
In addition to the Indian issues, we are very concerned about Ryan Zinke's stance regarding public lands. According to one reliable source, Zinke refused to sit with the Montana Delegation at the National Republican Convention because he so stridently disagreed with the Montana Republican Platform position on the transfer of public lands. He also supported the arrest of the Bundy's and others for speaking out on their grazing rights on public lands. All of this adds up to a very questionable stance on the protection of private property and states' rights.
--------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/12/hawaiian-federal-recognition-the-lessons-from-standing-rock/
Honolulu Civil Beat, December 19, 2016
Hawaiian Federal Recognition: The Lessons From Standing Rock
Did the sovereign status of a Sioux tribe boost its fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline?
Would it empower Native Hawaiians?
By Nick Grube
As night fell on the frozen Cannonball River and fireworks lit up the crisp North Dakota air, Leomana Turalde of Waimanalo worked to build a fire inside a teepee using damp wood and Kleenex for kindling.
It was Dec. 4, and the Standing Rock Sioux had just scored a major victory in their protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline when the federal government announced it was blocking construction to study alternative routes.
Turalde, 29, wanted to celebrate. He had shared in the struggles of the tribe to protect its land, water and cultural resources, and was one of many Native Hawaiians who traveled more than 3,600 miles to North Dakota as a show of solidarity among indigenous groups.
He paused to reflect on the standoff and what it might mean for Native Hawaiians moving forward.
He said he had been approached by many Native Americans at the Standing Rock campsite who told him they were inspired by the Native Hawaiian protests on Mauna Kea to block -- so far -- construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope, protests that Turalde had taken part in.
He wondered whether having a singular voice, organized under a unified government such as a tribe, would help in the islands. It's a question that many Native Hawaiians are asking as some move down a path toward federal recognition that others oppose.
"I think the battle to be fought in Hawaii is figuring out how to unite the people and start getting us to fight together," Turalde said. "How can we fight for what we believe in and our cultural history and our land when we're fighting against each other?"
In September, the U.S. Department of Interior announced a process for the Native Hawaiian community to establish a government-to-government relationship that would be similar to the Standing Rock Sioux and hundreds of other American Indian tribes. According to the feds, such a relationship has not existed since the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893.
But forming a new Hawaiian government is complex, and the process to date has been fraught with infighting over what a sovereign nation under U.S. rule should look like.
Not surprising, then, that there are disagreements about whether the Standing Rock experience illustrates the value of federal recognition -- or its futility.
There are questions about how much power and influence a Native Hawaiian government might have. And it's fair to question how much federal recognition helped the Standing Rock Sioux, considering the Dakota Access Pipeline was permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers despite the tribe's protests.
Native Hawaiians have fought what they see as threats to sacred sites and precious natural resources, and not just atop Mauna Kea. Some say Honolulu's 20-mile commuter rail line project didn't fully consider Native Hawaiian burial grounds. And there's the battle over water rights on Maui, where legislators have repeatedly bent to the will of big business interests.
Is The Native American Experience Desirable?
Jonathan Osorio, a professor at the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii Manoa, is skeptical that federal recognition under Department of Interior rules would amplify Native Hawaiian voices, particularly when it comes to protecting cultural sites and the environment.
Osorio, a Native Hawaiian who wants complete independence from the U.S., worries that conceding to a government-to-government relationship in the same vein as Native Americans is just another way Native Hawaiians can be co-opted. He doesn't see the benefits, especially given the federal government's history of reneging on its promises.
"What it would do is it would reduce our options and it would reduce us to the kind of status and power that many American Indian nations have today, and that is being relatively powerless," Osorio said. "When we look at how these Native American nations really struggled to survive, how they have been marginalized by being placed on smaller and smaller reservations, how even their reservations are not protected if gold or oil is discovered on them, and the continual degradations of their land, I don't know why the Kanaka Maoli would consent to putting ourselves in that position."
Honolulu attorney Eric Seitz tends to agree. He said Native Hawaiians have every right to be leery of forming a government-to-government relationship with the U.S. given its track record with Native Americans who were subjected to theft, lies and murder for the sake of westward expansion.
Seitz has spent much of his career fighting the federal government and other bureaucracies, particularly law enforcement. He worked to free Leonard Peltier, a Native American activist convicted of killing two FBI agents on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota in the 1970s.
Seitz was also successful in defending several Native Hawaiian activists who occupied Kahoolawe in an attempt to stop the military from shelling the island for practice.
"I don't think there's any real positive history of tribes being able to negotiate with the United States government that suggest tribes today ought to go down that road," Seitz said. "They need to have a degree of sovereignty and a power base of some sort, economic or otherwise, that's going to enable them to protect themselves, much more so than the Indian tribes did historically."
In his nearly 40 years working as an attorney, Seitz has watched as local, state and federal governments have followed the "custom of giving lip service" to Native Hawaiian concerns, but he said it rarely impedes major developments from moving forward.
'You Have To Go There And Put Your Body On the Line'
Seitz said what happened near the Standing Rock reservation in North Dakota should serve as a "major education" to anyone who was there or who watched the protests unfold over the course of several months as demonstrators clashed with police and camped out in freezing temperatures.
It proved just how difficult it can be to stake out ground against powerful interests. The oil pipeline, after all, was on the verge of being completed before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reversed course to require further environmental review.
"The bottom line is that the dominant society and its economic interests are most of the time going to push aside the assertions of any indigenous group or native people," Seitz said. "That's been the history in this country everywhere, whether it's the mainland, Puerto Rico or here."
"When there's some sort of oppression going on you have to go there and put your body on the line to stand there and oppose it toe-to-toe," he said. "You can't rely on other people to fight those battles for you. You have to go yourself. Whether you win or lose, fighting for what you believe in is something that requires dedication and risk. People have to take risks, otherwise they're not going to be heard."
Camille Kalama of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation travelled to North Dakota in October along with her partner, Andre Perez, a Native Hawaiian activist, after hearing stories about protesters being attacked by security dogs and arrested.
She too is skeptical of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians, and worries that it could limit their abilities to stand up for themselves.
She also doesn't trust that the federal government will make the right decision when the time comes, pointing to the fact that the Army Corps only made its decision after thousands of veterans showed up in North Dakota to protect demonstrators who had been threatened with a Dec. 5 evacuation notice.
"How did that decision get so far down that line?" Kalama asked. "We can all see that this is a short-term diffusement of the situation. It's really a big concern for me that we would be put under the Department of Interior that has a terrible track record when it comes to the treatment of Native Americans."
Having a direct relationship with the federal government won't reduce conflicts, she said. There will still be disagreements over issues such as military training at Pohakuloa on the Big Island or water rights on Maui.
"It's an ongoing and uphill battle," Kalama said. "We'll be fighting just like at Standing Rock whether we have federal recognition or not. The only thing we can do is to keep showing up."
'Federal Recognition Is Another Weapon In The Arsenal'
It's not as if Native Hawaiians have been muted. There are a number of laws on the books that require local, state and federal agencies to consult with the Hawaiian community when there's the potential to unearth remains or infringe upon traditional cultural practices.
And not everyone is sour on the idea of creating another sovereign nation within a nation, particularly if it means guaranteeing a seat at the table when the federal government -- or any other entity -- is making a decision that could adversely affect Native Hawaiians.
Richard Monette, who heads the Great Lakes Indigenous Law Center at the University of Wisconsin Madison, said this was one of the greatest takeaways from the Standing Rock protest. It showed the world that sovereign nations will not be silently trampled upon, and that government-to-government relationships should be taken seriously.
"If you're not federally recognized then there's no obligation whatsoever, moral, legal or otherwise, to do communication or consulting," Monette said. "It was federal recognition that carried the obligation to have a meaningful consultation with them. If they did not have that recognition that obligation would not be there and we wouldn't even be having this discussion about Standing Rock."
Monette is a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe of about 30,000 members whose reservation is located in North Dakota. He said Native Hawaiians should take a cue from the hundreds of tribes that have a government-to-government relationship with the U.S. so that they can reclaim their identity.
It's easier to protect your culture when you have a cohesive voice that advocates for Native Hawaiians rather than a fractured band of individuals who might have competing interests, Monette said. Those divisions make it easier for government officials to trivialize indigenous concerns or pick the side that best serves their interests.
Monette added that federal recognition is the first step to international recognition. And that, he said, might appeal to Native Hawaiians who hold out hope for full independence.
"Native Hawaiians can act like a sovereign now, the problem with that is they're not recognized by anybody," Monette said. "From my own opinion, they are missing out on a lot of opportunity by not getting themselves politically recognized by the United States."
Native Hawaiian views on federal recognition can be as scattered as its population -- more than half a million people living in the U.S. who describe themselves as indigenous descendants of the islands. Some want it. Some don't. Others are ambivalent.
As former Hawaii Gov. John Waihee, the only Native Hawaiian to ever hold that position, says: "It's complicated."
"If you're looking at a native people and their struggle, any weapon that you can put in your arsenal is positive, and that's the way I see this situation," Waihee said. "Federal recognition is another weapon in the arsenal."
The former governor said it's difficult to lay out all the specific benefits Native Hawaiians can receive from a government-to-government relationship with the U.S. But he said that regardless of what side of the issue someone comes down on, it's important for Native Hawaiians to protect what they already have.
In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that Hawaiian-only voting for trustees of state Office of Hawaiian Affairs was unconstitutional. Waihee said that effectively opened up the possibility of legal challenges to other entitlements that are granted to Native Hawaiians based on their ethnicity.
Federal recognition, Waihee said, could help block future attacks on those programs or the entities that administer them.
And while he admits the U.S. has a shameful history when dealing with indigenous people, and particularly American Indians, he still sees an advantage to having a government-to-government relationship, especially when there's a disagreement, such as what played out in North Dakota between the Army Corps and the Standing Rock Sioux.
In some respects, he said the fact that the Standing Rock Sioux had such a relationship allowed it to raise additional legal arguments that the tribe's concerns about the degradation of its water and cultural resources were not properly considered as the pipeline was being built.
"Every tribe, every nation, every people have a different variation of what federal recognition looks like," Waihee said. "So the real question is: What is the Hawaiian variation going to look like?"
Inside his teepee, Leomana Turalde didn't know what to expect for the future of Native Hawaiians. All he saw was a bunch of people fighting each other and failing to set their own course for the future.
But Turalde holds out hope for Hawaiians and other native cultures that have been victimized over the generations. If the protests on Mauna Kea and at Standing Rock taught him anything, it's that indigenous people are no longer willing to stay quiet and that more people are starting to listen.
"I hope that things change in our future," Turalde said. "The change that I want is for people to come together and figure it out. Because if we figure it out amongst ourselves then anything is possible."
----------
** Ken Conklin's online comment
As usual Civil Beat publishes an article where the main question is: What would be the best way for ethnic Hawaiians to get what they want by separating themselves from everyone else? The only choices offered are racial separatism through federal recognition as an Indian tribe under U.S. sovereignty, vs. ethnic nationalism through separation of Hawaii from the U.S. to restore its former status as an independent nation but under a new concept of racial supremacy under the cover of "indigenous rights."
Is there any possibility of an aloha solution, embracing unity of Hawaii's people, unity of Hawaii with the U.S., and equality under the law for all people regardless of race? Civil Beat clearly does not believe unity and equality are either possible or desirable. Too bad.
Here are my thoughts about recent developments regarding federal recognition. Some recreational protesters get their jollies by holding signs, shouting, and getting arrested. But here are analyses of some serious actions that can be taken through the political and legal realities now unfolding.
Three ways President Trump and Congressional Republicans can kill the Department of Interior Final Rule 43CFR50 (authorizing creation and federal recognition of a phony Hawaiian tribe)
http://tinyurl.com/jlkjn6r
Trump's Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke needs your help to avoid unjustified tribal recognition
http://tinyurl.com/z2z3cg2
---------------------
** Summary of Heritage Foundation: "Stars Align for the Congressional Review Act" [A thorough explanation of the Act, which allows Congress to repeal any regulation or "final rule" within 60 "legislative days" after it is made official. The clock for counting 60 days starts all over from scratch when the new 115th Congress convenes, so any regulation that took effect during the last half of 2016 can be repealed until at least the end of March.]
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/12/stars-align-for-the-congressional-review-act
Heritage Foundation, Issue Brief #4640 on Regulation, December 16, 2016
Stars Align for the Congressional Review Act
by Daren Bakst and James L. Gattuso, Heritage Foundation
Enacted over 20 years ago as part the "Contract with America" package of reforms, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) has sat largely unused in the congressional toolbox. This law sought to make it easier for Congress to repeal regulations, but only once has it been successfully used to do so. That is about to change. During the next few months, the CRA could become one of the most significant congressional weapons in the fight against the rising amount of red tape.
While Congress has always had the power to stop any regulation it disapproves of, the CRA provides a streamlined process for Congress to disapprove a final rule[1] without threat of filibuster. Moreover, it bars agencies from re-imposing the same or similar rule afterward. Because of this, the CRA could in many cases provide a more effective way to address newly imposed final rules than even direct repeal of a final rule by federal agencies. The CRA's effectiveness could, however, be strengthened by use of explanatory "preambles."
Congress should make the CRA a frequently used weapon in the fight against red tape.
The CRA Review Process
The CRA process, which applies to both "major" and "non-major" rules[2] begins with a notification to Congress from the agency of the adoption of a new regulation. This triggers a 60-day period in which Congress[3] can introduce a "resolution of disapproval" of a rule.
Importantly, this 60-day period is calculated in terms of "legislative" days,[4] not actual calendar days. Thus, as calculated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), this means that rules adopted as far back as June 3, 2016, are still within this review period. (This date is subject to change.)[5] Rules that are still within this 60-day period when Congress adjourns will have a fresh 60-day review period at the start of the next Congress. As explained by the CRS:
[I]f a final rule is submitted to Congress either less than 60 days of session in the Senate or less than 60 legislative days in the House of Representatives before Congress adjourns a session sine die, a new period for congressional review of that rule becomes available in the next session of Congress.[6]
This ensures that the current Congress or the successive Congress will enjoy a full 60 days to review and challenge questionable rules.
A generally concurrent 60-day period is also provided by the CRA in which Congress -- specifically the Senate -- can exercise a set of streamlined procedures to repeal a rule (a fast-track process), the most important of which is the barring of filibusters.[7] This is the primary procedural benefit of the CRA.[8]
As part of this process, the CRA also provides Senators a fairly easy way to move a resolution of disapproval onto the floor. If a committee has had a resolution pending for more than 20 legislative days, it can be brought to the floor for a vote if 30 Senators support a petition to do so.[9]
A rule that does not qualify for the Senate's fast-track process can still be disapproved under the CRA, although the benefits of the fast-track process (such as avoiding a filibuster) would not be available in such a case.
As with other legislation, the CRA resolution, once passed by both the House and Senate, must be presented to the President for signature or veto. If the President signs the CRA resolution into law, or Congress overrides a presidential veto,[10] the rule is deemed "disapproved" and will not take effect. From that time forward, the agency cannot promulgate any rule which is "substantially the same" as the one disapproved.[11]
Under the law as currently written, the CRA does not seem to allow multiple rules to be repealed in one resolution. But H.R. 5982, the "Midnight Rules Relief Act," would allow Congress to do so during the final year of a presidential term.[12] The Senate has yet to approve this reasonable change, however.
A Largely Unused Tool
The CRA, authored by Representative David McIntosh (R–IN), was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It was accompanied by praise and high expectations from both sides of the aisle. A statement by Senator Harry Reid (D–NV) and two other Senators proclaimed:
This legislation will help to redress the balance [between the branches], reclaiming for Congress some of its policymaking authority, without at the same time requiring Congress to become a super regulatory agency.[13]
Then-Senator Carl Levin (D–MI) similarly announced: "Now we are in a position to do something ourselves,"[14] adding that "[i]f a rule goes too far afield from the intent of Congress in passing the statute in the first place, we can stop it. That's a new day, and one a long time incoming."[15]
Despite this fanfare, the CRA has rarely been used. From the law's passage in 1996 to August 2011, agencies have submitted 1,029 major rules and over 56,000 non-major rules to Congress. In that period, 72 CRA resolutions of disapproval relating to 49 major rules were introduced. Of these, only three passed both Houses,[16] and only one was enacted.[17] Congress has adopted a number of resolutions of disapproval since 2011, but all have been vetoed.
The primary reason for this disuse is simple: Few presidents are willing to disapprove rules imposed by their own Administration.
In fact, the one instance in which the CRA has been successfully used involved an ergonomics rule adopted in 2000 during the waning days of the Clinton Administration. In early 2001, incoming President George W. Bush signed a resolution of disapproval passed by a largely Republican Congress.[18]
Using the CRA to Cut Red Tape
In 2017, however, the stars seem aligned for the CRA to play a much greater role. Both the House and the Senate are in Republican hands, with a Republican President to be inaugurated in January. Congressional leaders as well as the President-elect have denounced what they agree is massive regulatory overreach by the outgoing Obama Administration.
Adding to this alignment is the sheer number of rules eligible for disapproval under the CRA. Given the active pace of rulemaking over the past few months, many dozens of major rules could be vulnerable to a CRA challenge. These include, among others:
Rules under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law,
Sick leave for federal contractors,
Offshore drilling rules, and
Energy mandates for home appliances.
It is a truly target-rich environment and a historic opportunity for Congress to limit the growth of red tape.
Avoiding Hurdles of Repealing Rules
Many of the CRA-eligible rules could also be rescinded by the new Administration on its own authority without involving Congress. But this would require the agency to complete a notice and comment process under the Administrative Procedure Act, and to identify judicially defensible reasons for repeal.[19] And the resulting changes are certain to get bogged down in the courts for years.
If Congress uses the CRA to block costly new rules, these hurdles can be avoided. Plus, the CRA provides the additional bonus of barring the promulgation of any "substantially similar rules."
The Value of Preambles
For the most part, the form of a resolution of disapproval is straightforward. But there are some areas that need consideration. One of these is using "preambles," statements that can be included in the body of the resolution stating the resolution's purpose and the objections Congress has to the rule in question.
A preamble is the language usually at the start of bills that include the "whereas" clauses which explain the intent and general findings of Congress. A preamble does not have the weight of the bill's other text, but it can help when a law has ambiguities.[20]
Preamble language could provide guidance to the agency as to what Congress is objecting to when it comes to a rule. For example, with regard to greenhouse gas regulations, Congress could clarify it is not merely objecting to how a greenhouse gas rule works, but also whether the agency has the power to regulate greenhouse gases in the first place.
Some question, however, remains whether such statements can be included in a CRA resolution. The CRS, for instance, states that it is unclear whether such statements can enjoy the fast-track treatment given to the resolution itself.[21] It is not expressly prohibited and the CRS indicates that use of a preamble would be a question for the parliamentarians of the House and Senate.[22]
However, a preamble could be a crucial aid in determining congressional intent for purposes of applying the "substantially the same" test to disapproved rules. The preamble is certainly not going to expand or diminish the CRA's "substantially the same" standard, but a preamble can provide some clarity. Further, while certainly an open question, a preamble could address an ambiguity in an existing statute, which might help provide clarity to courts on how it should interpret statutory text.
Next Step: The REINS Act
Further legislative reform is needed. Despite the rare alignment of circumstances that will make the CRA so valuable in 2017, the underlying shortcoming of the Act remains. Congress needs to ensure that the rules governing Americans are necessary and proper every year, not just in presidential transition years.
To do this, Congress should be required to adopt a "resolution of approval" before a major regulation can take effect, rather than be limited to "resolutions of dis-approval." This approach, embodied in the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act[23] passed by the House in 2015, would ensure that no major rule is imposed on Americans without the consent of the body constitutionally responsible for making the laws.[24]
Conclusion
Both Congress and the President will have an opportunity in 2017 to roll back costly new rules that have been and are continuing to be imposed on the American people by the outgoing Administration. One powerful tool they can use to accomplish this task is the Congressional Review Act. This long-neglected tool can provide Congress with the power to swiftly remove months of Obama Administration rules from the books and to help ensure that they do not come back. Congress should not hesitate to use the CRA extensively.
-- Daren Bakst is Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy and James L. Gattuso is Senior Research Fellow for Regulatory Policy in the Center for Free Markets and Regulatory Reform, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] The CRA appears to cover only final rules, including interim final rules.
[2] A major rule is defined generally as a rule with $100 million or more in expected economic impact, and other rules with economic effects of certain levels. The effective date of major and non-major rules differs under the CRA. See Maeve P. Carey, Alissa M. Dolan, and Christopher M. Davis, "The Congressional Review Act: Frequently Asked Questions," Congressional Research Service Report for Congress No. 43992, p. 9,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43992.pdf
(accessed December 15, 2016).
[3] The 60-day period starts once the rule has been received by Congress. See ibid., p. 12.
[4] In the House of Representatives, these days are referred to as "legislative days." In the Senate, it is "days of session."
[5] Christopher M. Davis and Richard S. Beth, "Agency Final Rules Submitted After June 2, 2016, May Be Subject to Disapproval," Congressional Research Service Insight No. 10437, November 30, 2016,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10437.pdf
(accessed December 15, 2016).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Also known as the "action" period, this "fast track" period" is also re-set at the beginning of a new Congress.
[8] "In order to be eligible for the "fast track" procedures in the Senate, that body must act on a disapproval resolution during a period of 60 days of Senate session which begins when the rule is received by Congress and published in the Federal Register. After that period, the measure would have to be considered under normal Senate rules." Carey, Dolan, and Davis, "The Congressional Review Act: Frequently Asked Questions," p. 14.
[9] Filibusters are not typically permitted in the House of Representatives for any legislation.
[10] The presidential role in adoption of a CRA resolution is a constitutionally required element of the legislative process. See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
[11] Carey, Dolan, and Davis, "The Congressional Review Act: Frequently Asked Questions."
[12] Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016, H.R. 5982, 114th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5982?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22h.r.+5982%22%5D%7D&r=1
(accessed December 15, 2016).
[13] Congressional Record, April 18, 1996, p. S3683.
[14] "The Mysteries of the Congressional Review Act," Harvard Law Review, Vol. 122, No. 8 (June 2009), pp. 2162–2183,
http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol_122_the_mysteries.pdf
(accessed December 15, 2016).
[15] Ibid.
[16] One of these involved the disapproval of a deregulatory action by the Federal Communications Commission.
[17] Morton Rosenberg, "The Critical Need for Effective Congressional Review of Agency Rules: Background and Considerations for Incremental Reform: A Report Prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States," Administrative Conference of the United States, July 18, 2012,
https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CRA%20_%20Final%20Report.pdf
(accessed December 15, 2016).
[18] The House of Representatives was in Republican hands after the election, while the Senate was split evenly.
[19] See, for example, "With the Stroke of a Pen: What Executive Branch Actions Can President-Elect Trump 'Undo' on Day One?" Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar, November 22, 2016,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/stroke.pdf
(accessed December 15, 2016).
[20] Larry M. Eig, "Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends," Congressional Research Service Report for Congress No. 97-589, December 19, 2011,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf
(accessed December 15, 2016).
[21] Carey, Dolan, and Davis, "The Congressional Review Act: Frequently Asked Questions."
[22] Ibid.
[23] Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015, H.R. 427, 114th Cong., 1st Sess.,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/427/text
(accessed December 15, 2016).
[24] See James L. Gattuso, "REINS Act of 2013," testimony before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Mach 5, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2013/reins-act-of-2013
** Ken Conklin's note: See also:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442496/native-hawaiian-government-race-based-violation-equal-protection
National Review (Online) on November 28, 2016
Midnight Regulations in Paradise
By Ilya Shapiro [Cato Institute]
-----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/23/editorial/name-in-the-news/rowena-akana-new-head-of-the-office-of-hawaiian-affairs-speaks-out-strongly/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, December 23, 2016 Editorial -- Name in the News
Rowena Akana: New head of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs speaks out, strongly
By Vicki Viotti
Rowena Akana, newly elected to chair the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees, is no stranger to conflict in her 26 years on the board for the agency that manages the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund.
In her early years there were some flash points around programs and leadership issues -- she actually chaired the board previously in 2000, succeeding former Sen. Clayton Hee -- and those have not abated.
Not long before she took the helm on a 5-4 vote, Akana published a blog post vigorously protesting a policy to guard what statements trustees could make publicly. Now she's got the gavel, and although she hopes for peace, she doesn't mince words.
"I don't go out looking for fights," she said. "In the end, everybody has karma and it just sort of comes back. So I don't waste time with that. There's too much positive work to do, rather than working on negativity."
Her academic background was in education and she did some substitute teaching before taking a staff position at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands -- and before the hiatus to have two daughters (and three grandchildren).
Akana, who also has some experience singing jazz, later ended up working on the air in radio before a friend ran for OHA and piqued her own interest in politics.
Among those whose vote she won was a new trustee, Keli'i Akina, a longstanding critic of OHA and opponent of the agency's federal recognition push. That goal Akana still supports, citing the transfer of the Hawaiian trusts to the state in 1959.
"The mandate from the feds was to create something for the Hawaiian people, which they did," she said.
"We've been trying to educate him (Akina) on why some things are the way they are. What we're doing here is still that mandate."
QUESTION: What was your reaction when there was a bit of a walkout after you were elected to the chair?
ANSWER: Well, you know, I didn't expect the walkout but I expected them to object vehemently.
Q: Because?
A: Because they've been in the power group for quite a while. And (Trustee) Colette Machado has been with the power group for the last 14 years. So, people don't like to give up the certain perks that power has.
And I have been an adversary, in some respects, to some of the things the board has done.
I think part of it is fear. Fear of what I might do, in terms of turning over things and perhaps reversing some things ...
Q: Should the beneficiaries expect to see a lot of 5-4 vote splits?
A: Well, I hope not. We knew in the beginning we'd get resistance, we know that. But I hope that over time this will change, because my motivation is simply to do the best we can for our beneficiaries.
And that means perhaps refocusing some of the things that we've done in other areas. For instance, we've paid no attention to real health care, or health results. We're into research about statistics, but OHA cannot put its finger on what we have done, where we could say, "We are responsible for this significant change."
Many years ago, we did things like, when Molokai didn't have dialysis machines, people had to fly here to Honolulu to get on a dialysis machine, very expensive. So we invested in five machines to be put in the hospital there, so our beneficiaries wouldn't have to come over to Honolulu to get this kind of treatment.
So in my view, OHA needs to get back to some of the basic needs that people have, which we have not done in 14 years.
Q: Can you give an example of what OHA has done in recent years that you think is a diversion or distraction?
A: Well, I think one of the things that I believe hurt us was about 14 years ago when that chair decided that we would focus on advocacy. And in her view, advocacy was just giving monies to other organizations to do what we were doing.
In other words, farming out a lot of contracts to people to accomplish some of the things that were on our wish list. And in doing so, we lost track of the real motivation behind why we were interested in helping our beneficiaries with housing and health and education and so on.
Q: For example?
A: For instance, back then we had a housing division, and we partnered with Self-Help Housing and Catholic Charities, with other institutions to build self-help housing. And we did many of those, and it was successful.
When I was the programs chair, I got Fannie Mae to commit about $150 million to help us with our Hawaiians who were on the waiting list, waiting to get onto Hawaiian Homes, where they couldn't qualify. So they needed to get their credit up.
They helped us with down payments and they also helped us with an educational program where we hired contractors to come in and group these different people in groups so that the ones who were ready to qualify could move up to the loan application phase. …
All of that was canceled. All of that was thrown out. And to me, that was a huge mistake. The need for housing now is greater than it was before.
Q: So instead, the money went where?
A: That's a good question, isn't it? We went from a $14 million to a $23 million budget, and we were doing three times the work that we're doing now. And we're at $50 million, and it's mostly administrative costs.
Q: The news is that you think it's top-heavy.
A: Oh, very top-heavy.
Q: What are you going to do about that?
A: I've been in discussion with my team, with the other trustees. We have a plan. We're not going to go firing everybody.
But we are going to do an assessment of all of the divisions and look at what we've been doing, how successful that has been. And certainly, look at how OHA is structured now, because it's way out of line.
We need to look at that structure and look at what will serve our needs -- and we'll probably hire a professional. ...
Q: Staff is paid out of general funds?
A: No. Trust funds. ... The Legislature only gives us $3 million ... we match funds with the Legislature on (funding for) the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., for lawsuits. And then we match funds with them for (the economic training nonprofit) Alu Like, where they do services. ...
We have a little bit that goes to secretaries, which has not changed for a long time. ...
Q: So you want an assessment of who's doing what?
A: Yes, yes, because I know that we could do more with less.
Q: If you're not going to be firing people, you're going to be trying to get more work out of people?
A: That's going to be dependent on what the assessment says, and where we can improve, and what we should be doing to meet our mission. Some staff will be redirected to other areas than where they've been.
And, you know, ultimately perhaps some people will not be here because maybe we're not going to focus on the area that they're in right now. We don't know at this point. ...
Q: About federal recognition: You're still in favor of that pursuit?
A: The concept of recognition is very important to all Hawaiians. What we've disagreed on, I think, is the process.
While there is a group that wants to secede, it's not realistic. It's just not. The majority of Hawaiians -- I know, because we've done a plebescite -- the majority of Hawaiians want to be Americans, and they don't want to secede from the United States. It's not the goal.
The goal is to get that recognition to save us from being attacked as racist, attacking our trusts, attacking Hawaiian Homes, OHA. We just want to function as a native people, within the United States, and try to do the best job we can for our people.
----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/12/nation-of-hawaii-goes-mainstream/
Honolulu Civil Beat, December 29, 2016, commentary
Nation Of Hawaii Goes Mainstream
Sharing our story with audiences throughout the world can help raise awareness of Hawaiian issues on a global scale.
By Brandon Makaawaawa
To be able to tell our story in our own words and from our unique perspective is essential to spreading awareness about not only our history as Hawaiians but our continuing struggle to achieve independence within a legal, socioeconomic and political environment that has suppressed our national sovereignty and hindered our ability to live as Hawaiian nationals.
Although we acknowledge the widespread critiques of the movie "Aloha," we also emphasize how important that mainstream media has been to sharing our story. That Bumpy Kanahele was able to not only star in a feature film as himself but to also speak critically about the incredibly painful history of oppression of Hawaiians and how it continues to this day was a powerful and unprecedented moment in Hollywood.
To have a Hawaiian speaking his truth from his lived perspective and in his own words resonated with many audiences throughout the world and hopefully spread the message that the true heart of Hawaii is the indomitable spirit of the Hawaiian people who refuse to give in to oppressive forces that try to make us forget our history and more importantly, our national identity as a people and our rights to our land and culture.
Nation of Hawaii has worked tirelessly to ensure that our people understand that we have never relinquished our national sovereignty. For anyone who thinks that Hawaiians will never regain their independence, I invite them to learn more about Nation of Hawaii and Puuhonua o Waimanalo (a.k.a. the Village), which is the only sovereign and independent Hawaiian land base in existence. We exercise our national sovereignty daily because U.S. and state laws do not apply to us.
More importantly, our land serves as a physical manifestation of our hopes and dreams for all Hawaiians to exercise their national sovereignty in a real and meaningful way. We encourage everyone to learn more about the Nation and its various projects.
Nation of Hawaii will be featured in an upcoming episode of "Hawaii Five-0" that airs on CBS on Friday, Jan. 20 (coincidentally three days after the 124th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii). We worked closely with the writers of the show to teach them our history and our aspirations for the future and hope that the story of our Nation and the unique identity of Hawaiians will be spread to audiences across the U.S. and the world.
The episode focuses on a Hawaiian man who is accused of a crime and flees to Nation of Hawaii for protection, thereby illustrating the respect that the state of Hawaii has for our Nation's jurisdiction over its lands. The show highlights the unique status of our Nation and demonstrates how our people live as Hawaiian nationals separate from the American occupation of Hawaii.
The state of Hawaii and the U.S. have been incredibly harmful to the Hawaiian people and our Nation is a place of refuge and healing for the body, the soul and most importantly, the mind, which has been told that achieving true independence is not possible. We counter this imperialist assertion with real, tangible proof of Hawaiians living free and apart from the system that has tried to break us.
Nation of Hawaii has some exciting projects that came about because people learned about us in the movie "Aloha," showing how sharing our story with audiences throughout the world can help raise awareness of Hawaiian issues on a global scale and also encourage allies to help us in our fight for Hawaiian independence. For more information, you can follow Puuhonua Bumpy Keiki Kanahele and Brandon Makaawaawa on Facebook or visit bumpykanahele.com and hawaii-nation.org.
A major economic venture we have pursued is the development of a crypto currency called Aloha Coin. Aloha Coin is the Nation's official monetary system and will help us develop an independent and sovereign Hawaiian economy. If you want to learn more about Aloha Coin, you can visit alohacoin.info and alohacoin.today.
The Nation of Hawaii will also be conducting a citizenship drive in the upcoming year and if you would like to participate, look for updates on Facebook and on our websites.
In these uncertain times, it is important for our community to unify and move forward together, setting aside egos, political aspirations and the desire to be right. Rather than fighting amongst ourselves, the end goal should be uplifting all Hawaiians and determining our future together.
About the Author
Brandon Makaawaawa is a long-time resident of the Waimanalo Hawaiian Homestead community and is a passionate advocate for Hawaiian National Sovereignty. He serves as Chief of Staff to Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele, the Head of State of the Nation of Hawaii, which runs its operations out of Puuhonua o Waimanalo, the only sovereign Hawaiian land base in existence. You can follow him on Facebook or Instagram @hawaiiannational.
** Ken Conklin's online comment
So Bumpy's place in Nalo "is the only sovereign and independent Hawaiian land base in existence"? No. It's a land lease from the State of Hawaii, extorted after blocking traffic at Makapu'u. Bumpy pays rent on his cult compound, and nearly got evicted a few years ago for failure to pay. Not sovereign. Remember the Branch Davidians at Waco?
So a 5-0 TV episode will focus on a fugitive who wants asylum at Bumpy's place? Episode shows "the respect that the state of Hawaii has for our Nation's jurisdiction over its lands"? Don't we recall that a fugitive hiding there was taken into custody and Bumpy got convicted and sentenced for harboring a fugitive and interfering with police? Not sovereign.
So Bumpy's gonna create the Hawaiian version of bitcoin? Funny-money used on darknet for drug deals, hostage ransoms, etc. "Investors" will see their money evaporate like morning mist when the sun comes out. Shame on Bumpy and anyone who falls for this nonsense. "Here comes the sun."
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/29/editorial/letters/rail-opponent-makes-same-old-arguments/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, December 29, 2016, LETTER to editor
Obama could act to help Hawaiians
Hawaii was overthrown on Jan. 17, 1893. The United Nations has taken an interest in the manner of Hawaii's "decolonization."
Hawaii's statehood vote deserves a do-over because didn't reflect the wishes of the indigenous people. The self-interests of Americans and immigrant-workforce voters tainted the results.
A legitimate vote by Native and part-Native Hawaiians is possible with today's DNA technology.
The Native Hawaiian people should be afforded the rights to self-determination, self-governance and self-sufficiency with freedom from tyranny and oppression.
Queen Liliuokalani wrote: "I implore the people of this great and good nation … to sustain their representatives in such acts of justice and equity as may be in accord with the principles of their fathers …"
Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."
To keep a "great nation" we foremost need to be a "good nation."
President Barack Obama could enact a righteous executive order.
Do what is right!
Michele Lincoln
Lahaina
----------------------
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/12/another-court-blasts-unconstitutional-race-based-voting/
Judicial Watch news release, December 29, 2016
Another Court Blasts Unconstitutional, Race-Based Voting
The courts just handed unconstitutional, race-based voting -- backed by the Obama administration -- another defeat as the government agency charged with cracking down on such violations fails miserably to do its job. Private citizens and groups such as Judicial Watch have been forced to take legal action at their own expense to stop these racist voting practices that clearly infringe on an assortment of federal statutes.
The latest blow was delivered this week by a federal appellate court ruling in a Northern Mariana Islands case and comes on the heels of a Supreme Court injunction in a similar lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch in Hawaii. Both cases involve blatantly unconstitutional practices that violate the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition against racial discrimination in voting and the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of equal protection. In the Mariana Islands suit a citizen, John Davis, challenged a Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands law restricting voting in certain elections to individuals of "Northern Marianas descent" as unconstitutional. The U.S. commonwealth defines this as persons who are at least one-quarter indigenous, either Chamorro or Carolinian, or a combination of both. Davis is a resident and taxpayer but doesn't count as "native" so he wasn't allowed to vote. He had to hire an attorney because the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is responsible for enforcing voter rights, refused to get involved.
In 2014 an Obama-appointed federal judge ruled against the provision that limited registration and voting to only those persons of Northern Marianas descent, concluding that the system violates both the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition against racial discrimination in voting and the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of equal protection. In the decision the judge, Ramona Manglona, slammed the government's claim that its racial classification is political and not racial. "Race, as used in the Reconstruction-era civil-rights laws, meant something other than or in addition to skin color or shared physical features," the ruling states. "It also referred to classes of persons singled out solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics." The judge also found that the Marianas government violated a law that guarantees the right of citizens of the United States to vote in all state or territorial elections "without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
The Northern Marianas appealed and this week the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the measure is a "race-based restriction" that violates the Fifteenth Amendment. "The Commonwealth cannot limit or modify the United States Constitution by adopting inconsistent provisions in its own constitution," the famously liberal appellate panel writes. The judges also note that the voting restriction would divide the citizenry of the Commonwealth between Northern Mariana descent and non-Northern Mariana descent when voting on amendments to a property restriction that affects everyone. The Fifteenth Amendment aims to prevent precisely this sort of division in voting, the appellate court points out in its decision.
Judicial Watch makes similar arguments in its Hawaii case, filed last year on behalf of citizens of the island who were denied the right to vote based on their race or viewpoint. The state of Hawaii implemented a scheme that used a voting list restricted by both race and viewpoint to conduct an election for Native Hawaiian "self-government" by allowing only native Hawaiians to vote. Act 195 defines a "Native Hawaiian" as any person whom the government determines to be a direct descendant of the State's aboriginal peoples. Judicial Watch argued that the restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments; and federal law, including the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In a huge victory, last December the Supreme Court issued an injunction halting Hawaii's race-based "Native Hawaiian-only" election. Judicial Watch had sought a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to stop the illegal election in November and unsuccessfully sought an urgent motion for injunction with the 9th Circuit, ironically the court that just slammed the Mariana Islands' racist voting system. Refusing to give up, Judicial Watch filed and emergency application with the Supreme Court, which issued an order temporarily enjoining the election pending review by the entire high court. Under federal law, the Supreme Court only issues emergency injunctions when the circumstances presented are "critical and exigent" and the legal rights at issue are "indisputably clear."
-------------------
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/this-state-is-trying-to-restrict-voting-by-race/article/2610618
The Washington Examiner, December 30, 2016
Can you name the state trying to place racial restrictions on voting?
By MICHAEL BARONE
Should participation in American elections be restricted to members of a particular race or races? If you assumed that no significant number of Americans today believe the answer should be yes, you assumed wrong. Actually, the governments of the state of Hawaii and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands have passed and have been defending in court their laws which do exactly that.
The CNMI law restricts voting in certain elections to those of "Northern Marianas descent." That was struck down in 2014 by a federal district judge and his decision was affirmed last Tuesday by a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
By the way, the district court judge and two of the three circuit court judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. The courts ruled that the CNMI provision violates the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Sounds pretty straightforward, doesn't it? Not to the state of Hawaii, which for almost two decades has been defending state laws limiting voting for certain offices to members of a particular race. Back in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano ruled invalid a Hawaii law limiting voting for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state agency, to persons of Native Hawaiian descent. The justices, 7 to 2, ruled against the state, which was represented by a Washington lawyer named John Roberts.
Despite this decision, in 2011 the Hawaii legislature passed a law creating a Native Hawaiian Roll Commission to enroll certain voters who could then submit amendments to a convention to revise the state constitution and to vote on the sovereignty of the "Native Hawaiian people." In 2012 the Office of Hawaiian Affairs launched a campaign to enroll people of Native Hawaiian descent with a view toward creating a race-based sovereign government. To gain voting status, people had to affirm not only that they had Native Hawaiian ancestry, but also that they believed in "the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people" and that they had "a significant cultural, social or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community."
In August 2015 Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin this process as a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. A federal district judge and a Ninth Circuit panel declined to issue an injunction blocking the reporting of the results of the election (which had been delayed from November to Dec. 21), but on the day after Thanksgiving 2015 Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the opinion in Rice v. Cayetano, issued a temporary injunction and on Dec. 2 the full Court voted 5-4 to enjoin any further action by the state, pending a Ninth Circuit decision on the merits of the lawsuit.
That made it sound like a majority on the Supreme Court thought this was an open-and-shut Fifteenth Amendment case; the death of Justice Antonin Scalia removed one member of that majority, but it's likely that any likely nominee of President-elect Trump will be of similar views.
Backers of Native Hawaiian sovereignty say they want Native Hawaiians to have the same sovereign status as federally recognized Indian tribes. But their circumstances are far different. There are very few people -- perhaps fewer than 1,000 -- of entirely Native Hawaiian descent, and most people of Native Hawaiian descent live intermixed with other Americans in family relations, neighborhood residence and work situations. From 2000 until his retirement in 2013, Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka championed a Native Hawaiian sovereignty bill, but it never reached the floor of the Senate.
There's an appalling irony here. When Hawaii was seeking statehood in the 1950s, many Southern Democrats opposed it because of the territory's multiracial population and its traditions of toleration and colorblindness. Now, many Hawaiian politicians are promoting racial separateness and divisiveness, and sponsoring legislation limiting voting rights to those of a particular racial ancestry who in addition must certify that they share certain beliefs and lifestyles.
Some will call this progress. The drafters of the Fifteenth Amendment certainly would not agree.
----------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo0117_edit_web
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper] for January 2017, published December 30, 2016
Reflect and Re-Imagine
Editorial by Derek Kauanoe, OHA Governance Manager, page 5
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs' investiture is always a good time for reflection on the passing year while also looking forward to the oncoming year. In this article, we invite Hawaiians to imagine and dream of a future where the long-time aspirations for Hawaiians are fulfilled. We share the original intent for creating OHA as described in the 1978 Constitutional Convention Hawaiian Affairs' Committee reports. We briefly review how that intent was impacted by various court decisions. We encourage Hawaiians to explore options available today for fulfilling the intended goals and to ask whether a Hawaiian government can better improve Hawaiian well-being, independent from the State of Hawai'i or OHA.
The 1978 Constitutional Convention's intent in establishing OHA
The 1978 Constitutional Convention delegates envisioned Hawaiians exercising self-determination through autonomy and self-governance. Convention documents make clear that delegates found it important to "provide for accountability, self-determination, methods for selfsufficiency through assets and a land base, and the unification of all ... Hawaiian people." The Hawaiian Affairs Committee explained how accountability could be achieved. It believed that a Hawaiian institution where Hawaiians exclusively and "direct[ly] participat[ed] in the selection process" of their own leaders to manage assets and develop policies would "enhance representative governance and decision-making accountability." The committee delegates recognized that exclusive participation was important because "people to whom assets belong should have control over them" and Hawaiians "would best protect their own rights." The committee delegates also reasoned that the needs of the Hawaiian community would be adequately responded to if Hawaiians directly chose their own leaders. The delegates also acknowledged that Hawaiians had "the right to determine the priorities which will effectuate the betterment of their condition and welfare by granting ... powers to 'formulate policy relating to affairs of ... Hawaiians.'"
Convention delegates also envisioned a Hawaiian institution that operated with a high degree of autonomy and self-governance. OHA was designed so that it "could have maximum control over its budget, assets, and personnel." One way to maximize control over its budget and assets was to keep Hawai- ian assets "separate from the rest of the state treasury." They also provided OHA with the "power to accept the transfer of reparations moneys and lands," demonstrating an expectation that OHA's assets would grow while maintaining its autonomy. The delegates
expressed their intent that OHA "be independent from the executive branch and all other branches of government." As a Hawaiian institution, OHA would be unlike other state entities and "be unique and special."
Impacting the Original Intent
The 2000 Rice v. Cayetano decision hampered the self-determination and self-governance goals that Hawaiians and the people of Hawai'i envisioned for improving Hawaiians' conditions. In summary, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the State of Hawai'i could not limit voting for OHA Trustees solely to those of Hawaiian ancestry.
The Rice decision changed the voting process for the selection of OHA leaders by allowing non-Hawaiians to vote. A subsequent court decision allowed non-Hawaiians to run as candidates for an OHA elected leadership position. As a result, Hawaiians do not have the exclusive control over their resources as was intended.
In Rice, the Supreme Court explained that the exclusive and direct participation of Hawaiians in choosing leaders to manage their assets was an "affair of the State of Hawai'i" rather than "the internal affair of a quasi-sovereign" where only members of such a sovereign exclusively elect their leaders.
Re-imagining a Better Hawaiian Future
After reflecting on the past, we encourage Hawaiians to dream of a future where Hawaiian families can afford to own homes in our ancestral land, Hawaiians have meaningful employment and can take care of their families, a greater number of Hawaiians pursue higher education, significantly fewer Hawaiians are plagued with diabetes and breast cancer, Hawaiians do not experience disparate treatment in the criminal justice system, and Hawaiians have direct and exclusive control and management over their assets and resources with an adequate amount of autonomy from the state.
After imagining this preferred future in our minds, let us consider how we might go about making this a reality. What important steps must Hawaiians take to organize our internal affairs, independent of OHA and the State of Hawai'i? While the Rice decision changed how the state government handles OHA elections, it did not take away the Hawaiian peoples' right to choose their own leaders, independent of OHA and the State of Hawai'i. Acknowledging the Supreme Court's own distinction between a state election and the elections of an indigenous quasi-sovereign, Hawaiians may want to consider whether an indigenous Hawaiian quasi-sovereign can accomplish what the Rice decision stopped OHA and the people of Hawai'i from doing for Hawaiians.
---------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo0117_edit_web
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper] for January 2017, published December 30, 2016
Unsigned editorial or news report, page 15
KELI'I AKINA
NEW OHA TRUSTEE-AT-LARGE
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs welcomes newly elected Trustee-at-Large Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., who has affirmed his deep commitment to the advancement of Native Hawaiians and achieving balance between Hawaiian and American cultures.
Trustee Akina says his extensive background as an expert in East-West philosophy and ethics has uniquely prepared him to serve in this honored OHA position, as well as his concurrent role as President and CEO of Grassroot Institute of Hawai'i, a public policy research institution and think tank dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, free markets and accountable government.
A Kamehameha alumnus, Akina points to his many years as a community leader, public policy adviser and university educator as indicative of his desire to champion Native Hawaiian affairs. To that end, Akina pledges to use his influence as an OHA Trustee-at-Large to safeguard the foundational Hawaiian entitlements, including Hawaiian home lands and the ceded land trusts, as well as uphold the legal status of Hawaiian assets for Hawaiian beneficiaries and fulfill the intentions of the ali'i trusts.
Akina is steadfast in his dedication to defend the Hawaiian people's right to advocate for independence or nationhood. Recognizing the sacred and challenging role of following in the footsteps of former Trustee-at-Large Haunani Apoliona, Akina promises to remain engaged, responsive and collaborative.
Following the motto "E Hana Kakou" (Let's work together), Akina says he is ready to carefully guide the assets of OHA with the aim of meeting the comprehensive needs of Hawaiians: "Looking ahead, I envision a more efficient, more transparent OHA that is well regarded by its beneficiaries and the greater public. I envision a Board of Trustees that has at its disposal the best information and resources to make sound financial and programming decisions. And finally, I envision doing everything I can to support the OHA team, which continues every day to improve healthcare, education, housing and economic opportunity for its Hawaiian beneficiaries."
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/31/editorial/letters/please-go-easy-on-fireworks-tonight/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, December 31, 2016, LETTER to editor
Obama can help Native Hawaiians
I'd like to thank President Barack Obama for his good service, and for acknowledging the rights of First Americans protecting our water.
Another injustice that he might right: The Kingdom of Hawaii was recognized in 1843 by the United Kingdom, France and a dozen other nations.
The American invasion of the Hawaiian Islands, and detention of its queen in 1893, was exacerbated in the referendum of 1959, when Hawaiians were not offered independence, but only the choice of becoming a U.S. state or remaining a territory.
This disgrace could be corrected by executive order to recognize by treaty the indigenous peoples of the Hawaiian Islands as a tribal nation within the United States.
This would be an enduring legacy of standing with the dispossessed.
Michael Creamer
Isla Mujeres, Mexico
================
================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
RETURN TO VIEW THE ENTIRE HISTORY FOR 2015 AND 2016
or
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2016 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
