** PRELIMINARY NOTE BY WEBSITE EDITOR KEN CONKLIN:
In February 2000 Bishop Museum secretly handed over 83 priceless ancient Hawaiian artifacts held by the museum for 95 years, to an ethnic Hawaiian organization (Hui Malama) claiming to represent all ethnic Hawaiians. Everyone understood that the clear intent of the Hui Malama organization has always been to re-bury the artifacts in a cave where they would never be seen again. The handover of the artifacts was portrayed to the media as a “loan,” but both the museum and Hui Malama knew it was intended to be a permanent handover that was unauthorized by other claimants and contrary to NAGPRA rules. Other ethnic Hawaiian individuals and groups strongly objected, and wanted to preserve the artifacts in a way to allow future generations to get knowledge and inspiration from them.
Three years later, in 2003, those other claimants were successful in complaining to the federal NAGPRA Review Committee and persuading that committee to hold hearings about the way the controversy was handled. The NAGPRA review Committee at its meeting in St. Paul, MN May 9-11 2003 decided that Bishop Museum was wrong to give the artifacts to Hui Malama and that Hui Malama should return the artifacts to the museum until all the claimants could have a chance to resolve the dispute. Hui Malama refused to abide by that decision, and instead filed an appeal claiming that procedural errors had been made in the St. Paul hearing. The NAGPRA Review Committee then decided to hold a meeting in Honolulu March 13-15, 2005 to deal with the Forbes Cave controversy and several other issues.
The Hui Malala organization has strong political connections with Senator Inouye’s staff. Bishop Museum depends on Senator Inouye to get federal grants. It was fairly clear when the artifacts were handed over by Bishop Museum to Hui Malama in 2000 that there was probably a conspiracy between the museum’s administrators and Hui Malama to circumvent proper procedure and give the artifacts to Hui Malama. Since that time, and with the resignation of the museum’s director and other personnel, the outlines of that conspiracy have become increasingly clear. The decision to hold a meeting of the NAGPRA Review Committee in Honolulu to hear the Hui Malama appeal of the St. Paul decision created an impression that Hui Malama had once again flexed its political muscles and somehow rigged the system to reverse the St. Paul decision.
Throughout this entire controversy, one individual and his organization have been steadfast in resisting the political power of Hui Malama, Senator Inouye, certain former executives of Bishop Museum, and some members of the NAGPRA Review Committee. La’akea Suganuma, President of the Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts, believes that all the claimants to artifacts should have a fair chance to present their cases and to resolve any disputes, and that Hui Malama should not be given dictatorial powers. Mr. Suganuma also believes it is important that ancient artifacts be preserved as cultural patrimony for future generations, and should not be buried deep in a dark cave to rot. It is necessary for future generations of native Hawaiians to be able to see and study such artifacts so they may know their heritage. It is also important for these artifacts to be available for non-natives to appreciate the ancient Hawaiian culture which is the core of what makes Hawai’i a special place and a great treasure for all the world.
This webpage consists of nine letters sent by Mr. Suganuma to the NAGPRA Review Committee in relation to the March 2005 meeting in Honolulu. The letters are provided in chronological order. Some of the contents are procedural and might seem of little interest, except that they clearly show how difficult it is to struggle with an unresponsive and powerful bureaucracy. But some of the contents are very substantive indeed (especially the last several letters). In reading these documents it becomes increasingly clear that procedural issues are an important part of the substance.
Fortunately, and surprisingly, the Review Committee meeting in Honolulu rejected the demands of Hui Malama and reaffirmed its decision from the St. Paul meeting that the artifacts should be returned to Bishop Museum and the process of hearing competing claims for possession of the artifacts should go forward. At the end of March, 2005 it appears that Hui Malama will once again refuse to comply, and the matter seems headed for a lawsuit. Meanwhile the artifacts remain buried in a cave where they are slowly rotting -- if indeed Hui Malama actually placed the artifacts in the cave at all. Concerns have been raised that the artifacts might show up for sale on the black market.
The NAGPRA Review Committee meeting of March 2005 came at a time when the entire political establishment in Hawai’i is pushing hard for Congress to pass the Akaka bill. An editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin of March 17 seized the opportunity to claim that the creation of a Native Hawaiian governing council (tribal council) would allow disputes over artifacts and human remains to be resolved more easily (see news events webpage offered below). But in fact the opposite might be true. First, the tribal council would be dominated by the same sort of politically-connected people who were conspirators in Bishop Museum, Hui Malama, and Senator Inouye’s office. Second, the tribal council would be simply a new layer of bureaucracy presenting hurdles to be overcome in resolving disputes; and any decision by the council could still be appealed to the NAGPRA Review Committee and ultimately be taken to court in a lawsuit. But of course those favoring the Akaka bill will take every opportunity, including the Kawaihae artifacts controversy, to enlist support for the bill by claiming that federally recognized “nationhood” will solve all problems. Politicians are using every trick in the book to pass the Akaka bill, including using the bones of the ancestors as pawns in their chess game.
News events related to NAGPRA in Hawai’i in 2005, including the meeting of the Review Committee, can be tracked at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagprahawaii2005.html
THREE PDF FILES CONTAINING EXHIBITS CITED IN SOME OF THESE LETTERS CAN BE DOWNLOADED. EACH FILE IS ABOUT 5 MB AND COULD REQUIRE AS LONG AS 30 MINUTES PER FILE FOR DOWNLOAD THROUGH DIALUP INTERNET.
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles2/LaakeaMarch2005ExhibitsPt1.pdf
and
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles2/LaakeaMarch2005ExhibitsPt2.pdf
and
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/LaakeaMarch2005ExhibitsPt3.pdf
Website editor Ken Conklin expresses profound gratitude to La’akea Suganuma for his efforts to preserve Hawai’i’s cultural heritage on behalf of all Hawaiians both native and non-native; and for allowing these important documents to be posted on this website.
====================
====================
Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts
835 Ahuwale Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821
Phone (808)377-5611
Fax (808)377-5611
August 27, 2004
Tim McKeown, Designated Federal Officer
National Park Service
National NAGPRA Program Office
1849 C Street NW, NC350
Washington, D.C. 20240
Re: Request to reconsider the findings and recommendations of the NAGPRA Review Committee in the Kawaihae Caves Complex non-repatriation dispute held on May 9-10, 2003 in St. Paul, MN.
Dear Sir:
This is to address the above referenced request made by Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawaii Nei and the Native Hawaiian Advisory Council dba Ke Kia’i, “due to procedural error.” They allege that the “review committee failed to notify all necessary parties to this dispute and proceeded to issue a finding without consideration of all necessary facts.” They further requested “that the review committee include reconsideration of this issue on the agenda of a future meeting held in Hawai’i.
Briefly, the facts are:
* There were no procedural errors. The involved parties and the Review Committee strictly adhered to the guidelines set forth in the Dispute Resolution Procedures of the Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Committee in effect at the time.
* All the necessary facts, and more, were presented to the Review Committee. There are no other facts.
* All parties were properly notified per procedure. After the completion of the review, the Review Committee issued its findings and recommendations.
* Changes to the Dispute Resolution Procedure regarding expanding the notification requirements were made after the Review Committee had acted and its review was completed.
* There is no provision for changes to the Dispute Resolution Procedure to be retroactively effective.
* There are no provisions for reconsideration in the Dispute Resolution Procedure except under IV.G., which allows for the re-submission of the dispute if the parties fail to reach resolution following notification of the Review Committee’s finding and recommendations and only if there is “substantial new information to offer for the Review Committee’s consideration.” This would not apply, as the parties were able to reach resolution during the review.
* There are no other provisions and/or defined grounds for reconsideration.
* Every claimant was well aware of the intent of the Review Committee to hear this dispute and had every opportunity to participate.
* The Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts represented the position of the MAJORITY of the recognized claimants in this matter.
* The next procedural step of the dispute resolution process, submission to U.S. District Court is available to anyone dissatisfied with the Review Committee’s actions.
Hui Malama, the organization now requesting reconsideration, refused to comply with the recommendations of the Review Committee, and publicly stated, “because the NAGPRA review committee serves as an advisory board, the organization (Hui Malama) is not bound by its findings.” (article attached)
DISPUTE HISTORY
* On February 26, 2000 the Bishop Museum “loaned” the Kawaihae Caves collection to Hui Malama without permission or agreement of the other three claimants who were recognized at the time.
* Hui Malama claimed that it had returned the human remains, which they had previously taken possession of, and the borrowed 83 items to the caves from which they originated and sealed the entrance. Hui Malama has consistently refused to honor loan recall demands.
* By November of 2000, there were thirteen recognized claimants, the majority of which demanded that the museum recover the “loaned” items, only.
* In December of 2000, the museum announced its decision to designate all thirteen claimants as most appropriate
* The museum suspended their so-called recover effort, at the request of the claimants, to give them an opportunity to meet and attempt to find resolution. This was done over the next nine months. Failing this, the museum was so informed in August of 2001 and asked to resume the recovery, which their NAGPRA representative said they would.
* A few days later, the museum issued a letter to all claimants, stating that repatriation had taken place in April of 2001 and that the museum no longer had any connection to or responsibility in this matter.
* After numerous futile attempts to further discussion with the museum, the RHATA, on behalf of the majority group of claimants, requested to be heard by the NAGPRA Review Committee, alleging that proper repatriation had not taken place since, along with other reasons, the museum had neither possession of nor control of the subject items at the time it claimed repatriation had been effected. This was allowed in the May 2003 meeting in St. Paul, MN, wherein the museum, after reviewing the charges, admitted that they had erred and that proper repatriation had not taken place.
The NAGPRA Review Committee found that the repatriation process was flawed and incomplete; the place and manner of return had not been determined per regulations, and the museum was responsible for completing the repatriation process. The committee recommended that the museum renew the consultation process, recall the loan of the 83 items to Hui Malama, and that all thirteen claimants be treated in a respectful and equitable manner.
SUMMARY
There was no procedural error committed by the involved parties or the Review Committee. All requirements of the Dispute Resolution Procedure, in effect at the time, were fulfilled. The amendments regarding notification of all claimants was made after the issuance of the Review Committee’s finding and recommendations in this dispute and is not retroactively effective. It is ludicrous to allege violation of a requirement that was not in existence at the time the alleged violation took place. All of the thirteen claimants were aware of the Review Committee’s decision to review this dispute, along with the date and location of the meeting, and had every opportunity to participate. There are no published guidelines and/or grounds for reconsideration that are applicable, and there are no facts that were not previously submitted.
Furthermore, lacking any detailed rules, requirements or grounds governing the submission of requests for reconsideration, how can a proper decision be made? What remedial options are available to the Review Committee, especially when there are no additional facts to consider? Does the committee have the authority, in fact, to reverse, rescind, amend or otherwise tamper with the findings and recommendations of a previous committee? Would the entire dispute be heard again, further adding to the backlog of reviews already pending attention by the Review Committee?
For all of the stated reasons and unanswerable questions, we hereby ask that the request for reconsideration in this matter be denied and that the findings and recommendations of the duly authorized NAGPRA Review Committee stand, as previously issued. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Me Ke Aloha,
L. La’akea Suganuma
Authorized Representative
Attachments
================
Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts
835 Ahuwale Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821
Phone (808)377-5611
Fax (808)377-5611
September 9, 2004
Tim McKeown, Designated Federal Officer
National Park Service
National NAGPRA Program Office
1849 C Street NW, NC350
Washington, D.C. 20240
Re: Request to reconsider the findings and recommendations of the NAGPRA Review Committee in the Kawaihae Caves Complex non-repatriation dispute held on May 9–10, 2003 in St. Paul, MN.
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that I will be attending the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting at the Sheraton Four Points in Washington, D.C. on September 17-18, 2004 to address the above referenced matter. In preparation for said meeting, the academy has procedural questions that we would like answered as soon as possible and no later than the beginning of the hearing of this matter in accordance with the Review Committee’s agenda. In addition, we have requests, as outlined below.
Our questions are:
* Has any decision of the NAGPRA Review Committee ever been reconsidered?
* If so, where, specifically, would the rules concerning reconsideration be found?
* By what authority can a Review Committee act to reconsider any decision made by another duly authorized Review Committee?
* In accordance with the current Dispute Procedures of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, which became effective AFTER the issuance of the findings and recommendations of the Review Committee meeting in St. Paul, why weren’t all parties, including all of the claimants, the majority of which insist that the St. Paul decision be upheld, notified of this scheduled Washington, D.C. meeting, including all relevant correspondence?
What is the lawful administrative due process to be followed if there is disagreement with the findings and recommendations of the Review Committee?
Our requests are:
In accordance with Section V. Conflict of Interest of the Dispute Procedures, we request that the interim chair, Rosita Worl, recuse herself from consideration of this matter as being unquestionably biased. Ms. Worl was the only dissenting member of the St. Paul Review Committee and the author of the minority report attached to the decision.
We request that any other Review Committee member, who has an established relationship with any of the involved parties, preventing unbiased participation, recuse themselves from this proceeding.
We further request that all parties attending the D.C. meeting be treated fairly and that sufficient and equitable time be allotted to all.
Thank you for your attention to these important matters. Please contact me if you have any questions. We look forward to your timely response.
Aloha,
L. La’akea Suganuma
Authorized Representative
=================
Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts
835 Ahuwale Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821
Phone (808)377-5611
Fax (808)377-5611
September 10, 2004
Tim McKeown, Designated Federal Officer
National Park Service
National NAGPRA Program Office
1849 C Street NW, NC350
Washington, D.C. 20240
Re: Request to reconsider the findings and recommendations of the NAGPRA Review Committee in the Kawaihae Caves Complex non-repatriation dispute held on May 9–10, 2003 in St. Paul, MN.
Dear Sir:
In addition to my previous correspondence, dated August 27, 2004 and September 9, 2004, this shall serve to raise additional questions that we request be answered as soon as possible, and no later than the beginning of the hearing of the above referenced matter.
The request made by Ho’oipo Pa of Ke Kia’i and Kunani Nihipali of Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai’i Nei, dated July 12, 2004, states: “2) We ask that the review committee reconsider the findings related to the Bishop Museum’s repatriation of cultural items from the cave at Kawaihae due to procedural error.” This was also stated verbally during the NAGPRA teleconference call of July 19, 2004. The draft agenda of the forthcoming Review Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. refers to this as a “Request to rescind the review committee’s finding regarding Kawaihae.” We realize that this is a draft agenda but our concern certainly warrants immediate clarification.
The July 12, 2004 request further states: “We request that the review committee include reconsideration of this issue on the agenda of a future meeting held in Hawaii.”
Our questions are:
* Is the committee addressing reconsideration or rescinding of the previous committee’s findings?
* Again, by what authority is the committee considering acting on this matter?
* Has the request been amended from reconsideration to rescinding of the findings?
* Has the request for this to be heard at “a future meeting held in Hawaii” been amended?
Why haven’t all parties, as stated in the current Dispute Procedures, been officially notified of these matters?
Thanking you in advance, we look forward to your timely response.
Aloha,
L. La’akea Suganuma
Authorized Representative
================
Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts
835 Ahuwale Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821
Phone (808)377-5611
Fax (808)377-5611
September 13, 2004
Tim McKeown, Designated Federal Officer
National Park Service
National NAGPRA Program Office
1849 C Street NW, NC350
Washington, D.C. 20240
Re: Request to reconsider the findings and recommendations of the NAGPRA Review Committee in the Kawaihae Caves Complex non-repatriation dispute held on May 9-10, 2003 in St. Paul, MN.
Dear Sir:
In addition to my previous correspondences of August 27, 2004, September 9, 2004 and September 10, 2004, this is to raise additional questions that we request be answered as soon as possible and no later than the beginning of the hearing of the above referenced matter. We also hereby request that these questions and copies of all previous correspondences be forwarded by you to the legal counsel at the Office of the Solicitor who represents the NAGPRA Review Committee or the National NAGPRA Program. It is our understanding that the appropriate person is Carla Mattix, but will leave this in the good hands of your office to ensure that proper distribution is made in timely fashion.
Furthermore, we believe that the answers to these questions will expedite the resolution of this matter to its lawful and proper conclusion and therefore, request that these questions be answered before any discussion of this matter ensues.
Our questions are:
* What were the notification requirements in effect at the time of the St. Paul Review Committee meeting?
Were these requirements met?
Thank you for your kind attention and, as always, please contact me if you have any questions.
Aloha,
L. La’akea Suganuma
Authorized Representative
=================
Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts
835 Ahuwale Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821
Phone (808)377-5611
Fax (808)377-5611
Comments to the NAGPRA Review Committee – Nov. 2, 2004
By La’akea Suganuma. President
I am addressing this committee, once again, with continually fading optimism and hope that someone will give some attention to what I am saying. Also, as this matter takes its predictable course, I am further establishing that any future claim by any member of this committee that he or she was unaware of our concerns and positions, will be invalidated.
I. REHEARING OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ROYAL HAWAIIAN ACADEMY OF TRADITIONAL ARTS AND THE BISHOP MUSEUM: The committee made this decision based upon Hui Malama’s charge of an alleged procedural error made by the committee in failing to notify all necessary parties to this dispute and thereby issuing a finding without consideration of all necessary facts. The committee, in its wisdom, determined that this was true. As a matter of principle, as well as organizational and personal integrity, and because my previous requests have gone unheeded, I must hereby insist that this committee specify the exact requirement of its procedures that was not properly followed.
In August 2001, I requested, from Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, information concerning the proper procedure for protesting the Bishop Museum’s position regarding the Kawaihae Caves Complex matter. I received a response, along with a number of documents, from Robert Stearns, Manager, National NAGPRA Program (attached Exhibit “A”) including the Dispute Resolution Procedures Of The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (attached Exhibit “B”). These procedures were followed carefully and meticulously. During the hearing of this dispute at the St. Paul meeting, then committee member and author of the minority report, Rosita Worl, claimed that repatriation had taken place, the exact position held by Hui Malama. She further alleged that all of the claimants should have been notified, resulting in the dispute procedures being amended to include such a provision, after the hearing of this dispute was completed and the findings and recommendations issued (attached Exhibit “C”). The minutes of the St. Paul meeting reflect that:
“Ms. Worl asked if the parties to the dispute were present. Mr. O’Shea stated that the parties were the Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts, Honolulu, HI, and the Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hi, and both were present at the meeting. Ms. Worl asked if all Native Hawaiian organizations named in the published Federal Register notices under discussion in the dispute (Federal Register 2000, volume 65, number 66;FR Doc. 00-8350 and FR Doc. 00-8351), were formally notified. Mr. Robbins stated that notice was given through publication of the meeting in the Federal Register. Ms. Worl recommended notifying all individuals or groups who may be involved in a dispute, even if they are not direct parties.
All of the claimants were well aware of this dispute being on the St. Paul agenda, via the media and federal register, and had more than ample time and opportunity to participate and provide input.
It has become incredulously obvious to the majority group of claimants that Hui Malama’s unhappiness with the decision has prompted it, with the cooperation of certain members of the committee, to fabricate a reason for this entire misleading exercise. Charged with facilitating the resolution of disputes, under NAGPRA, this Review Committee, under the leadership of its current chair, has chosen to do just the opposite. We do recognize, however, that there are committee members who are making a sincere effort to discharge their duties honestly and with integrity, but have, unfortunately, been misled. Prior to the Washington, D.C. meeting, I sent letters, dated August 27, 2004 (attached Exhibit “D”), September 9, 2004 (attached Exhibit “E”), September 10, 2004 (attached Exhibit “F”) and September 13, 2004 (attached Exhibit “G”), addressing the truths of this matter, all of which were ignored.
There was no error, according to the dispute procedure received from Mr. Stearns. The fact is that the thirteen claimants are divided into two groups with opposing positions
The RHATA represents the majority argument that proper and legal repatriation never took place, as the museum had neither possession nor control at the time they allege that repatriation had been completed. The so-called “loan” to Hui Malama took physical possession away from the museum and at the point that Hui Malama refused to return the objects, the museum, obviously, had no physical control over them. A complaint filed by OHA, shortly after the “loan” was made prompted an inquiry by the National Park Service. Based upon Duckworth’s response, Katherine Stevenson wrote, “I strongly urge you to honor your commitment to recover immediately and take back into direct care the Kawaihae Cave Complex human remains and funerary objects. Please notify me when the museum has completed recovery and has direct physical possession and control of the human remains and associated objects, and please describe for me the museum’s plan regarding the Kawaihae Cave Complex NAGPRA claims.” (Exhibits “H”,”I”,”J”,”K”,”L”) Furthermore, there was no consultation with the claimants to determine the place and manner of said repatriation.
The minority group of claimants, led by Hui Malama, claims that repatriation had been completed. The museum’s NAGPRA representative, G. Kaulukukui, as well as Director Duckworth and others, stated time and again, to the claimants, the Hawaiian people, the community-at-large, and the National Park Service, that the museum bore full responsibility for the recovery of the loaned objects. The Dispute Binder is replete with the museum’s acceptance of responsibility for the “loan” and its promises to recover the objects from the cave, beginning as early as April 19, 2000 (attached Exhibit “M”). I submitted sixty (60) articles concerning this matter to the St. Paul Review Committee, a few of which I’ve included (Exhibits “N”,”O”,”P”,”Q”)
Many of us wondered why the museum never faulted or took action against Hui Malama, who refused to abide by the loan agreement and return the subject eighty-three (83) objects. It is clearly evident that the museum never intended to recover the items, never intended to get them back from Hui Malama, and was not going to pursue Hui Malama legally.
-On May 24, 2001, I met with Kaulukukui and Donald Duckworth to discuss the progress of my meetings with the various claimants in attempting to determine if an agreement on final disposition was possible. I was informed that, whatever was decided, a joint press release would be issued by the museum’s public relations firm, with my prior approval.
- On August 2, 2001, I met with Kaulukukui, who indicated that the museum would proceed with recovering the objects and I said that the claimants would continue to discuss the matter.
- On August 4, 2001, I faxed some documents to Kaulukukui, with a cover letter which stated, “We understand the museum’s interest in moving forth to conclude its obligatory responsibility (recovery) established prior to the recognition of our claimants’ group and will continue our efforts as this matter progresses.”
- On August 7, 2001, I received a letter which had been mailed to the claimants, stating that repatriation had been completed in April and that the museum had no further responsibility in the matter.
- Up until this point, I believed Kaulukukui to be a man of honor and integrity. He, however, proved me wrong. He treated the notice of repatriation as a necessary formality that would not affect the museum’s plans to recover the objects, but obviously had never intended to keep his word.
- Time has proven that there was collusion between Kaulukukui and Hui Malama and that Kaulukukui, with malice and aforethought, purposely deceived the claimants. The record of this matter, as submitted by the RHATA, is complete and clearly presents the opposing positions, with the facts speaking for themselves.
- The museum’s claim that repatriation was completed was a deceitful, cheap trick, designed to relieve itself of the obligation of the promised recovery and insuring Hui Malama’s continual sole possession and control of the objects. If, indeed, repatriation had been completed in April, why did the museum wait until August to spring this on everyone?
* No Repatriation: Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts, Van Horn Diamond ‘Ohana, ‘Ohana Keohokalole, Na Papa Kanaka O Pu’ukohola Heiau, Kekumano ‘Ohana, Hawaii Island Burial Council, Hawaiian Genealogy Society.
* Repatriation completed: Hui Malama, Nation of Hawaii, Pu’uhonua O Waimanalo, Native Hawaiian Advisory Council, DHHL.
No position: Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
II. LOCATION OF THE MARCH 2005 REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TO BE HELD IN HAWAI’I: At the Washington, D.C. meeting, the Review Committee decided to hold the St. Paul decision in abeyance, reconsider the dispute “at a location in Hawai*i to provide ample opportunity for all interested parties to come and present their viewpoints fully” and contact the Office of the Inspector General, Dept. of the Interior, to inquire about an alleged investigation, which to our knowledge was a complete fabrication. Although the official notification has not been posted, rumor has it that the committee chair intends to have a brief, afternoon meeting in Honolulu on Sunday, March 13, 2005, followed by two full days in Kona on Hawai’i Island. This would not serve the intended interests of the committee, nor would this be in the best interest of the claimants, as (1) Twelve of the thirteen claimants are located in Honolulu, (2) The Honolulu based claimants would have to bear unnecessary expenses for time lost from work, travel to Kona and back to Honolulu, ground transportation, lodging and meals, (3) This may preclude some from appearing before the committee because they either cannot, or choose not to, bear the otherwise unnecessary expense and (4) This would add much to the committee’s expense of having their meeting in Hawai’i. This meeting should and must be held in Honolulu.
III. THE COMMITTEE IS ENCOURAGED TO COME TO HAWAI*I: Notwithstanding my aforementioned comments, the RHATA and majority group of claimants encourage the committee to come to Hawai*i in March 2005. The testimony gathered will not only reinforce the St. Paul decision, but will enlighten the committee in all matters relevant to the Kawaihae Caves Complex dispute.
SUMMARY
The Review Committee’s findings and recommendations at the St. Paul meeting were proper and should stand. The current committee’s decision to “reconsider” their decision has no basis, as there was clearly no procedural error made and all necessary facts were presented. This entire matter has been orchestrated by the chair and other members of this committee to circumvent the law to the benefit of one claimant, thereby denying the rights of the majority. This is indeed a travesty, an insult to the members of the St. Paul committee, intentionally damaging to the majority of the claimants, most of which are ancestrally connected to the area, and an outrage perpetrated upon the Hawaiian people and our ancestors.
The actions of this committee totally destroy the credibility of the Review Committee and its dispute procedures. Rest assured that this injustice establishes a permanent blemish that will be long remembered.
This behavior has been so blatantly outrageous, that the RHATA would not be surprised, whatsoever, if the current committee never hears this case at all. We suspect that this shameful sham is designed to uphold the museum’s former administration’s wrongful and illegal position that repatriation had been completed, regardless of the position of the current administration. The chair, a long standing friend and supporter of Hui Malama, has already stated on the record that repatriation had taken place. Agreement from the DFO could result in a denial that any dispute exists and therefore, nothing will appear before the committee. This speculation is consistent with the actions of the chair, thus far, including having the committee meet far away from the claimants and other people of Hawai’i who desire to provide testimony. We are offended, but more importantly, so are our ancestors.
===============
Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts
835 Ahuwale Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821
Phone (808)377-5611
Fax (808)377-5611
February 22, 2005
C. Timothy McKeown, Designated Federal Officer
National Park Service
National NAGPRA Program Office
1849 C Street NW, NC 350
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Sir:
This is in response to your letter of December 2, 2004, requesting a copy of my December 9, 2000 letter to the Bishop Museum, requesting a temporary suspension of actual recovery. You are incorrect, in that there was never any attempt by the museum “to recall a loan of the remains of 18 individuals and 169 funerary objects from Kawaihae, HI.” If you had actually looked at the record, you would know that there are eighty-three (83) objects, only, in the loan that was recalled.
Furthermore, I have no idea where you got the notion that “on February 26, 2000, the Bishop Museum initiated a one-year loan of the cultural items to Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawaii Nei.;” The record clearly shows that it was Hui Malama that had been aggressively pursuing possession of the objects and it was Hui Malama that initiated the loan, without the consent of the other three claimants who were recognized at the time.
You further state that, “On April 12, 2001, the Bishop Museum wrote a letter transferring control of the cultural items to the 13 Native Hawaiian organizations and agreeing to assist in recovery of the cultural items if unanimous agreement of the 13 owners is received by April 30, 2001.” There was no such statement made in that, or any other, correspondence from the museum. It did, however, say that, “The Museum will consult with the group regarding the place and manner of repatriation as specified in §10.10(d) of NAGPRA,” which never occurred!
The letter further stated, “The group must notify the Museum if repatriation and final disposition of the human remains and funerary objects require recovery from their present location.” I did inform them of the recovery requirement in my letter of August 4, 2001 which states, in part, “We understand the museum’s interest in moving forth to conclude its obligatory responsibility established prior to the recognition of our claimants’ group and will continue our efforts as this matter progresses.”
In addition, the museum’s letter goes on to say, “The request to recover the human remains and funerary objects must be in writing from the group’s spokesperson and include the signatures of all of the group representatives who are making the request.” I discussed this with the museum’s representative, Guy Kaulukukui, and told him that this would be divisive and detrimental to my efforts to bring the parties together, a position I held throughout. Kaulukukui indicated that he understood my concerns and never pushed the issue. Later on, Kaulukukui requested a letter with my signature and just the names of the organization without the representatives’ signatures. I explained that the effect would be the same, divisive, and was not a good thing to do. At no time did he ever mention that any such request must be unanimous, a position which the museum conveniently took much later on, knowing full well that unanimity was impossible. In fact, Kaulukukui and I had almost daily conversations throughout, including the period from April 12, 2001 through August 2, 2001 and he never mentioned that repatriation had been completed and that unanimous agreement was required for recovery! This was clearly an exercise in deceit and deception on the part of Kaulukukui, the museum’s director, Duckworth, and key members of the museum’s board.
It appears that your “understanding of the facts” is as flawed as the Bishop Museum’s alleged repatriation. Nevertheless, the requested letter is attached. Be very clear that this letter in no way released the museum from its self-imposed obligation and responsibility to recover the objects and not an “offer to recover the cultural items,” as stated in your letter.
Based on the above, I hope that we are referring to the same dispute. Please contact me if you have any questions. In truth and on behalf of the ancestors, I am…..
L. La’akea Suganuma
President
Cc: Kawaihae claimants
Na ‘Olohe
=================
Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts
835 Ahuwale Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821
Phone (808)377-5611
Fax (808)377-5611
February 25, 2005
C. Timothy McKeown, Designated Federal Officer
National Park Service
National NAGPRA Program Office
1849 C Street NW, NC 350
Washington, D.C. 20240
and
Rosita Worl, Chairperson
NAGPRA Review Committee
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Re: Kawaihae Caves Complex aka Forbes Cave dispute re-hearing.
Dear Sir and Madam:
On behalf of the majority group of claimants, most of whom have ancestral ties to the Kawaihae area, I hereby demand that the alleged procedural error, being used to justify the holding in abeyance of the St. Paul decision and the re-hearing of the dispute, be specifically identified. The record reflects that my previous attempts to get answers relevant to this matter have been totally ignored.
The NAGPRA Review Committee, among other responsibilities, is charged with helping to resolve repatriation disputes, and yet this particular committee has spent a tremendous amount of time, during its September 2004 meeting in Washington, D.C. and its November 2004 teleconference, in political maneuvering to fabricate a reason to re-hear, in March 2005, a dispute that had already, lawfully and properly, been heard in May 2003, its findings and recommendations published in the Federal Register. All this, while there remains a backlog of disputes waiting to be attended to. It appears that this committee’s leadership is more inclined to create, rather than resolve, repatriation disputes. The truth is that whether or not every claimant, or the entire population of Hawaii, were in attendance would not have altered the facts offered in evidence in any way, nor affect the primary issue as to whether or not proper repatriation had taken place. Please be advised that we are holding responsible and liable, as individuals, those who by their actions and intentional malice, cause any damages to be incurred by the Hawaiian people, as well as the Kawaihae Caves objects.
Again, we demand to be informed as to which provision(s) of the procedure, in effect at the time of the St. Paul hearing, was violated. There is more than ample time, sixteen (16) days, to respond prior to the Review Committee meeting in Honolulu. In truth and on behalf of the ancestors, I am
L. La’akea Suganuma
President
Cc: Kawaihae claimants group
Na ‘Olohe
Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior
Carla Mattix, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept. of the Interior
=============
Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts
835 Ahuwale Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821
Phone (808)377-5611
Fax (808)377-5611
February 25, 2005
C. Timothy McKeown, Designated Federal Officer
National Park Service
National NAGPRA Program Office
1849 C Street, NW, NC 350
Washington, D.C. 20240
Re: Kawaihae Caves Complex Re-hearing
Dear Sir:
In anticipation of and preparation for the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting scheduled for March 13–15, 2005 in Honolulu, Hawaii, I am requesting answers to the following:
1. When will you be sending my copy of the dispute binder to me? I’m assuming that there is much more material now than in the St. Paul binder and that the disputing parties will be provided with a copy of whatever the committee has already received from you, as well as any additions that might be submitted.
2. When will the final agenda be posted so that I can approximate the day and time for the above referenced dispute to be heard?
3. What is the procedure that will be followed?
4. Does the complaining party make the initial presentation to the committee, following the format that was used in St. Paul?
5. When do we, the parties to the dispute, receive a list of all who plan to testify.
6. When do we receive copies of all statements that have been and/or may be submitted during the course of the dispute hearing?
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions
L. La’akea Suganuma
President
cc: Kawaihae Claimants’ Group
Na ‘Olohe
Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior
Carla Mattix, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept. of the Interior
=================
Statement of
L. LA’AKEA SUGANUMA
President
Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts
Regarding the rehearing of a dispute between RHATA and Bishop Museum – Kawaihae Caves Complex
29th meeting of the NAGPRA Review Committee
Monday, March 14, 2005
Keoni Auditorium, East-West Center
Honolulu, Hawaii
I am not going to take this time to present the Academy’s side of this dispute, because the record speaks for itself. I will, however, point out a few things that those committee members, who are here with serious intent to carry out their duties, might think about.
Let’s go back a few years, approaching the year 2000. After roughly five
frustrating years of trying to get their hands on, what was commonly referred to as, the Forbes Collection, Hui Malama is faced with a serious dilemma. It can’t get the other three recognized claimants to agree to have everything repatriated to them. And, even worse, more potential claimants are on the horizon, making their chances grow ever slimmer.
So, with the cooperation of the Bishop Museum administration, Hui Malama “borrows” the Kawaihae Cave items. This is done very quietly, on a Saturday, when there is virtually no chance of being discovered. There are other things that lead up to this and it’s all in the record and makes for interesting reading.
The Bishop Museum employee, Betty Tatar, who signed the so-called loan agreement, had no authority to do so and violated the museum’s long standing loan procedure. This one-way loan is discovered by the media and all hell breaks loose. The museum’s then director, Donald Duckworth, takes no disciplinary action against Tatar, who handed over 83 precious pieces of our culture to Hui Malama., knowing full well that there was no agreement amongst the claimants to do so. But, the twenty-one employees who signed a petition protesting the loan, were all reprimanded, and one even suspended.
A number of claimants are eventually recognized and the majority is in favor of recalling the loan and recovering the items, allegedly put back in the cave and sealed.
When Hui Malama refuses to return the items, the museum tells the claimants that it assumes full responsibility for the recovery.
It seems odd, to a number of claimants, that the museum doesn’t pursue some form of legal action against Hui Malama, who “borrowed” millions of dollars worth of unique artifacts and then refuses to return them. Perhaps part of the reason is that it would be quite difficult to pursue any theft charges when the museum was a willing co-conspirator and would be implicated as such should it go any further. A plan had been devised wherein the museum would assume full responsibility, but really intends to claim completed repatriation and walk away, with nobody being the wiser. They knew there would be protests, but eventually, it would all go away.
Sure enough, there are protests and angry claimants but it soon quiets down, as they suspected it would. This was a brilliant plan, they thought, but
unfortunately for them, the Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts did not go away, and eventually, the Academy’s request for review is accepted by the NAGPRA Review Committee and scheduled to be heard in May 2003 in St. Paul.
Just before this occurs, the museum’s new director, Bill Brown, who inherited this problem when Duckworth retired, receives and reviews the dispute binder.
Brown, honestly and with clear conscience, concludes that repatriation did not properly take place. He says so in St. Paul. Members of the committee state that they are pleased with the museum’s position, as they were prepared to take the museum to task and rule in favor of the Academy anyway. Everyone was in agreement, except Rosita Worl, who seemed to be taking directions from another source.
Hui Malama is not pleased and, although they publicly say that the committee is only advisory and doesn’t affect them, they know that the decision carries some weight should the dispute end up in court.
Hui Malama, in concert with others, devises another brilliant plan, in which friends of theirs are seated on the committee and the chairmanship is secured. They then fabricate a reason to have the St. Paul decision rescinded at the September meeting in Washington, D.C. but, failing that, held in abeyance until reheard. The Academy sends letters to the DFO, dated September 9th, 10th and 12th, via e-mail, air mail, fax and local nps office, but they never reach the committee until too late for them to review.
Hui Malama claims a procedural error occurred in St. Paul because the regulations allegedly require the presence and participation of all interested
parties. They also say that a completed repatriation cannot be reopened.
The chair reads a statement from missing member, Metcalf, which said, “We were ill-advised by previous NAGPRA staff to hear another party, as all parties should have been notified before, and Bishop miscalculated its good-faith efforts in this case.” The chair recuses herself during the discussion but echoes Hui Malama’s sentiments, as she did in St. Paul. Mr. Monroe does his part by supporting a rehearing (quoting from the minutes), “due to the substantive new information presented on this critical dispute and the need to address some fundamental misunderstandings.”
The fact is, however, that there was no procedural error in St. Paul and the Academy asks, time and again, for the ever elusive error to be identified, to no avail.
The review committee holds a teleconference in November 2003, during which, interestingly enough, only Hui Malama, former Bishop Museum director,
Duckworth and former museum NAGPRA representative, Kaulukukui, who were involved in the great deceit, the so called repatriation, are allowed to speak.
The chair announces the next meeting will be held in Hawaii to rehear the
Kawaihae matter. The Academy, on November 26th, sends comments to the
review committee via the DFO, per his invitation to do so and his commitment
to distribute all comments to the committee. It takes three months to reach the committee members. By the way, in those November comments that only
recently got to the committee members, I predicted that the so-called rehearing was really a ploy to eliminate the St. Paul decision. We’ll see what happens.
Meanwhile, the plan is working well because not only can Hui Malama take care
of the St. Paul decision, they can also tackle another dilemma that they are
faced with.
The Akaka Bill, which provides for self governance and gives Native Hawaiians the same status as Native Americans, is moving rapidly through Congress. Once that happens, repatriated objects will go to the Hawaiian governing body and Hui Malama will no longer be able to have precious artifacts repatriated, or rather ownership legally transferred, to them. They must hurriedly get their hands on everything they can before this bill is passed and so they also file a number of premature disputes, which are accepted and here we are. The rest of the story, or rather, this chapter, will be written on Tuesday, so stay tuned.
Meanwhile, the Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts’ position is that:
1. The rehearing of the dispute between the Academy and Bishop Museum
regarding the Kawaihae Caves Complex is predicated upon deceptive and false claims of a procedural error.
2. In addition, the Academy recommends and calls for a moratorium on all
NAGPRA activity in Hawaii until such time as self governance is effected and
repatriations are done in the same manner as with Native Americans and Native Alaskans.
One final word. I would caution this committee not to become embroiled in
discussing any cultural matters, for that is an area that this committee knows little or nothing about and, I might add, this also seems to apply to Hui Malama.
The question is, “Did proper and legal repatriation take place? The Academy
says, “No!.” The Van Horn Diamond ‘Ohana, the Kekumano ‘Ohana, the
Keohokalole ‘Ohana, Na Papa Kanaka O Pu’ukohola Heiau, the Hawaii Island
Burial Council and the Hawaiian Genealogy Society all say, “No!” The NAGPRA
Review Committee in St. Paul said, “No!” The Hawaiian Royal Societies
say,”No!.” Many others in our community, both Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians
say,“No!” What does this committee say? And remember that, no matter what, we are all accountable for our actions.
Thank you for your attention.
===============================
===============================
OR
The Forbes cave controversy up until the NAGPRA Review Committee hearing in St. Paul, Minnesota, May 9-11, 2003 was originally described and documented at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagpraforbes.html
The conflict among Bishop Museum, Hui Malama, and several competing groups of claimants became so complex and contentious that the controversy was the primary focus of the semiannual national meeting of the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota May 9-11, 2003. A webpage was created to cover that meeting and followup events related to it. But the Forbes Cave controversy became increasingly complex and contentious, leading to public awareness of other related issues. By the end of 2004, the webpage focusing on the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting and its aftermath had become exceedingly large, at more than 250 pages with an index of 22 topics at the top. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagpraforbesafterreview.html
OR
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
