Support and Participate in a Free, Fair, and Impartial Political Process
..
Whereas, the fear of losing grants and entitlements for not supporting government programs or legislation, is the biggest threat and obstacle facing the native Hawaiian people (Kanaka Maoli) to freely determine the form of government of their choosing.
Whereas, the native Hawaiian people recognize that, a Hawaiian Constitutional Convention is a political process that ensures their political, economic, social and educational advancement, their just treatment and protection against abuses.
Whereas, the native Hawaiian people, will need a substantial period of time in which they can engage freely, and without fear of threat or intimidation, in the processes of educating themselves. They need the freedom to publicly debate amongst themselves, the various options of self governance available to them. It is imperative that they also have meaningful access to the mainstream news media in Hawaii.
Whereas, the Hawaiian Constitutional Convention will automatically protect and preserve the Sovereignty of the native Hawaiian people over their National and Ancestral Lands.
Let it be known to All peoples, governments, financial institutions, multi national corporations, and affiliated entities, throughout the World, that the native Hawaiian people proclaim their right of self-determination, in accordance with Article 1 (2) of the United Nations Charter as well as the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court Injunction, on January 31, 2008.
Be It ResolvedThat We, the undersigned native Hawaiian and non native Hawaiian people, Hereby Declare the Hawaiian Constitutional Convention in Session, on this, 27th day of May, 2008 @ 8:PM.
~ SAMPLE PETITION BELOW ~
..tr>
INSTRUCTIONS: Please fill out petition properly, for clear future reference, Mahalo!
1. Print Name in gray box & Sign Name in white box below.
2. Island/District – print island in gray box & district in white box below.
3. Phone Number – print phone number in gray box, second number in white box below.
4. All Ages Eligible – Print age in gray box, if Hawaiian ancestry place check √ by name.
..table>
..tr>
NamePlease print clearly & sign below, if Hawaiian ancestry place(√)by name
Island / District
Phone
Age
1. Kupaianaha
OAHU
259-0000
20
Kupaianaha
Waimanalo
2. Sanford B. Dole
HAWAII
123-4567
110
Sanford B. Dole
Volcano
..table>
..tr>
REFLECTIONS OF OUR PAST
"1897 Petition Against Annexation ~ 1945 United Nations Decolonization Process ~ 1996 Native Hawaiian Constitutional Convention"
I. Ku'e Petition Against Annexation 1897 - 1898 (A Petition Drive)
38,000 petition signatures against annexation stopped the Treaty of Annexation
President McKinley signed the Newlands Joint Resolution that provided for the annexation of Hawaii. Through the Newlands Resolution, the self declared Republic of Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.
II. 1945 to 1959 – U. N. Political Process (United Nations Decolonization process)
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
A Non-Self-governing territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by: (a) emergence as a sovereign independent state, (b) free association with an independent state; or (c) integration with an independent state.
August 1959 – The Admissions Act - A plebiscite for Statehood; Question posed - "Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?"
III. 1996 Native Hawaiian Constitutional Convention (Political Process)
In July of 1993, Governor Waihee created the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission (HSAC) and appointed 21 members to this commission. The responsibility of HSAC in a nutshell was for the commissioners to get educated first, then present, inform and educate the native Hawaiian community including bringing in political, economic, social and cultural expertise to us. After most of the work was done by HSAC, it became the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council (HESC).
In 1995, a question was posed to the Hawaiian community, "Shall we send delegates to a Native Hawaiian Constitutional Convention", well, over 25,000 Hawaiian voters said yes. Elections were set-up and 8,900 Hawaiian voters elected over 70 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Two years later, majority of the delegates see, Independence as the form of government. Senator comes into the picture.
Senator Inouye appoints 20 or more Delegates of the NHCC, to sit on his newly created federal task force. Out of that task force came the birth of the Akaka Bill. At the same time OHA stops funding the Native Hawaiian Constitutional Convention. Remaining delegates try to keep the political process moving forward, but to no avail. Native Hawaiian Constitutional Convention dissolves.
IMPACT OF THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION 1993 – 2008
"Hawaii State Supreme Court Injunction Forces Native Hawaiians to Form a Government"
1. The Apology Resolution, United States Public law 103-150 – November 23, 1993
Reversal of the 1898 Newlands Joint Resolution
Whereas clauses – Findings of fact and law by U.S. Congress
2. Hawaii State Supreme Court Injunction – January 31, 2008
Apology Resolution, Force of Law
Ceded lands (crown, government and public) cannot be sold, exchanged or transferred until native Hawaiian claims are resolved through a "political process."
3. Appeal to the United States Supreme Court – April 2008
It bars the State from prudently managing more than 1.2 million acres of state owned land – 29% of the total land area of the state and almost all the land owned by the state.
By basing its decision primarily on federal law (Apology) the Hawaii Supreme Court improperly insulated its decision from any state-level political check.
The federal Apology Resolution would trump any new state legislation to restore the state's land transfer authority
The injunction will continue to hold the state hostage to the Hawaii Supreme Court's deeply flawed analysis of the federal Apology Resolution.
HOW CAN I HELP?
The Hawaiian Constitutional Convention Petition Drive is to inform the citizens of Hawaii that a free, fair, and impartial political process is underway. The petition drive will determine when we convene the Hawaiian Constitutional Convention, hold elections and begin the activities to debate, discuss and educate ourselves on the form of government we choose.
As we continue to build support and participation through the Hawaiian Constitutional Convention Petition Drive, the out of pocket expenses of this endeavor will be costly. Therefore, we humbly ask for your prayers, volunteers, petition signatures, and any type or amount of financial assistance possible.
Your Support is Greatly Appreciated,
Pu'uhonua D. K. Bumpy Kanahele, for the "Love of Country"
Please send your contribution by check or money order payable to:
Aloha First - Hawaiian Constitutional Convention 2008 P.O. Box 701 Waimanalo, Hawaii 96795
Aloha First is a Hawaii community-based 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
COLONIALISM IN HAWAII
"I never knew what this was."
Colonialism, as the Tribunal Komike states, "is foreign domination, subjugation and exploitation of another people's country. It undermines a people's national identity, traditions, and culture." (1998) Hawaii has undoubtedly been dominated by the United States for a century and a half, our people and resources subjugated and exploited. An important part of that subjugation was the taking away of our 'olelo maoli – our real language.
Kenyan author Ngugi wa Thiong'o explains that, "economic and political control can never be complete without mental control." (Ngugi 1986, 16) This mental control is achieved through, "the destruction or deliberate undervaluing of a people's culture, their arts, dances, religions, history, geography, education, orature (oral traditions), and literature, with the conscious elevation of the language of the colonizer." (Ngugi 1986, 16)
When the U.S.-identified oligarchy ended Hawaiian language public schools in 1896, they ripped out the bridge to our kupuna, the bridge of our understanding of ourselves as a people with a proud past. A generation then grew up for the first time ignorant of the language and mo'olelo of their grandparents who lived through the devastating losses in epidemics, denigration of all their customs, and loss of their Nation. Ngugi has called this experience a cultural bomb. "The effect of a cultural bomb is to annihilate a people's belief in their names, in their languages, in their environment, in their heritage of struggle, in their unity, in their capacities and ultimately in themselves. It makes them see their past as one wasteland of non-achievement and it makes them want to distance themselves from that wasteland." (1986, 3)
Compiled by Nalani Minton and Noenoe Silva
..table>
For More Information Contact
Hawaiian Constitutional Convention P.O. Box 312 Waimanalo, Hawaii 96795
Sup Pono! u and koani foundation talked about da un kau inoa stuff... how com many hawaiians neva kno dat their names was gonna be used to support the akaka bill?
LOL, simple oha is a usa program ,akaka bill is a sneaky usa plot to steal the Sovereignty & Aina away from the kanaka maoli , If you were a Butcher , would you tell a flock of sheep that you are hearding that they are on da way to slaughter , or on da way to greener pastures , to keep them in control ?
To get Ma'a "Wise" watch these video's Then go to:
http://unkauinoa.org/
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/
NEXT IS TO SHARE and ENLIGHTEN OTHERS TO THIS CORRUPT and SNEAKY UNDERHANDED ~HEWA~ PLOT ! REMEMBER Kau inoa = akaka bill = DOOM for da KANAKA MAOLI , THEIR AINA and SOVEREIGNTY !
KU'E , EA I KA PONO EA !
To all my friends on Maoliworld and Myspace Please watch and view VIDEOS ON MY BLOG OR BULLETIN "UNKAU I NOA, DONT BE FOOLED" and add and go to THESE PONO SITES , ITS TIME FOR TRUTH and JUSTICE FOR OUR PEOPLE and SOVEREIGN NATION:
LOVE and MISS YOU ALWAYZ Mahalo Pono Tomorrow will be a year since Mom's passing and I am taking the day off from work. I will never get over losing her. I have so many regrets that I have to live with. I hope others will learn from my mistakes and enjoy your families for as long as they are here on earth. She loved Fleetwood Mac, so enjoy this song in her memory.
Aloha mai David; I have respected your work as a botanist, conservationist and as the person who I know has personally done his utmost to keep the Invasive Species Committees going behind the scenes for a long time.
As some one who has worked closely with invasive species issues and conservation in Hawaii for years (with CGAPS, the ISCs, DLNR, and the larger community) as well as internationally on biodiversity conservation policy and in the field protections, and having grown taro for 20 years, I hope that given more complete information that you may have some concerns, as I do, for the work on genetically engineered taro.
I know that you are well aware of the many projects and recommendations that have come out of CTAHR that have become invasive species in Hawaii over the life of the institution - the list is long. The promotion of kudzu and koa haole are but two examples that have dramatically changed the landscape. If you recall, just last year an issue came before the CGAPS regarding the promotion by CTAHR of Surinam cherries as a niche market crop when we were all aware of its invasive qualities. The HISC and CGAPS were unable to convince CTAHR to withdraw that fruit from its local fruits project. As with the apple snail, we know first hand the failure of pest-for-profit programs. It seems clear to me that there is little review from someone informed in invasive species issues of CTAHR products, recommendations or programs when it comes to flora and fauna that could have negative impacts on the ecology of our islands. Perhaps, I am wrong, or perhaps, those reviews have no ability to halt bad ideas.
In 2003, HARC stated clearly in their annual report that they have a goal of creating a transgenic taro that will be consistently fertile. I can readily vouch for the fact that taro does indeed flower, and profusely so in the fields every year, often around the same time and among all the varieties - both dryland and wetland. It creates fertile seed infrequently but young plants from seed are observed in the field. This is also documented in records of the Bishop Museum and in Handy and Handy (1972). What I have observed over many years is that the conditions of botanical collections and UH field stations do not mimic the preferred conditions of the taro and hence, the plants do not flower as readily. A cultivar produced by conventional cross-pollination has a known behavior and character, something important to a farmer. In Balau this is still done by placing taro at the edge of the forest to provide the seasonal stresses that force the plant to flower so that hand fertilization can occur. Garrett Wilder at the Bishop Museum many years ago proved this to be, in his own words "emminently successful". An UNDP/FAO Root Crop Development Systems Project manual specifically for researchers on this technique was produced under IRETA in 1990.
The implications of a consistently fertile taro are many. Most worrisome in my mind, as someone who understands what it takes to find, let alone control incipient invasives, is that a taro with a high level of fertility (and hence capable of producing fertile seed on a regular basis) will without a shadow of a doubt go feral and will be impossible to distinguish from a non-gmo taro of the same variety. The Bunlong (Chinese) taro, the subject of the gmo research, has been a preferred cultivar for leaf production for an estimated 150 years. The last thing a taro farmer wants in his fields is a variety that goes rogue. In a dryland planting system, which is how I suspect this altered taro would be grown, the potential for escape from the field multiples. It also has a very strong potential to hybridize the existing cultivar collections in Hawaii - not just the Hawaiian varieties but all cultivars that are represented here. Hence, the "only native varieties" idea doesn’t work because the threat comes from whatever cultivar has been manipulated.
One of CGAPS and HISC goals has been to move towards pro-active preemption of incoming potentially invasive species but we have yet to address the gap of species that are being "invented" (ie. transgenic plants). This is, to a great extent, the responsibility of DOA, but it also falls to CGAPS members to be watchful of this sector. We have made some headway, through the patience of Christy Martin’s work, with the landscape industry in moving away from the use and promotion of known invasives. The same can not be said for a college within our own university system. We hold the private sector to high levels of scrutiny, EA/EIS standards, agency fines and other sanctions for risky projects (ie. Super Ferry) to try to prevent negative impacts to the environment, let us do the same with the agriculture sector as well.
I am ashamed that in 20 years not one single CTAHR researcher has even championed finding a solution for the apple snail and yet now they profess to be able to "save the taro." More so, because we know that eliminating or reducing that one single invasive species would significantly improve taro crop production, huli (taro propagule) survival and reduce taro disease (by eliminating a vector for introduction) at a systemic, ecological level - a more long-lasting approach.
I am immensely saddened that the university feels this is a researcher freedom issue. I know that researcher freedom must also be balanced by ethics and caution. No researcher has the right to imperil the livelihood of farmers. This is not a matter of "educating farmers" as CTAHR and HCIA have suggested at the hearings and to the media. That is a paternalistic view of who holds knowledge and who has the capability to read, review and rigorously assess information, that I had rather imagined was a thing of the past in enlighted universities. I am sure you will agree with me that some of our most eminent and respected botanists in Hawaii had little more than a BA in the sciences and yet their contributions and observations on the species of these islands has been profound.
If the oversight and review process for plant and animal research and releases actually worked at UH, we wouldn’t have such a poor record of invasive species that can be traced back to the work of UH CTAHR. We need the time the moratorium will give us to, at the very least, improve those processess.
If this was just a UH -taro farmer discussion, I have no doubt that this moratorium would be unnecessary. However; the Dean and Vice-Dean of CTAHR have clearly stated that they have no control over individual researchers, HARC or any of the other partners in the gmo taro research. If all the other agencies and entities involved were willing to sign a legally binding document for a self-imposed moratorium in the state; again, we would not need this moratorium. But, because this is not possible, the moratorium at the legislative level is necessary to protect taro farmer livelihoods - and to have the foresight to prevent the creation of a problem in the invasive species sector. Taro farmers have no subsidies, bail-out crop disaster funds or pensions to fall back on if this goes wrong. No one will be there to pick up the pieces or do the cleanup - least of all CTAHR. Their record speaks for itself.
I hope that you take a moment to consider this as a conservationist and not just a faculty member of the university. Please feel free to call me if you would like to talk more about this.
I appreciate your response and legitimate questions. Because of the fraudulant actions of the US government, it put many US Americans right in the middle of this issue. There are guidelines under the laws of occupation that the US government has been violating and not telling the US citizens. The forced US WASP assimilation in the islands have been met with mixed results and resistence. The suppression of the Hawaii Nationals has been overwhelming while US Americans are in disbelief of the true circumstances. Instead of respecting and embracing our society, most US Americans come here with an attitude that puts a strain on our relationship, believing that we need to adjust to them and be something we’re not. I grew up before the alleged statehood act and as my ancestors, I was against it. We learned quickly enough that the USA will do as it wants regardless of the moral and lawful circumstances.
Because of our resistence, many US Americans feel we are "un-American" or hate US Americans which is far from the truth. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. What we hate is the illegal intrusion and disrespect of our country. You must remember, we love our country as much as US Americans love theirs. We are not a hateful people but are constantly put on the defense.
The media never takes this issue correctly and censor selectively many things to insure the myth remains alive. The assault on us have been such that it has escalated over the recent years that we feel our backs are to the wall and we have to push back. More people are beginning to realize the truth and are faced with how to handle this situation. I do hope this can be handled peacefully and diplomatically.
The Hawaiian society is not backwards as many think; it a lack of understanding and knowing our society and accomplishments. What we are faced with is the manifest destiny mindset that anyone different from the WASP society is backwards and ignorant. Many don’t realize that the Hawaiian Kingdom was a very modern and advanced society at the time of the US invasion. There is much people don’t know about Hawaii because of the assimilation process and the character assassinations of our people so that we fit into the USA’s little box. US Americans tend to view us as inferior as they do the American Indians, and any non-white people. This is further fostered by the Hollywood movies and character-types to be poked fun at.
I think people are more afraid of the unknown and a change in the status quo. Can there be a resolution? More likely. The first step is for the US government to face its crime against the Hawaii Nationals and the US Americans. The US corporate oligarchy has victimized both people and created a division not of all our chosing. Generally, the US American people are not the enemy; the US government with its oligarchy is the real one with its sinister foreign policy and habitual breaking of the ratified treaties. This behaviour does cause resentment and stalls progress of advancement for humankind throughout the world and the exchange of ideas, inventions and discoveries within our separate societies that can be beneficial to all.
Our objection stem from corporate powers that promote their manifest destiny and hegemony to control everyone in the world for pecuniary reasons. To take something not theirs and claim ownership and profit from them while leaving devastation behind them. There is a right way and a wrong way of doing things; so this is not only a Hawaiian National issue; but it does directly affect us. So the resolution is to be sensitive to our concerns and respect what we are saying. Our society has been in existence for more than a thousand years and our recognized nation-state has been in existence for almost as long as the USA has been in existence.
Embracing our culture and society does not bar you from your research nor will it estrange you from us. There is a choice. I hope this has helped you in some small way to cope with your mixed feelings.
Mahalo for your time, A friend, Tane
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:14:38 -1000 From: wward@hawaii.edu Subject: Re: FW: [Hui_Pu] Email sent out to researchers at UH re: Haloa To: tane_1@msn.com
Dear Tane,
It is difficult read such a heartfelt letter and simply ignore it. But, I am also nervous about writing to you - I wonder if you will angry with me or see this as real attempt at understanding? Anyway, rather than just let my confusion dissipate with no resolution (again) or to just ignore the effort you made to make your point, I will try to respond.
The question that I have is how can we (US mainland WASPs) participate in a dialogue with native Hawaiians? This is not the first time I have publicly heard that the Hawaiian community considers us illegal foreign occupiers. When this is inserted into any discussion, I think that you consider us actual enemies of war, and that there is no way that you would ever be happy to have us on the islands. The only resolution I can see to such a strong description of the relationship between the two groups of people is for one of them to leave - of course this would be the US WASPs.
So, personally, whenever I encounter this argument, whether it is in the faculty senate or on a widely distributed e-mail, I tune out. There is nothing I can do. In this particular case, let’s say that I wanted to help find a resolution between the research scientists who have one point of view, and valid concerns of the Hawaiian people. My energy is immediately quelled when I get the to part where you remind me that you consider me a foreign occupier. I think to myself that even if I worked day and night to find a resolution for this particular cause (to which, as a molecular biologist I might be able to contribute) what difference would it make? At the end of the day, when this situation was resolved, you would still prefer to see me board the next plane with a one way ticket to the mainland.
Is there a solution that I am missing here? Or, am I right in my interpretation of what you consider a foreign invader? Is the only real solution in your mind for me to pack up and leave?
I am not saying I am willing to do this. Although I do feel very unwelcome by this segment of society on these islands, and that does play into how much I consider Hawaii my home (I have only been here 8 years). What I am saying is that defining my presence here as part of an occupation does not seem to leave any room for discussions on how we can live together and find ways for both cultures to exist.
Okay, I have said my piece. What did I miss?
Steve
Tane . wrote:
To all concerned:
If David Duffy’s atempt is to incur the wrath of the Hawaii Nationals, he surely has succeeded. His smug arrogance foisters such condemnation of his words.
Using "stolen property" to later claim ownership and receive pecuniary profit from it is unconscionable. Let him use his own family for laboratory rats! The taro belongs to us and traditonally our food source and not that of his. He just doesn’t get it with his manifest destiny mentality.
This ultracrepidarian critic sees it through myopic tunnel vision and not the broad one which deals with an entire society and not a fragmented point of argument he wishes to highlight. He insipidly fails to recognize that he is living in a different society and culture and not that of the US WASP society of the USA. May I remind those of you that may be ignorant of facts that this is the Hawaiian Kingdom regardless of what you have been taught or believe, which is still under the unlawful belligerent occupation by the USA.
If Duffy opens his eyes to what is happening in his country and throughout the world, he wouldn’t be suffering from oneirataxia and saying there is no hard evidence that GMO is dangerous. There is responsible science and irresponsible science; an one needs to know the difference. The rammifications will be widespread and infringe on our health and well-being.
"We need hard evidence of risk before a law is passed." says "Mr. Supercilious". This reminds me of the Mongoose Syndrome that says actions with no forethought will more than likely bring disaster. It’s like putting the cart before the horse. He just wants to make a better mouse-trap with the taro. There may be plants that they can extract or implant from it for medicinal purposes and usually it may be "terra nullius" so they could use it. If it belongs to a people in the area, they need permission to use it and not steal it or think they have the perogative to take whatever they want.
Duffy trivializes the "fujitive" seeds and pollen and expresses how benign his "frankenstein" seeds are. There are many ways to pollinate and since we have wetland taro, also; pollen can be spread via that resource besides manual, wind, and insects. GMO companies are also infamously known to sue local farmers if their renegade seeds should contaminate the local farmers crops.
Speaking of economy in the islands, the message is responsibility with innovative ideas not reckless experimentation. Money is the root of all evil. What Duffy is alluding to is that a crystal meth lab is okay because it contributes to the economy. That line of reasoning is contentious indeed just to have diversity for the sake of economic expansion. There is a line to be drawn and we have drawn it.
The statement of the question of academic freedom should be clarified like when people use "it’s a free country" tiresome remark. Freedom extends to the point where it doesn’t infringe on another’s freedom. So there are parameters that need to be respected.
Once again I have to remind Duffy, that this is the motherland/homeland of the Hawaii nationals albeit he comes from a foreign country, USA. We are not going to the North American continent to tell him he can’t express his WASP academic freedom there; but here in Hawaii, we are saying, you can’t do anything to tamper with our taro or our flora without our permission. If we say, "No!", then just accept it. It’s not yours for the taking.
We have cultivated our taro for well over a thousand years. I have strict confidence in our taro farmers that they will do the respectful and pono thing in nuturing our crop which is an integral part of us and part of our sustinence. We also have our own unique, particular science that should be respected and if we choose to incorporate any of the outside-world science, that will be our choice. Until then, Hands Off of Our Taro. No taro regardless from where you import it from should be experimented in Hawaii unless you have our permission as it would affect our taro grown here.
I hope I have been explicitly clear on this issue. The deep controversy on this subject merits the moratorium which is sound common sense and logic. While the Western science has its own internal moral values; we have ours and if you want us to respect yours, respect ours.
He Hawai’i au, Tane 1107 Acacia Road 113 Pearl City, Hawai’i Tane_1@msn.com
>> From: David Duffy <dduffy@hawaii.edu> >> Date: March 10, 2008 4:16:58 PM HST >> To: eecbfaculty-l@hawaii.edu, eecbstudents-l@hawaii.edu, uhmbotstu->> l@hawaii.edu, uhmbotfac-l@hawaii.edu, uhari-l@hawaii.edu >> Subject: taro research ban until 2017: Hawaiian Legislature SB 958 >> >> My apologies, I earlier sent out an incomplete email on taro and >> the proposed 10 year ban on GMO research. This may seem arcane >> but it is a vital issue to research here in Hawai..i. >> >> I have attached a brief summary of the issue that didn’t get >> attached last time and a longer >> explanation of the need for GMO work on taro >> http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/gmo/documents/Update-GE-Dec14-06.pdf >> >> You may or may not like taro or think genetically engineered >> organisms in general are a great idea, but the point here is that >> banning research as this bill does is a very dangerous precedent. >> SB 958 would ban taro research not because it is illegal or even >> immoral, but because it disagrees with the religious views of one >> part of our society. >> >> That viewpoint is to be respected and even admired, but just as we >> have not as a society allowed Fundamentalist Christianity to >> impose Creationist teaching on science in our schools, the >> Kumulipo should not form the basis for the state’s research >> policy. The words "sacred", "revered", "religious practices" were >> used by a Senate committee in relation to taro http://>> www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/CommReports/>> SB958_SD1_SSCR28_.htm . The bill itself states: "Kalo expresses >> the spiritual and physical well-being of not only the kanaka >> maoli. . .", so the matter is a religious one. >> >> Respectfully, the state does not have the power to enact such >> legislation. The U. S. Constitution under the First Amendment >> states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of >> religion". The State Constitution in Article I, Section 4 states: >> "4. No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion". >> >> The bill is also bad science. The hard evidence that genetically >> modified (GM) organisms are dangerous is elusive at best. If they >> were, we might have to round up all diabetics or thyroid patients, >> as the medicine that keeps them alive comes from genetically >> modified organisms. We need hard evidence of risk before a law is >> passed. >> >> In addition, the experimental taro strain rarely flowers, and the >> insect that pollinates Hawaiian taro is not present in Hawai..i so >> the existing taro strains would have to be hand pollinated from a >> GM source if they are to produce viable seed. It is hard to see >> how GM taro would run rampant on the landscape, as conceivably >> might a wind-pollinated GM plant species. >> >> If we want to build an economy on more than tourism and the >> military, we need to explore and nurture alternatives, but if >> passed this bill will send a very clear message that innovation >> and research are not safe in Hawai..i. Our economy has to be based >> on more than young people moving to the mainland. >> >> Finally there is the question of academic freedom. If our >> legislature can ban research on a particular food species, >> legislatures across the country have precedent for banning all >> sorts of controversial things at state universities. Islamic >> studies? Gay and Lesbian studies? Reproductive rights? Evolution? >> Some state out there would love to put a stop to it. >> >> As scientists, you have an informed perspective on this matter. >> The House Agriculture Committee will have hearings later this >> month. Please take the time to write testimony now (pro or con) >> and mail it to the Chair: Representative Clifton Tsuji >> (reptsuji@Capitol.hawaii.gov) and other members of the House >> Agriculture Committee, http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/house/>> comm/commAGR.asp, asking that your testimony be considered when SB >> 958 is heard by his committee. >> >> This is an unfortunate clash of culture, religion and science. >> Please respect the Native Hawaiian perspective in your testimony >> while remembering that science has its own internal moral values >> that must be respected if science is to function. >> >> David Duffy, Botany >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> SB 958 >> >> A BILL FOR AN ACT >> >> relating to genetically modified organisms. >> >> BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII: >> >> >> SECTION 1. Kalo (colocasia esculenta), the Hawaiian word for >> taro, is a culturally significant plant to the kanaka maoli, >> Hawaii’s indigenous peoples. According to the kumulipo, the >> Hawaiian creation chant, kalo grew from the first-born son of >> Wakea, the sky father, and Papa, the earth mother, through Wakea’s >> relationship with his and Papa’s daughter, Hoohokulani. This son, >> named Haloa, was stillborn and buried. From Haloa’s grave grew >> the first kalo plant. Wakea and Hoohokulani named their second >> son Haloa, after his older brother. From the second Haloa came >> the genesis of man. Kalo provides the kanaka maoli’s life-giving >> sustenance, poi, and is seen as the older brother of mankind. >> >> Over three hundred kalo varieties may have existed at the >> time of the arrival of European explorers. Today, there are >> approximately seventy varieties of taro and, of these, the >> majority are unique to the Hawaiian islands due to the >> horticultural skills of native Hawaiian farmers. >> >> The important cultural relationship between kalo and the >> kanaka maoli continues today in the cultivation of kalo and ohana, >> the Hawaiian word for family. The cut stalk of the kalo, called >> the huli, is planted to become the next generation. Huli means to >> turn or turn-over. When "ohana" is broken into root words, "oha" >> is the smaller taro corms growing from the older part of the taro >> plant that is used to feed one’s family and "ana" is a conjunctive >> word connoting regeneration or procreation. >> >> Therefore, kalo intrinsically ties the interdependency of >> the past, the present, and the future, the essence of procreation >> and regeneration, as the foundation of any sustainable practice. >> Kalo expresses the spiritual and physical well-being of not only >> the kanaka maoli and their heritage, but also symbolizes the >> environmental, social, and cultural values important to the >> State. This relationship is symbolized in the use of the kalo >> plant upon the crown of King Kalakaua and today in the logo of the >> office of Hawaiian affairs and many commercial enterprises >> throughout the State. >> >> The purpose of this Act is to recognize the importance of the >> kalo in the heritage of the State by creating a ten-year >> moratorium on developing, testing, propagating, cultivating, >> raising, and growing of genetically modified taro in the State of >> Hawaii. >> >> SECTION 2. Genetically modified taro; moratorium. (a) >> Until June 30, 2017, no genetically modified taro shall be >> developed, tested, propagated, cultivated, raised, or grown in the >> State. >> >> (b) As used in this section: >> >> "Genetically modified" means alterations to a life form or >> its living progeny at the nucleic acid level, using the techniques >> collectively referred to as recombinant DNA technology. >> >> "Recombinant DNA technology" means the transfer of genes, >> regulatory sequences, or nucleic acid between hosts by the use of >> vectors or laboratory manipulations and includes the insertion, >> excision, duplication, inactivation, or relocation of specific >> genes, regulatory sequences, or sections of nucleic acid. This >> term does not apply to a material or an organism developed >> exclusively through traditional methods of breeding, >> hybridization, or nondirected mutagenesis. >> >> SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2007, and >> shall be repealed on June 30, 2017.
Shadows in motion - Exposing the New World Order Details Comments More from userShadows in motion - Exposing the New World Order - 56 min - Jul 19, 2006 Mind Deprogramming - www.mind-deprogramming.com
Billed as the muslim view on the war on terror it covers a variety of topics: * The reasons behind the gulf war/saddam * history of the ...all » Billed as the muslim view on the war on terror it covers a variety of topics: * The reasons behind the gulf war/saddam * history of the freemasons/were originally christian heretics after the capture of jerusalem/Al Aqsa * how they came to control England/France and then the US * The dajjal * they'r involvement in the entertainments industry * how they plan to assume control using ID cards * they're link with thie roschilds * only hope against them is Islam * the atrocities they have already committed using the UN * the AIDS virus«
This article is from the time of Governor Cayatano's administration. It is poignant of what is going on today and never resolved; but ongoing. Here's the spin that scares islanders who don't understand the dynamics of it all; but are led to believe they are losing something.
Pay careful attention to this: What is being discussed is the REVENUE from the "ceded" lands which are "seized " lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom which still exists and under US belligerent occupation. Since they are the legitimate heirs and never relinguished their rights to it; it belongs to them, the lawful Hawaii Nationals of the Kingdom of Hawaii. To this, there is no discussion; it is what it is.
Now here's the spin and scare tactic. The entire corpus of the seized lands that the Hawaii Nationals own collectively, are placed in trust with the state of Hawaii. The revenues have since been partitions; not the taxes, but the revenues the state receives from the businesses that rent or lease the land. The revenues are the profits the state accummilates; these proceeds are then divied up for five purposes as dictated by the Statehood Act and its Organic Act.
From 1959 to 1978, the State of Hawaii was negligible and failed its trust obligations. They threw the money collected into the General fund of which it wasn't supposed to do. They have the taxpayers believing that it's their taxes that are taken to give the Native Hawaiians. In essense, the entire revenues should go to tfor the benefit of the Hawaii Nationals and their descendants. Remember there are descendants from the 16% of Hawaii Nationals that do not have Polynesian Hawaiian blood.
In 1980, the the legislators declared that the Native Hawaiians would receive 20% of the revenues from those lands and the 80% of the revenues will go towards the community at large. Are you starting to get the picture? The 80% of the revenues will go to the other four purposes expressed in the Statehood Act and 20% for the betterment of the native Hawaiians. The state at that time even reneged on a couple of the other four purposes; one of which was for public education. So now we have the Hawaii residents whining and screaming about the 20% going to the Hawaiians and forgetting the history or they don't know it and not realizing that those Lands belongs to the Hawaii Nationals.
The business scare is that they think they will have to be surcharged 20% of their business when in actuality it's the money that the State regularly collects in rent or lease. What it is, is that the revenues from the lands are collected normally and of the revenues collected, 20% is set aside for the Native Hawaiians. This means, the state has 20% lest to use for the other purposes designated by the Statehood Act.
Therefore, the state is impacted on what it can spend and live within its means; it doesn't impact the businesses unless the state raises its rates. It is also interesting to know that the state leased lands to the US Army for 65 years at the rate of $1.00 a year. One-third of the land the Army uses is on "seized"/"ceded" lands. This to me is a dereliction of duty the State as trustee has committed. This is called stealing from the trust's beneficiaries.
Hawaii is the Homeland of the Hawaii Nationals and not that of the USA as defined by the Apology Bill President Clinton signed into law. So do you think the Native Hawaiians are getting special treatment and the residents are getting stiffed? The Hawaiians end up with 20% of the revenues and the residents get 80% of the revenues of the Hawaiian Nationals' land.
This is what is called "American justice". This is one more reason why the USA must de-occupy Hawaii.
Tane
The ceded lands ruling: Will it break the bank?
A state already in dire straits financially must decide how to settle ceded-lands claims -- which some say could reach $1.2 billion -- to native Hawaiians
By Alan Matsuoka Star-Bulletin
It seems in retrospect an act of conscience as much as a judicial determination. Judge Daniel Glen Heely was being asked by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to order the state to give it more of the money coming from the use of ceded lands. The state, which had cut back on welfare to make ends meet, was fighting back.
As temperatures outside the Circuit Court building neared record highs, Heely generated political heat inside by granting OHA's motions. The state clearly had a contract with native Hawaiians, he declared, and would be held to it.
.. He cited the federal government's apology for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, and invoked a state law allowing him to "contemplate and reside with the life force," and consider the aloha spirit - "the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence."
"The court cannot conceive of a more appropriate situation in which to attempt to apply the concepts set forth in the Aloha Spirit law," he said, "than ruling on issues that are directly related to the betterment of the native Hawaiian people."
With those ideals, in a July oral ruling and a written order filed in October,Heely sparked the latest controversy over the ceded lands, 1.8 million acresof property in all four counties comprising about 43 percent of the islands' area. Native Hawaiians hailed the ruling as "historic," recognizing the legitimacy of their legal claims to the lands.
"I think for the first time in a long, long time, someone has spoken up for what is the truth," said OHA Trustee A. Frenchy DeSoto, one of the agency's founders.
But the ideals soon met up with reality, which to the Cayetano administration meant estimates that the cost to the state could exceed $1 billion.
And reaction to the ruling may foreshadow a larger question: What level of moral and legal duty will taxpayers have for aboriginal claims? Already, some worry that critical feelings about the OHA payments could overflow and cause a rift between the general public and native Hawaiian movement as a whole, no matter how just its cause.
"I think that's an issue that can break the movement's back, frankly," said Dan Boylan, a political analyst and history professor at the University of Hawaii-West Oahu. "There's got to be some compromises in all of this, big ones."
'That kind of magnitude'
A dispute over the lands is nothing new. Ceded to the United States shortly after the 1893 overthrow, they have deep symbolic meaning for native Hawaiians and often have been protest sites. Makua Beach is the latest example, Kahoolawe probably the best known.
The state became trustee for 1.4 million acres in 1959, under the Admission Act that made Hawaii part of the Union. Most of the rest are national parks or used by the military. Sand Island, Volcanoes National Park and Wailua Golf Course on Kauai are all part of the inventory.
In 1978, voters approved broad constitutional amendments to create the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and fund it with a share of the money derived from the use of ceded lands. In 1980, the Legislature set the share at 20 percent. Since then, legal battles have ensued over what the percentage covers.
In the latest case, OHA sought a share of revenues from Hilo Hospital and two state affordable-housing agencies, the Hawaii Housing Authority and Housing Finance & Development Corp. Rents, cafeteria sales and patient fees (after Medicaid and Medicare deductions) would be assessed.
It also wanted to vastly expand the way the share is applied to the airport's duty-free concession, a prime source of Honolulu Airport operating funds, and asked that interest on back payments to 1981 be included.
The Attorney General's Office, among other arguments, contended the state could not be sued, and functions like hospitals are sovereign and thus exempt from assessment. Heely disagreed, saying they often are private enterprises. The government appealed to the state Supreme Court and expressed confidence it would prevail.
But budget alarms were triggered. Gov. Ben Cayetano immediately disagreed with the ruling, which at the time was estimated to cost $120 million. He rapped lawmakers for not passing an administration bill last session that would have drastically cut the OHA entitlement.
Then he huddled in San Francisco with the airlines, and on his return invited newspapers to hear an industry lawyer raise the stakes to $1.2 billion - a stunning figure for a state running on about $3 billion in general-fund operating revenues this year.
OHA accused Cayetano of scare tactics. The agency had estimated the cost at $178 million although Chairman Clayton Hee said he had an audit going into court that put the debt as high as $700 million. No one has offered a definitive bottom line, but the Budget Department says the higher numbers seem likely to prevail.
"It would be safe to say you're talking about several hundred millions of dollars," said Deputy Director Neal Miyahira. "It's that kind of magnitude."
Meanwhile, the community hospitals are even more direct about the ruling's impact. "It would break us," said Health Director Lawrence Miike. Hilo is one of only two hospitals in the 13-facility state system in the black, and its profits help support the others, he said. The system still has a yearly deficit of about $15 million, and state subsidies have been cut under a measure allowing it to run as a public corporation.
"My question is, what business can give up 20 percent of gross revenues, no matter what it is, and expect to survive in the long-term here?" Miike asked.
Budget director Earl Anzai warned in a court affidavit that the rulings have lent "uncertainty as to the soundness of the state's financial situation." And the bill is mounting: Using OHA's low estimate, he said $78,442 in interest is being added each day.
Broken promises
The Governor's Office frames the issue as differences over interpreting the OHA entitlement law. "The governor has to think about what's best for the people of the entire state, including Hawaiians," said spokesperson Kathleen Racuya-Markrich.
.. But others, like UH-Manoa American Studies Professor David Stannard, have a different outlook. "Now we're talking real money so all of a sudden it's not just an abstract issue," Stannard said. "It's a real dollars-and-cents issue, and it does appear that the governor is very strongly behind the push to essentially dismantle that provision."
Among other changes, Cayetano wants to specify that the law applies only to raw land, and not land with improvements. OHA Trustee Rowena Akana sees an effort to create a "smoke screen," diverting attention from the state's irresponsible spending habits and inability to make good on its obligations.
"What is the difference between the Cayetano administration and the federal government and their treatment of the American Indians?" she said. "What is the difference? Is this what American justice is all about?"
Hee charges Cayetano is trying to drive a wedge between OHA and the general public and shift part of the blame for the state's budget problems onto the agency. The chairman said he is confounded by the reaction: OHA simply went to court to make the state comply with the law, and now is being cast as the "bad guys" for having justice prevail. "It makes no sense to me," he said.
OHA has its share of critics in the native Hawaiian community. It received $210 million in payments from 1980 to 1995, and one gripe is too little goes toward direct benefits. But support for the agency in this issue seems to be broad. A State Capitol rally in April to protest the proposed changes to the entitlement law drew a spectrum of leaders. T-shirts and signs read, "Broken Promises."
The common bond is a commitment to the land itself, something that "crosses all lines," said William Meheula, president of the Native Hawaiian Bar Association. Beyond the symbolic significance, the ceded lands are the economic focus of the native Hawaiian movement, the potential land base of a sovereign body. A frequent contention is the lands were stolen and, from that perspective, the state has been getting a deal.
"Frankly, 20 percent is too cheap," said attorney Hayden Aluli, who represented the Makua defendants. "If Hawaiians had control over their resources and lands, we would be charging the state rent, OK? And that's the way it is, period."
The American way
The stronger passions are fueled by memories of the legacy of Western contact. Like other indigenous peoples, native Hawaiians saw their population eaten away by disease and their society fragmented. Some see the impacts of being alienated from the land continuing today.
"Why do we have the highest suicide rate among teen-agers?" asked UHM Hawaiian Studies professor Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa. "Why do we have the lowest life expectancy? Why are we drinking and drugging ourselves to death? Because we have no home, we have no access to land."
With the Euroshop glitter of Waikiki, such feelings can seem remote. Indeed, others struggling with the implications of Heely's ruling have reached far different conclusions. "I'm sorry for them, that they feel they're culturally condemned," said one prominent business leader. "But there's a point where we have to say, look, whatever happened before doesn't matter."
OHA has been making strong overtures for talks. The governor said he is willing to sit down, but wants to wait until a lawsuit challenging the results of the latest election is resolved.
Heely won't be here to see how things work; he and his wife, who is half Hawaiian, have since moved to New York, making this his last major ruling in the islands.
But residents will be left to wrestle with the issues he raised in the case, and with the larger question of what they ultimately feel is due the native Hawaiian people - a question some feel must be answered soon.
"The American way is to act fairly and responsibly and honorably toward our native people with regard to unresolved claims that have festered over generations," said Jon Van Dyke, a UH constitutional law professor and OHA legal adviser.
"It's been too long delayed. It's time to address it."
Heely known for sincerity, intelligence
By Alan Matsuoka Star-Bulletin
With his wire-rimmed glasses and mild demeanor, Circuit Judge Daniel Heely hardly seemed the type to cause a stir. In fact, he was widely appreciated for his intelligence and sincerity.
"We respect Judge Heely," said Deputy Attorney General Jack Resenzweig, who is involved in the ceded-land revenues case.
"It doesn't necessarily mean we have to agree with his decision."
Heely was born in Belleville, Ill., on Jan. 25, 1945. He graduated from the University of Hawaii with a bachelor's in philosophy and earned his law degree from the University of Minnesota.
He was admitted to the Hawaii bar in 1973 and was the state Supreme Court's chief disciplinary counsel from 1978 to 1981. He has written and lectured widely on legal ethics. He was named to a District Court bench in 1982 and to the Circuit Court in 1985.
He has six children, and his wife, Patricia, is half-Hawaiian - a fact he disclosed before presiding over the ceded-lands cases.
Circuit Judge Marie Milks described Heely as a thoughtful person and careful listener. "I've never questioned his fairness," she said. His chambers, she added, reflected a strong sense of family and "Hawaiianess."
"I don't look at Dan Heely and say, oh, he's a guy who came here from the mainland," Milks said. "I look at him as truly a part of our community. There's some people who come here and they really don't have a love for the soul or spirit of the place."
Heely in October left for a federal position in Syracuse, N.Y., primarily for higher pay.
"Dan Heely is a very competent judge who cares, and I'm sad to see him go," said Judge James Burns, chief judge of the state Intermediate Court of Appeals. "The state of Hawaii should be unhappy at losing him."
.. By Photographer, Star-Bulletin The caption goes here.
-->
..
.. By Ken Ige, Star-Bulletin Jeffrey Watanabe, attorney for the Airlines Committee of Hawaii, says the ceded lands ruling could send landing fees to astronomical levels.
Worst case?
In one scenario, tourism suffers and the isles lose
By Alan Matsuoka Star-Bulletin
The windows of attorney Jeffrey Watanabe's office on the fifth-floor of the Amfac Center face toward Honolulu Airport, and tourist-laden jets can sometimes be seen descending through the blue skies for a landing.
For a state whose economy relies on tourism, it's a welcome sight. But Circuit Judge Daniel Heely's ruling in the ceded-lands revenues case has led Watanabe to a different sort of vision, of landing fees possibly rising to such astronomical levels that they cut into the core of the visitor industry.
"You know that you're going to get a reduction in flights and seats," he said, laying out a worst-case scenario. "You know you're going to get increased costs in transportation for cargo as well as passengers - interisland, international and overseas. You know that."
Watanabe represents the Airlines Committee of Hawaii, a group of 22 major carriers that has estimated that the state's airport debt to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs could range from $594 million to $1.2 billion.
The numbers, larger than anyone thought before, heated a hot issue even further. Why so high? Because Heely's ruling implies a new way of calculating the debt, "the impacts of which went far beyond what I think he intended," Watanabe said.
OHA Chairman Clayton Hee calls the figures "propaganda," but Gov. Ben Cayetano is taking them "very seriously," his office said.
The dispute is over revenues derived from the airport's duty-free concession, now run by Duty Free Shoppers Ltd. The state is anxious because the concessions are the single largest source of operating funds for the airport system, which has been self-supporting since 1962. According to the state Transportation Department, total operating revenues in 1995 were $271.4 million, with $158.4 million coming from concession fees. The bulk was from the duty-free operation.
OHA has been getting a share because the airport is partly built on ceded lands. Up to now, though, the amount has been based only on sales made at the DFS store in the airport's international terminal.
.. The agency sued, saying its share also should be based on sales made at DFS' lucrative Waikiki outlet, which accounts for about 80 percent of the company's business. It pointed out that DFS pays the state $100 million a year for rights to the concession, or 20 percent of gross revenues, whichever is greater. The state is trying to "double deal" itself, OHA argued, since it includes Waikiki sales when figuring the revenues, but not when paying OHA.
Heely agreed, and granted back payments to 1981 with interest.
The airlines committee says the debt to OHA works out to $594 million if revenues from off-airport outlets are included. But it thinks even more may be due because of the way Heely reached his decision.
Currently, the state calculates OHA's share using what Watanabe calls a "site-specific" method. Since only about 1 percent of DFS' airport retail space is on ceded land - 175 square feet out of 17,847 - the state takes 1 percent of the store's total gross revenues. OHA then gets 20 percent of that, the percentage it is entitled to under state law.
Heely, though, uses what Watanabe calls "but for" reasoning to reach his decision: But for the ceded land, there would be no airport; but for the airport, there would be no concession; but for the concession, there would be no Waikiki outlet. Under such logic, Watanabe maintains the current way of setting OHA's payment gets "thrown out the window" since the amount of floor space on ceded land is no longer a factor.
"It basically means it's 20 percent of all revenue generated on the airport, or off the airport, or wherever," he explained. "And that's where you get the billion two."
The committee's fear is that the debt might be shifted to the airlines through increased landing fees, now set at $1.93 per thousand pounds for overseas carriers. Even when the cost is spread over 30 years, fees would soar conservatively to $5.33 or $9.12, it says.
"There may come a time when the position of the state and the position of the airlines parts," Watanabe said. "That will probably be when the state decides they've lost the case and now they're going to charge the airlines for this."
But even if the state footed the bill, he sees ramifications.
"It doesn't make sense for us as airlines to preserve your right to land here with reasonable landing fees if what you've got when you get here is a state that's in financial shambles," he said. "It's a disaster either way."
OHA attorneys and the Hawaii Visitors Bureau executive committee have been briefed by Watanabebut declined comment. DFS Hawaii President John Reed said the issue has only indirect impact on his company.
One transportation expert, though, said a threefold to fivefold increase in landing fees could make marginal airlines think seriously about dropping their Hawaii service.
Fredrick Collison, a professor at the University of Hawaii School of Travel Industry Management, said U.S. airlines already have trimmed back costs and see Hawaii, a leisure market with low average fares, as a money loser. He said jacked-up fees also might accelerate a trend toward overflights, direct travel from the West Coast to Asia without stopovers in Hawaii.
But Collison felt a snowball effect on the visitor industry is not a given since airlines that continue flying here may just reduce off-season service to compensate for the added operating cost.
"Put it this way," he said. "It's certainly not going to be positive. I mean, the best we could hope for is no impact, and I really don't believe that would be the case."
Watanabe says he released his figures publicly after being urged to by Gov. Ben Cayetano. His intention is to add important information to the debate, and encourage the visitor industry, labor, government and other sectors of the community to address the "tremendous expectations" that were created for the native Hawaiian people and now are being questioned.
"It's not only the financial issues," he said. "It's how we deal with legitimate views and claims brought on by an indigenous community that has historically been screwed over."
..
By Photographer, Star-Bulletin The caption goes here.
-->
..
The stage is set for resolution
The wait isn't over, but more and more there are calls to settle up
By Alan Matsuoka Star-Bulletin
When state Rep. Ed Case was campaigning door to door last year, his constituents told him they knew something needed to be done to settle the issue of ceded-land revenues going to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Standing on their Manoa porches, they were not unsympathetic to native Hawaiian claims, he recalled. What's fair is fair, they said - just as long as it's fair to everybody.
"It's no sense to resolve something in favor of native Hawaiians if the result is to polarize 80 percent of the state, and vice versa," said Case, chairman of the House Hawaiian Affairs Committee.
OHA Trustee A. French DeSoto said she has heard comments, too - from native Hawaiians disturbed by the state's efforts to redefine and cut into the OHA entitlement, native Hawaiians growing increasingly disillusioned.
"I'm afraid of the Hawaiian community finally getting ticked off," DeSoto said. "I mean, it's been years and years and years, and by and large the Hawaiian community has no trust in government, believes that they make promises only to break them. There's a lot of rumbling, a lot of unhappy people out there."
The source of the tension is clear: Both the state and OHA have estimated that a court ruling in July, now under appeal, means hundreds of millions of dollars in cash is owed to the agency, and cash is something the state is notably short of.
As lawmakers prepared to convene at the State Capitol today, Case called the emotional subject one of the top issues of the session, an issue that carries a strong potential to polarize the community. His committee plans to start examining it within the larger context of a maturing Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and hopes to begin resolving questions that have lingered for years - all the while balancing it with the state's financial woes.
"It's time to settle it up and get on with life," he said.
How far things will progress is uncertain. A spokesman for Senate Ways and Means Chairs Carol Fukunaga and Lehua Fernandes Salling, for instance, said the money committee did not plan to address the subject until the appeal is complete, a process that by one estimate could take two years. To some, a more immediate solution lies in going to the negotiating table, compromising and reaching a settlement.
"I do feel there's room for negotiation, and I think the administration should sit down with OHA and see if they can reach some kind of agreement," said former state Sen. Donna Ikeda. "We're bankrupt if we have to pay it, pure and simple."
OHA has asked for such talks. Chairman Clayton Hee has called on Gov. Ben Cayetano to convene a summit meeting with leaders of financial institutions and others to seek a solution. OHA legal adviser Jon Van Dyke considers the case "settleable," and said there were some "very preliminary" meetings last year which Cayetano chose not to continue. The governor's office said Cayetano is waiting until a legal challenge to OHA election results is resolved.
What might be put on the table? With no firm cost yet, positions are somewhat vague. (One of the things OHA is suing for is an accounting from the state of all revenues collected from ceded-land use since 1980, when the law entitling the agency to a share was passed.)But not surprisingly, most ideas being floated involve a combination of money and land, similar to a 1993 agreement that resolved other disagreements between the state and OHA. Examples:
Hee suggests the state demand the return of ceded lands not being used by the federal government for strict defense purposes and transfer title to OHA. Among the parcels are the Hickam Air Force Base golf course, the Navy-Marine course by the airport and the Kaneohe Clipper course. Other properties that might be considered are Bellows Air Force Station and Fort DeRussy in Waikiki.
The idea is to transfer income-producing land to the agency and reduce the debt without hurting the state's pocketbook, Hee said.
House Human Services and HousingChair Dennis Arakaki thinks the state might transfer two Housing Finance and Development Corp. projects on ceded land: the 807-acre Villages of Leiali'i on Maui and the 1,120-acre Villages of La'i'opua on the Big Island.
"You know that you're going to get a reduction in flights and seats," he said, laying out a worst-case scenario. "You know you're going to get increased costs in transportation for cargo as well as passengers - interisland, international and overseas. You know that."
OHA Trustee A. French DeSoto said she has heard comments, too - from native Hawaiians disturbed by the state's efforts to redefine and cut into the OHA entitlement, native Hawaiians growing increasingly disillusioned.
Hee suggests the state demand the return of ceded lands not being used by the federal government for strict defense purposes and transfer title to OHA. Among the parcels are the Hickam Air Force Base golf course, the Navy-Marine course by the airport and the Kaneohe Clipper course. Other properties that might be considered are Bellows Air Force Station and Fort DeRussy in Waikiki.