(c) Copyright 2016
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
=============
INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES DURING MARCH 2016.
March 1, 2016:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser: "Na'i Aupuni foes say they will press forward with suit"
(2) Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 1, 2016, EDITORIAL: "'Aha delegates offer a worthy constitution"
(3) Aloha Aina Party (pushing for independence) fails to get enough signatures on petition to be a recognized political party on the state election ballot for 2016.
(4), (5), (6) Three editorials by OHA trustees in the monthly OHA newspaper regarding right to self-determination and creation of Hawaiian tribe.
March 2:
(1) Newspaper daily big Question (online poll) "What do you think about the Native Hawaiian constitution adopted during the aha (convention)?"
(2) Law360.com "Vote On Native Hawaiian Constitution Likely, Opponents Say" (summary of lawsuit to block government-sponsored race-based election).
March 3: OHA trustee Peter Apo: "A Native Hawaiian Constitution Is Born -- The aha delegates have done their work. Now it's our turn."; online comment by Ken Conklin
March 4: Secessionist online newspaper published Part 1 of a series about what happened behind the scenes at the Na'i Aupuni 4-week gathering, written by independence activist who was a delegate.
March 6:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser: "Funds needed to continue building Hawaiian nation"
(2) 2 letters to editor
(3) Blog entry from Na'i Aupuni delegate explaining why proposed constitution will help ethnic Hawaiians build political and economic strength while not abandoning quest for independence.
March 7: Republican Presidential candidates John Kasich and Marco Rubio briefly express off-the-cuff opinions about creating a Hawaiian tribe, on day before Republican primary.
March 8:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser columnist says Hillary Clinton cautiously supports Hawaiian nationhood effort
(2) Honolulu Star-Advertiser mini-editorial predicts a crowdfunding campaign on internet to raise money for race-based election to ratify constitution for race-based Hawaiian tribe.
(3) Longtime independence radical Walter Ritte says the Acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom [Keanu Sai's gang] is making progress at the United Nations and with other nations to get recognition for Hawaiian independence.
March 9:
(1) Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations): "Native Hawaiian constitution lays foundation for future government" -- next steps.
(2) Secessionist online newspaper published Part 2 of a series about what happened behind the scenes at the Na'i Aupuni 4-week gathering, written by independence activist who was a delegate.
(3) Online news magazine "Fusion" has well-written summary of "Why some Native Hawaiians want to declare independence from the U.S."
March 15: Professor of Hawaiian Studies Jon Osorio complains that the tribal meeting wrote a proposed constitution that fails to assert control over the ceded lands. Online comment by Conklin quotes from the proposed constitution that the racially exclusive government asserts control over the entire archipelago of a million square miles of islands and ocean.
March 16-17: NA'I AUPUNI GOES OUT OF BUSINESS; NEWS RELEASE SAYS IT'S UP TO CONVENTION PARTICIPANTS AND SUPPORTERS TO CARRY FORWARD WITH A RATIFICATION ELECTION IF THEY WISH. 6 news reports provide different details and speculations on whether there will be a ratification vote and how it will be paid for.
March 18: Secessionist online newspaper publishes Part 3 of a series about what happened behind the scenes at the Na'i Aupuni 4-week gathering, written by independence activist who was a delegate. Parts 1 and 2 were on March 4 and 9.
March 19: Newspaper reports the death of attorney H. William Burgess, civil rights activist who led the fight against the Akaka bill for all 13 years it was in Congress, and filed several lawsuits trying to dismantle Hawaii's racial entitlement programs; online comment by Ken Conklin
March 21: Council on Native Hawaiian Advancement announces a forum to analyze the Na'i Aupuni tribal constitution and discuss next steps, including the process of a ratification vote.
March 24:
(1) Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders posts "Fighting for the Rights of Native Hawaiians" on campaign website 2 days before Hawaii Democrat primary.
(2) OHA trustee Peter Apo publishes tribute to Prince Kuhio on day before state holiday Kuhio Day, claiming that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which Kuhio pushed through Congress as Territorial Delegate, is the foundation for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.
(3) Rebuttal to Peter Apo by Ken Conklin, showing that Kuhio was not so princely because he abandoned his native land during the runup to annexation by going on an adventure in Europe and fighting in the Boer War (South Africa), and because he filed lawsuit seeking to declare Lili'uokalani mentally incompetent so he could steal her Waikiki property which she wanted to (and did) put into her Children's Trust to help orphans and indigents.
March 25:
(1) Four leading ethnic Hawaiian tribalists publish essay supporting Hillary Clinton for President
(2) Letter to editor from former OHA trustee urging ethnic Hawaiians NOT to ratify the Na'i Aupuni proposed constitution.
March 31: Secessionist online newspaper publishes Part 4 of a series complaining about what happened behind the scenes at the Na'i Aupuni 4-week gathering, written by independence activist who was a delegate. Parts 1,2,3 were copy/pasted on this webpage on March 4,9,18.
END OF INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES DURING MARCH 2016.
================
** FULL TEXT OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES DURING MARCH 2016
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/nai-aupuni-foes-say-they-will-press-forward-with-suit/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 1, 2016
Na'i Aupuni foes say they will press forward with suit
By Timothy Hurley
A lawsuit targeting Na'i Aupuni and its nation-building campaign will move forward even after last week's conclusion of the Native Hawaiian convention and its creation of a constitution.
Kelii Akina, president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, said Monday that the same U.S. constitutional concerns about a racially based election of convention delegates still apply to the racially exclusive Hawaiian nation described in the governing document.
In addition, plans to hold a racially exclusive ratification vote underscore the importance of the lawsuit, Akina said.
"There are far-reaching implications of this document that should be a concern for all citizens of Hawaii and Native Hawaiians," he said.
A constitution to establish a Hawaiian nation was adopted by more than 100 participants at the convention, or aha, held over four weeks in February at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Course in Maunawili.
Akina is one of six people who sued the state last year for running an illegal, race-based election. Although the suit was rejected by the U.S. District Court in October, it was appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where it now awaits trial.
A bid to block the delegate election was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but a potentially lengthy fight over the court's injunction was averted when the Na'i Aupuni board dropped the balloting and invited all candidates to join the aha.
The plaintiff's legal team, which includes the conservative Washington, D.C.-based Judicial Watch, argued in a reply to the court last month that the cancellation of the delegate election does not make the case moot because the next steps include a ratification vote that is also racially restricted.
Na'i Aupuni and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs had argued that the outcome of the convention was speculative.
"Now they've gone full steam ahead and passed a governing document," Akina said. "This development should help convince the 9th Circuit of what we've said all along: The case is not moot. It doesn't go away just because they canceled the previous election."
Na'i Aupuni officials were unavailable for comment Monday, a spokesman said.
Under the constitution adopted Friday, citizens of the nation are any descendants of the indigenous people who lived in Hawaii prior to 1778, or Western contact.
Akina said there are several alarming provisions of the aha's document.
"These include a virtually limitless land grab at all land, air, water and mineral rights in Hawaii as well as a claim to be able to enter into treaties with foreign powers," he said.
--------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorial/aha-delegates-offer-a-worthy-constitution/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 1, 2016, EDITORIAL
'Aha delegates offer a worthy constitution
The adoption of a constitution, however imperfect, represents a quantum leap for the Native Hawaiian community seeking to advance its sovereignty cause.
The monthlong Native Hawaiian convention, laboring under diminished conditions and with an uncertain pathway forward, completed its primary task last week and moved out an organic document for later ratification. There was significant opposition -- 30 votes against -- but the 88 votes in favor comprises support approaching super-majority levels.
Reaching that level of accord in what has been a deeply contentious issue for decades is an achievement that must not be dismissed. But the legal turbulence that swirls around the whole enterprise will not abate anytime soon. Confronting these problems squarely is essential to making further progress on what is necessarily a long-term movement.
Critics of the convention, also known as the 'aha, correctly chronicle the flaws in the process, including these elements:
>> Na'i Aupuni, the nonprofit organizers of the convention, sidestepped the looming legal impasse by canceling the election to choose delegates to the 'aha. This departure from its own established process, which had been officially noticed and published, leads many people to reasonably question its legitimacy.
>> The roll of voters that will have to ratify the constitution was amassed from multiple enrollment campaigns, mounted under varying circumstances. There were stipulations about Hawaiian sovereignty that not all enrollees signed.
There is also a dispute over whether the ratification vote can include members of an electorate expanded beyond the current roll.
>> Legal challenges still hover over any ratification vote to be planned, which puts into question whether funds can be secured to do the outreach necessary to bring in sufficient participation.
It's not even clear yet whether the original lawsuit, now lodged in the federal appellate court, is moot. But even if it is, the entire notion of a vote conducted only within the Native Hawaiian community is all but certain to draw down a new challenge.
The Grassroot Institute, the nonprofit policy group on the offensive in the current legal challenge, issued a statement Monday decrying the fact that "this ('aha) Constitution does not follow the inclusive spirit of the (Hawaiian) kingdom, which was not racially-based."
The Star-Advertiser has agreed with the finding by the U.S. District Court, that the voting is a private action that should be allowed to proceed. The right of any group of individuals to assemble, organize and govern themselves is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Where this process requires intervention is in how or whether the state and federal government interacts with whatever self-governing entity emerges at the end. The state would have to decide whether the new entity would essentially supplant the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs in managing the ceded-lands revenue and other resources authorized for Native Hawaiian beneficiaries.
Also, the federal government would need to recognize the new government as representing indigenous Hawaiians, similarly to recognition given to Native American tribes and Native Alaskan corporations.
Whether these hurdles can be cleared in time for the lame-duck Obama administration to complete the recognition process it launched seems doubtful, to put it mildly.
However, the Native Hawaiian community should put its focus not on meeting any external timetable but to strive to improve the fairness of the process. For example: Those who want off the voting roll for whatever reason should be accommodated.
The document itself should be a unifying force, not a source of further battles. The individuals who crafted it were unelected, but they were assembled through the call issued in the initial delegate election plan.
This constitution, then, is the product of a broad-based segment of the Hawaiian population and merits consideration as a serious distillation of Native Hawaiian values and aspirations.
-----------------
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/aloha-aina-party-attempt-fails
West Hawaii Today (Kona), March 1, 2016
Aloha Aina Party attempt fails
By TOM CALLIS Hawaii Tribune-Herald
HILO -- A pro-independence hui will have to wait another two years to get on the ballot after coming up short on the number of signatures needed to receive official party status for the 2016 elections.
But one of the founders of the Aloha Aina Party said they will continue organizing in the meantime.
"I think if anything else we are more focused and even more committed," said Pua Ishibashi, of Keaukaha. "And to make sure that this moves forward in 2018, we'll do everything we need to do."
To qualify, the group needed 707 signatures from registered voters by last Thursday. Ishibashi said the state Office of Elections notified them that they didn't have enough qualifying signatures, though he didn't know how far they were off the mark.
One of the challenges, he said, was getting supporters registered to vote in time. Some, who believe the United States is occupying Hawaii, were hesitant to participate in state elections.
"I understand that we are going to need to put more effort into educating," Ishibashi said. "I think a lot of these guys really don't understand the queen, and all her patriots, they were all fighting for the vote."
Founders say they believe the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists, but that's not the only issue they hope to address.
The party says it was founded on five principles: aloha ke akua, aloha kanaka, aloha aina, hooponopono and government accountability.
----------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo0316_web/1?e=2253336/33821470
OHA monthly newspaper for March, 2016, p.26
Monthly column by Dan Ahuna, Vice Chair of OHA and trustee from Kaua'i and Ni'ihau
How can OHA better support progress in pursuit of self-determination for Kanaka Maoli?
OHA has consistently taken a position to support the Kanaka Maoli right to to self-determination, but what does this mean? It is clear that the United States has been slow to accept the growing movement for indigenous peoples' rights both domestically and internationally. However, in 2011, President Obama finally signaled the U.S. support of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) after President Bush and the Republican party stalled the U.S. acceptance of this important policy.
What is the UNDRIP? It is international policy that carves out a distinct set of rights for indigenous people around the world. The concept began in the 1970's when Native Americans and other indigenous peoples started heavily advocating for greater rights and say in improving their conditions in response to the oppressive actions of powerful nations. In 2007, the United Nations adopted the policy and most of the world's nations signed on, while America and a few other "superpowers" held out.
To get an idea of what the UNDRIP language provides we can look to Articles 3 and 5 of the document. Article 3 states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
Article 5 states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State."
While the United States has not accepted the UNDRIP or any other international policy as binding law, by supporting the UNDRIP it strengthens the position of indigenous advocacy in the United States. It also provides a path for greater advocacy in the international arena that Kanaka Maoli must take advantage of. While there are questions about how this indigenous policy framework co-exists with claims regarding the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom because no such international policy existed at the time of the overthrow, it is critical that we begin to differentiate between the rights that indigenous Hawaiians hold versus the harms the Kingdom and its subjects suffered as a result of the overthrow. Kanaka Maoli would fall into both classes, and it is important that we understand that.
This is a complex issue that we as a community will have to navigate with great care. However, we should not be afraid of exercising rights that the international community and the U.S. currently support. We must gain greater control of cultural resources and assets, and we must have greater autonomy in exercising that control if we are going to flourish in our homeland.
So what can OHA do? Currently, OHA's policy with regard to self-determination only recognizes the pathway of federal recognition, the policy has not been revisited since the passage of UNDRIP and the U.S. expressing support of that important policy. It is time that OHA make the necessary adjustments to update its own self-determination policy to reflect the changes in international and domestic policy that provide for greater protections of our people and resources. We cannot rely solely on U.S. crafted processes such as the proposed Dept. of Interior rulemaking. OHA needs to begin to examine broadening its policy on self-determination to be inclusive of other pathways in pursuit of international diplomatic efforts to increase our standing and exercising our rights to self-determination in the international arena as the indigenous people of Hawai'i, while simultaneously preserving any and all claims relating to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
--------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo0316_web/1?e=2253336/33821470
OHA monthly newspaper for March, 2016, p.27
Monthly column by Leina'ala Ahu Isa, trustee at-large
A Huliaiu... for OHA?
Having been elected as a Trustee of OHA on November 4, 2014, I was always curious and
wanted to know how Act 195 was added to the Hawaii Revised Statutes.
Have you ever reflected on the past scratched your head and said, "What was I thinking? But we all know we can't go back in time." However, what if we could? What if we hopped in our OHA time machine and looked into the future? This is what we see on November 7, 2013:
Yay!! OHA Trustees vote to shut down the Kana'iolowalu Native Hawaiian Roll Commission as expenses are sky high!
According to OHA, only 21,418 Hawaiians signed up for the Roll as of September 27, 2013. The Commission burned through $3.3M of OHA resources and was demanding another $2.5M when the Trustees decided to pull the plug.
This is a huge victory for Native Hawaiians. Hawaiian affairs are returning to the channel created
in the Hawaii Admission Act which holds that all of Hawaii is responsible for 'the betterment of Native Hawaiians.'
From the Minutes of the OHA Trustees meeting November 7, 2013:
"Approved 7-1-1 (Machado excused, Ahuna votes 'no') Motion to amend, approve and authorize funding in the amount of $595,000 from OHA's FY 2014 Fiscal Reserve Authorization for the FY 2014 Native Hawaiian Roll Commission Operating Budget and to include Trustee Robert Lindsey's 10 recommendations as well as a two (2) week deadline for an exit plan and this approved amount will be the final funding for the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission."
The recommendations were:
* That Kana'iolowalu present a clear Exit Plan to terminating Operations to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs within two weeks.
* That if a Kanaka Maoli puwalu is to be convened that such a puwalu be convened and called for by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and not the Hawaii Legislature and that all interested stakeholders and constituencies will be allowed to participate at a common table.
* That the Office of Hawaiian Affairs will be a neutral party at such a puwalu whose kuleana will be simply to facilitate such a puwalu.
* That the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in pursuing a model for sovereignty will take kuleana to educate and inform the general and Hawaiian community through various media including Ka Wai Ola and Kamakako'i on the events of January 1893 when our Queen yielded her Government to the United States of America.
* That the Office of Hawaiian Affairs will take kuleana to educate and inform the general and Hawaiian community through various media including Ka Wai Ola and Kamakako'i on the U.S. Minister's role in the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
* That the Office of Hawaiian Affairs will take kuleana to educate and inform the general and Hawaiian community through various media including Ka Wai Ola and Kamakako'i on President Cleveland's message to Congress in December 1893 on the Blount investigation.
* That the Office of Hawaiian Affairs will take kuleana to educate and inform the general and Hawaiian community through Ka Wai Ola and Kamakako'i on the Apology Resolution of 1893.
* That the Office of Hawaiian Affairs will facilitate a discussion on all models of self-determination including independence and international recognition table.
By state constitutional provision, OHA is the lead agency on matters relating to Native Hawaiians. OHA did not initiate or pass Act 195, which created Kana'iolowalu. The state Legislature did, but refused to fund this initiative. On July 7, 2011, Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed Act 195 into law.
And so it goes ... on and on ... more and more $$$$$$$$......
A hui hou until April, Trustee Leina'ala
-------------------
** OHA trustee Peter Apo publishes a condensed version of his essay from a few months ago in Civil Beat entitled "What Does It Mean To Be Hawaiian?" on pg. 28 of Ka Wai Ola.
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo0316_web/1?e=2253336/33821470
See
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/10/peter-apo-what-does-it-mean-to-be-hawaiian/
Honolulu Civil Beat, October 15, 2015
and also copied on this website for that date at
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/AkakaHist2015StartOct1.html
------------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/staradvertiser-poll/what-do-you-think-about-the-native-hawaiian-constitution-adopted-during-the-aha-convention
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 2, 2016
Big Q [daily online poll on a controversial Question]
What do you think about the Native Hawaiian constitution adopted during the aha (convention)?
C. Meaningless (551 Votes)
B. Alarming; needs to be stopped (194 Votes)
A. Meaningful; supports self-determination (190 Votes)
--------------------
http://www.law360.com/articles/766265/vote-on-native-hawaiian-constitution-likely-opponents-say
Law360.com, March 2, 2016
Vote On Native Hawaiian Constitution Likely, Opponents Say
By Andrew Westney
Law360, New York (March 2, 2016, 4:59 PM ET) -- Six individuals challenging a process to potentially establish a Native Hawaiian government told the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday that the creation of a proposed constitution for the new government during a recently ended convention supported their contention that an illegally race-based vote on the plan is likely.
The group of Native Hawaiians, Native Hawaiian descendants and state residents had said in a Feb. 19 filing that their suit challenging an election to the Native Hawaiian convention wasn't rendered moot when the election was canceled, arguing that an anticipated vote to ratify "governing documents" emerging from the event would unconstitutionally rely on the same race-based voter roll.
The group said Tuesday that the Na'i Aupuni Foundation, which is behind the canceled election and the convention, has since revealed a constitution for the new nation that calls for an election to ratify the document, despite the foundation's earlier objections that the possibility of such a vote was only speculative.
In addition, the constitution defines the proposed Native Hawaiian nation's citizens in a way that is "identical in all material respects to the race-based definition used to create the registration roll that is the subject of this lawsuit," the challengers argued in their motion.
Na'i Aupuni originally planned to hold a vote-by-mail election of delegates to a convention known as an 'Aha to discuss a path to Native Hawaiian self-determination and potentially draft a constitution, but terminated the election in December, saying the suit initiated by the six individuals -- which primarily alleged the election process excludes non-natives in violation of the U.S. Constitution -- could drag on for years.
Instead, the nonprofit offered seats at the convention to all 196 candidates, approximately 150 of which ultimately planned to attend the 'Aha, which began on Feb. 1 and concluded Feb. 26 with the approval of the proposed constitution.
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright had refused in October to block the then-upcoming election that was scheduled to begin on Nov. 1, saying the plaintiffs had not shown that the election would violate the First, 14th or 15th Amendments or the Voting Rights Act.
Kelli Akina and the other plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit in late October, arguing that the election is a public function because Na'i Aupuni is working with the state of Hawaii, including using a race-based list of Native Hawaiian voters that was created by state agencies.
The appeals court in November rejected the plaintiffs' request to halt the election. Shortly after, in a divided decision, the U.S. Supreme Court put a hold on ballot counting until the Ninth Circuit issues a final decision in the suit.
The federal government in a February amicus brief urged the circuit court to dismiss the appeal as moot or to affirm the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction on the election, saying Native Hawaiians have an inherent right to organize any form of government they choose.
But the plaintiffs countered in February that the foundation had canceled the election to try to dodge their claims, and that the foundation's expected vote to ratify governing documents emerging from the ongoing convention posed the same constitutional and statutory problems as the aborted election.
On Tuesday, the plaintiffs attached the proposed constitution to their filing and noted that it defines its citizens as "any descendant of the aboriginal and indigenous people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian Islands and is enrolled in the nation" -- essentially the same requirements for those on the contested voter roll, they said.
The constitution, which was approved on Friday by an 88-30 vote, lays out the territory, citizenship and language parameters of the proposed new nation, provides a declaration of rights, and details the composition of the judicial, executive and legislative branches of the government, along with other requirements and characteristics of the proposed new government.
Article 51 of the constitution states that "a ratification election shall be held for the purpose of ratifying this Constitution," and that the document would become effective if a majority of those eligible to be citizens and over the age of 18 approve it in the vote.
The publication of the constitution shows that the convention has produced a governing document and that the ratification referendum for the constitution is now likely, the plaintiffs said.
The appellants in the case include Native Hawaiian descendants Akina and Kealii Makekau, who say they cannot register to vote because they will not affirm that they favor Native Hawaiian sovereignty and self-governance; Hawaii residents Joseph Kent and Yoshimasa Sean Mitsui, who claim that race-based ancestry requirements are preventing them from registering to vote; and Native Hawaiians Melissa Leina'ala Moniz and Pedro Kana'e Gapero, who say they were registered to vote without their knowledge or consent.
Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for comment Wednesday.
The appellants are represented by Robert D. Popper, Paul J. Orfanedes, Lauren M. Burke and Chris Fedeli of Judicial Watch Inc., Michael A. Lilly of Ning Lilly & Jones, and H. Christopher Coates.
The state of Hawaii is represented by Donna H. Kalama of the state's major litigation unit, and Girard D. Lau and Robert T. Nakatsuji of the state Department of the Attorney General.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is represented by Eli Schlam, Ellen E. Oberwetter, Kannon K. Shanmugam and Masha G. Hansford of Williams & Connolly LLP, and Robert G. Klein of of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP.
The Na'i Aupuni Foundation is represented by David J. Minkin of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP.
The case is Keli'i Akina et al. v. State of Hawaii et al., case number 15-17134, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/03/peter-apo-a-native-hawaiian-constitution-is-born/
Honolulu Civil Beat, March 3, 2016
A Native Hawaiian Constitution Is Born
The aha delegates have done their work. Now it's our turn.
by Peter Apo
Last Friday, by an 88-33 vote, the delegates to the Native Hawaiian convention yanked the question of "What do Hawaiians mean by nationhood?" from the shadows of ambiguity and confusion and flung it out there like a high-flying Frisbee looking for a place to land.
By a two-thirds majority, the delegates gave wings to a "Constitution of the Native Hawaiian Nation." In doing so, they met two formidable challenges that some feared would derail the convention.
First, through remarkable leadership, they emphatically fended off anarchist attempts to undermine a democratic process and the principle of majority rule.
Second, racing against a 20-day convention clock, they rose to the level of intellectual leadership and political sophistication needed to draft a constitution that is a legitimate political work.
Ultimately, they overcame a few bumps in the road, exceeded general expectations and met both challenges with discipline, dignity and procedural fairness.
Citizenship
The most important provision of any national constitution is to define citizenship. This constitution simply requires one to meet the existing definition of Native Hawaiian under federal law as any descendant of the aboriginal and indigenous people who were in Hawaii prior to 1778 (Captain Cook's arrival).
A second, very important provision for many Hawaiians, wisely provides for dual Hawaiian nation and U.S. citizenship. That is expressed by the provision that, "Any benefits accorded to the citizenry, by virtue of their status as citizens of the United States, shall not be diminished or impaired by the provisions of this Constitution or the laws of the Nation."
Maintaining U.S. citizenship was of critical concern for many mainstream Hawaiians.
A third and very interesting provision, under a separate section of the constitution, addresses the rights and privileges of the nation: "The Nation has the inherent power to establish the requirements for citizenship in the Nation. The Nation reserves the right to modify or change citizenship requirement ..."
This is an important provision. Once the nation is established and the constitution is adopted, it allows the government to open citizenship to persons of other ancestry, as was the case at the time of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893.
This seems a strategic positioning of constitutional language in anticipation of a time when the nation will move toward becoming multi-ethnic to include perhaps the rest of Hawaii.
Federal Recognition Or Independence
The Constitution leaves the option of federal recognition or independence open, to be determined once the constitution is ratified and the government is formed. The provision reads, "We reserve all rights to Sovereignty and Self-determination, including the pursuit of independence."
This option-friendly statement is reinforced further in the body of the constitution, declaring, "The Nation has the right to self-determination, including but not limited to, the right to determine the political status of the nation ..."
Clearly this was an accommodation for delegates committed to independence. It's a "let's get the ship out of the harbor and then decide on the destination once we're underway."
In the end, this will be the most difficult sea to sail.
National Lands
Of course, central to the whole idea of a Hawaiian nation is the question of what will serve as the land base for the nation. Many people feared that when Hawaiians spoke of nationhood, the intent was to re-claim all of Hawaii. Delegates answered the question in two provisions addressing the geo-political subdivisions of lands that would provide the physical footprint of the nation.
One provision speaks to "lands ... belonging to, controlled by, and designated ... for the Hawaiian Nation." These lands would include such places as Kahoolawe Island and Iolani Palace, already reserved by the state for conveyance to a new governing entity.
Also included would be lands now owned in fee title by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, such as the Na Lama Kukui Building (formerly the Gentry-Pacific Design Center), 30 acres of Kakaako Makai, 1,800 acres at Waimea Valley, and other substantial properties such as 20,000 acres of Puna forest lands on Hawaii Island and 500 acres of land in Wahiawa (Kukaniloko) previously referred to as the Galbraith property.
There are a number of other properties sprinkled throughout the state.
A second provision states "Native Hawaiian people ... never relinquished their claims to their national lands ... the Government shall pursue the repatriation and return of the national lands ... or other just compensation for lands lost."
This is a loaded provision in a deliberate statement of intent suggestive of a negotiation with the state and federal government for either the return of thousands of acres of public trust lands, or some form of compensation for the loss of such lands.
Other Hawaiian Lands
The body very smartly also provided a status quo accommodation for lands now held in trust by the state under federal law and managed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
The status quo provision also wisely includes the privately held trust lands of the Alii Trusts such as the Kamehameha Schools, Queen Liliuokalani Trust, Lunalilo Trust and others. The provision declares that current rights of these institutions and their beneficiaries will not be affected as a provision of the constitution.
Governance
The governance model set forth is fairly straightforward. It includes a president, a vice president, and what is referred to as a nine-member Moku Council, which I assume to be an advisory cabinet of sorts.
The constitution calls for a unicameral (one-body) legislature composed of representatives from 43 legislative districts. There are two sets of representatives elected from each district, one set determined by land size, and another set determined by population. Both sets are equal in authority and are teamed to represent each district.
Other aspects of structuring the government are phased to evolve into a final configuration as the many moving parts of re-convening a national government, after 123 years, fall into place.
Ratification
One predictable challenge, from the inception of the aha and the presumption it would yield a constitutional document, is for the constitution to be ratified in an election process.
Questions abound as to how this critical next step gets initiated. How will it be funded? Who will be eligible to vote? What political standing will it have if ratified? Who takes ownership?
A Question Of Legitimacy
The most interesting public policy puzzle to be navigated: The aha and the constitution it has rendered, for all the angst and brouhaha to get this far, has no official political standing. So, I anticipate that foes will aggressively pursue challenges to the legitimacy of the body politic, the constitutional document it produced, and steps toward ratification.
Attacks on legitimacy will come from two directions.
First, I anticipate more lawsuits to be filed by the gang of six plaintiffs led by Keli'i Akina, chief executive of the local organization Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. This group seems opposed to any form of political self-determination by Hawaiians. It has created a legal flashpoint, by challenging any attempt by Hawaiians to organize a Hawaiians-only election as racist and unconstitutional.
This group complicitly joins the right-wing political view shared by some members of Congress who continue to deny Native Hawaiians the same constitutional right to self-determination accorded every other indigenous peoples of the United States by acts of Congress. They are advocates of revisionist Hawaiian history that the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was a legitimate transfer of sovereignty and Hawaiians have no case for seeking reconciliation or independence.
By contrast, at the extreme opposite end of the fracas, a self-identified group referred to as Hawaiian Nationals aggressively argue that Hawaii is a country illegally occupied by the United States. Therefore, any attempt to reconcile or seek nation-within-a-nation status, as one of the options provided for in the constitutional document produced by the Aha, is traitorous.
Some Hawaiian Nationals participated in the aha but exited, apparently to form an opposition movement to oppose ratification.
I expect sparks to continue to fly from both these camps as each vies to capture the political high ground.
In my opinion, the aha, its delegates, and its draft constitution are as legitimate as it gets. The collective body politic of the aha represented many of the best and brightest from the Hawaiian community. The assemblage included leaders of long-standing Hawaiian organizations, noted scholars of history and law, educators, and men and women from the business sector.
These delegates didn't just pop out of the ground. They collectively were truly representative of the Hawaiian community and bonded by years of engagement in the struggle for Hawaiian self-determination. Some came from highly credentialed Hawaiian families where engagement spans two and three generations.
For this old man, it was an assemblage to behold.
Meanwhile, what's next for the initiative launched by the delegates of the aha? Will there be some attempt to provide a continuum of the delegates to the aha as a body politic providing an organizational center of gravity to move the nationhood initiative forward and stave off attempts by foes to disrupt and derail the process?
Do they perhaps keep their delegate credentials alive, although adjourned as a convention, and incorporate into some kind of government-free body politic, place an intellectual copyright claim on the constitution they fashioned, and strategize as they sort out next steps?
I don't have the answer; but I believe they have turned the corner on self-determination and are moving in the right direction.
The Historic Opportunity
From my perch, the two most formidable challenges moving forward will be raising the funds to hold a public ratification vote and defending legal challenges to the ratification process.
I don't know what the numbers are, but I'm sure the process of ratification will require at least $2 million. It is not likely, for political and other reasons, that any one benefactor will step forward and save the day. My hope is that the next steps will lie in the willingness of the entire Hawaiian community to rise to the historic opportunity and join a grass-roots fundraising drive.
Let us have faith in the democratic process and move forward as one people to support a ratification initiative that puts the question in the hands of the people.
The delegates have done their work. It is our turn at bat.
About the Author
A former legislator, Peter Apo is a trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the president of the Peter Apo Company LLC, a cultural tourism consulting company to the visitor industry. He has also been the arts and culture director for Honolulu, the city's director of Waikiki Development and served as special assistant on Hawaiian affairs to Gov. Ben Cayetano. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of OHA or other organizations he is involved in.
-----
** Ken Conklin's online comment:
The 'aha adopted a declaration of race-war. Right up front in your face, the preamble says "we join together to affirm a government of, by, and for Native Hawaiian people" (i.e., of the race, by the race, and for the race), and "affirm our ancestral rights and Kuleana to all lands, waters, and resources of our islands and surrounding seas." (i.e., we're gonna take over the whole place, just like Kamehameha did, who was known as "Ka Na'i Aupuni" -- the conqueror.) The plain language in the preamble is the declaration of a race-war from a gathering blatantly labeled "Na'i Aupuni" which means "Conquest."
All that speculative sweet-talk blathering from Peter Apo cannot cover up the actual words written in the Declaration of Race-War. Apo is saying "Believe what I'm telling you, don't believe your lying eyes when you read the words approved by the 'aha." Well, he's an experienced politician after all. What do you expect?
See my book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State." 27 copies available in the Hawaii Public Library system. Entire Chapter 1, plus detailed table of contents, available at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
Here are my 4 fundamental principles. I hope, and believe, that most people in Hawaii, including most ethnic Hawaiians, believe in these 4 principles. And the Na'i Aupuni document is contrary to all of them.
1. We are all equal in the eyes of God, regardless of race.
2. Government should treat us all equally under the law, regardless of race.
3. Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, not be divided into separate sovereignties for different races.
4. Hawaii should remain united with the United States, not become an independent nation.
--------------------
http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/what-really-happened-at-the-aha-part-i
Hawaii Independent, March 4, 2016
What really happened at the Aha, part I
A look at what went on behind the closed gates of the Royal Hawaiian Golf Course last month.
by Ka'iulani Milham
Editor's note: As one of the 154 kanaka maoli who agreed to participate in the state-sponsored, Na'i Aupuni-initiated Native Hawaiian 'Aha, Ka'iulani Milham had a front row seat at the month-long proceedings. What follows is the first installment of a multi-part, first-hand account that highlights various and consistent affronts to democratic processes that ruled during the 'Aha proceedings.
Despite heavy opposition from federal recognition advocates and an agenda deliberately primed to produce a federal recognition-friendly constitution, Hawaiian independence advocates at the Native Hawaiian Convention, better known as the 'Aha, succeeded in planting a stake in the ground for the "pursuit of independence."
For Jade Danner, a staunch proponent of federal recognition, those three words -- hard won additions to the draft constitution's preamble -- were a stake to the heart. According to Katie Kamelamela, one of two appointed sergeants-at-arms during the 'Aha, the words sent her "crying like a little bitch" to the parking lot.
Independence advocates knew the stakes going in.
They knew that independence is an option in diametric opposition to the interests of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and they knew that, after a decade of failure to secure federal recognition through the Akaka Bill, OHA was desperate for a win.
Twice in recent years, at the 1999 'Aha Hawai'i 'Oiwi (AHO) and again at the 2000 Ha Hawai'i conventions, OHA had withheld funding after the elected delegates determined to pursue independence.
Despite declaring their neutrality this time around, OHA's continued commitment to federal recognition became evident through the creation and promotion of Na'i Aupuni, a nonprofit tailor-made to promote the federal recognition agenda. The group is comprised of a handful of volunteers, including Pauline Namu'o, the wife of former OHA Chief Executive Officer Clyde Namu'o, who was himself an 'Aha participant. In the months preceding the 'Aha delegates election date, Na'i Aupuni directors explicitly stated that the 'Aha was to be a venue for pursuing all options, including independence. But independence advocates had repeatedly witnessed the depths to which the state and its sponsored agencies were prepared to stoop to achieve their goal of federal recognition for Hawaiians.
They had traced the trajectory of this latest push for federal recognition, which -- like its predecessors -- has struggled to gain traction within the lahui, from its insemination at the state legislature in 2011 when Senator Brickwood Galuteria introduced SB 1520, the-soon-to-become Act 195, or the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act. They knew that, after spending three years and more than $4 million, only about 21,000 kanaka maoli had registered for Kana'iolowalu, the Native Hawaiian Roll. They saw how, after failing to gain buy-in from the lahui, Kana'iolowalu's commissioners had gone so far as to threaten members of the lahui with excommunication in OHA's newspaper, Ka Wai Ola, saying those who failed to sign up risked "waiving their right, and the right of their children and descendants" to citizenship, voting and potential benefits including payment and scholarships.
http://hawaiiindependent.net/static/photography/12784568_10205745762541848_1568022493_n.jpg
Determined to carry on with their convention, despite a stay on the election of delegates imposed by the United States Supreme Court, the Na'i Aupuni directors invited all delegate candidates to participate in the 'Aha under a new scheme wherein the newly designated "participants" would meet for just four weeks, instead of the original eight.
State Representative Kaniela Ing had considered participating in the 'Aha, but elected to focus on his duties at the capitol with the legislative session in full-swing. Nevertheless, he expressed his concerns about the hurried nature of the revised schedule in a Dec. 23 email to Louis F. Perez, a liaison between Na'i Aupuni's fiscal sponsor, the Akamai Foundation, and its directors and the 'Aha candidates:
Bill Meheula made it clear to candidates, in every info session, that delegates will have full authority and control over the meeting dates, timeline, and the 'aha at-large. He told us directly that delegates could change the start date. You are now saying that this is no longer true ...
The retracted authority of delegates and the disregard of our conditions are very disappointing and lend credence to the narrative that nai aupuni [sic] is ramming this forward by any means necessary.
But these concerns fell on deaf ears. And so, on Feb. 1, 2016, the 'Aha began.
An Inauspicious Start
Though largely devoted to educational presentations -- on constitution building, federal Indian law/federal recognition, international law/de-occupation, decolonization, U.S. constitutional law and ceded lands, as well as Hawaiian kingdom law -- the first week of the 'Aha saw inklings of the discord to come, as calls for increased transparency and the admission of non-participant observers were vehemently rebuffed by federal recognition proponents.
The ruckus over transparency and non-participant observers carried on over days and included a Washington state participant who explained that she already felt "like a hostage" and said: "pay me my $5,000 and I'll go home," referring to her Na'i Aupuni stipend.
A more intense skirmish over transparency erupted when a member of the Royal Order of Kamehameha became incensed, stalking forward to confront a transparency advocate face to face after the man had trained his mobile phone camera on him only minutes before while he delivered a tirade of anti-transparency rhetoric.
Just a day later, the same participant once again became the focal point of a commotion. Carrying ti leaves and dressed in a red and yellow 'ahu 'ula (royal cloak), he became overwrought after the usual morning protocol of singing the Hawaiian doxology, breaking out into an emotionally charged solo performance of "Hawai'i Pono'i" until he was escorted away by the sergeants-at-arms as he repeatedly shouted "don't touch me!"
As police officers attempted to respond to the altercation, Bumpy Kanahele kept them at bay by standing in the doorway and persuading them that all was under control, demonstrating a sometimes generous-to-a-fault urge to aloha one another that triumphed over the rules of conduct adopted by the 'Aha throughout the four-week proceedings. The troubled participant was nevertheless banned from the premises by the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club management the following day and did not return to the 'Aha.
Working under the guidance of hired facilitators Peter Adler and Linda Coburn (of the Mediation Center of the Pacific), and assisted by Ku'umeaaloha Gomes, director of Kua'ana Native Hawaiian Student Development Services at the University of Hawai'i (UH) at Manoa, the 'Aha adopted consensus-building as its overarching Golden Rule, along with 'Aelike -- a collaborative process by which participants are permitted to speak a second time only after all others who wish to speak have spoken once.
Though it had sounded good on paper when Adler and Colburn proposed it to the 'Aha participants via a January 8th email survey, in practice the 'Aelike was proving to be an awkward tool for a group so large. By the end of the first week, the 'Aha plenary of more than 100 unelected participants had devolved into a chaotic and frustrating atmosphere.
Despite the consensus-building rule, the facilitators' plan encouraged participants to work within their respective federal recognition or independence caucuses. The plan was met with protest from participants who felt such a strategy would be divisive, creating entrenched positions rather than lokahi (unity). Amidst the existing atmosphere, in which the facilitators struggled to manage the unwieldy group, members of the 'Aha were eager for rules and structure.
Adopting Robert's Rules of Order, 11th edition, as the 'Aha's new procedural foundation, participants elected Brendon Kalei'aina Lee, a currency trader and longtime Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs (AHCC) member, as interim chair on a motion by fellow AHCC parliamentarian Makana Paris. Within hours of being nominated interim chair, Lee telegraphed his desire for power, declaring that, "Interim is whatever we decide." As interim chair, Lee supported the facilitator's plan to separate the Federal Recognition and Independence factions, arguing that each group could better define its own positions separately before coming together again as a whole to determine commonalities.
"This isn't how we're going to decide, it's just a conversation," said Lee.
Later that same day, in anticipation of the facilitators' departure at the end of the second week, the 'Aha voted to create a leadership team with a chair, two vice chairs, two appointed sergeants-at-arms and two secretaries.
Just who would fill those key positions would become an important factor in the weeks to come.
The Young and the Restless
Closely tracking the agenda of the comparatively older federal recognition camp was Na Makalehua, a caucus describing itself as comprised of "young Hawaiians," and a "new generation of humble and prepared warriors."
With a youthful zeal and a desire to make their mark on the nation-building gathering, the members of this group nevertheless included a sprinkling of middle-aged members; a 40-ish Keoni Kuoha (Kamehameha Schools, 1994), as well as the greying OHA community outreach coordinator Shane Nelson.
In addition to Nelson, at least four other Makalehua members (Catelin Aiwohi, Kuhio Lewis, Jocelyn Doane and Davis Price) are or were OHA employees. Other Makalehua members included former Native Hawaiian Roll commissioner Na'alehu Anthony and 'O'iwi TV's Amy Kalili. Kalili is also executive director of Makauila, a Hawaiian language nonprofit that has received more than $673,000 of OHA beneficiary funds, according to the Roll Commission check register.
Meeting to strategize in advance of the 'Aha, Makalehua members -- the majority of whom are lawyers (Price, Ka'ili, Doane, Matthew Ka'aihue, Keani Rawlins-Fernandez and Olu Campbell) or law students (Paris, Zuri Aki, Rebecca Soon and Tyler Gomes) -- gathered in mid-January at Punalu'u. Makalehua's game plan came into play at the end of the first week when Lewis attempted to quash any discussion of independence by introducing a motion to adopt a "Statement of Purpose" that was worded to limit the business of the 'Aha to "establishing a Native Hawaiian government" using only federal recognition-preferred term:
The Purpose of our 'Aha is to draft a constitution that establishes a Native Hawaiian government to affirm our identity as Native Hawaiians with rights to self-governance, to advance the hopes of our lahui, and to support our kuleana to malama 'aina, perpetuate our language, culture and 'o'iwi identity and provide for the needs of our people.
Seconded by fellow OHA staffer Shane Nelson, the Purpose Statement became a serious bone of contention. After lengthy debate among the plenary, it was tabled "to a time uncertain," to be hashed out later by a task force over the course of several hours in jam-packed side room where independence advocates, including Bumpy Kanahele, fought to have their interests preserved.
As Kanahele put it, "I still get one hard time if 'national identity' not in deah ... I no like go further because, if 'national' not put in deah, it gonna be one problem for me ... it's one big problem for me."
When the dust settled, Kanahele's push to include "national identity" in the Purpose Statement language had succeeded. But the final wording included Lewis' original federal recognition-friendly language as well, calling for the establishment a "Native Hawaiian government." A few days later, Kanahele resigned from the 'Aha.
Even after its adoption, the Purpose Statement continued to dog the 'Aha as Chair Lee ruled that discussion that did not fit within its strict definitions would be ruled "out of order." (In the Groupshare archives of the 'Aha, which only participants have access to, the adopted Purpose Statement has been stripped of wording specifically defining the intention of the various points independence advocates fought for and that were adopted by the body.) Under the guise of adhering to Robert's Rules of Order and bringing a sense of control to the unruly body, Lee used his position as chair to ensure debate inside the closed-door plenary sessions stuck to the federal recognition agenda while keeping pro-independence voices in check.
Coming out of left field, former Roll Commissioner Lei Kihoi's motion to allow veteran sovereignty advocate and attorney Poka Laenui a 15-minute presentation was followed by a volley of motions to add more independence presenters to the agenda. Motions to allow presentations by independence advocates Keoni Agard and UH Manoa Richardson Law School professor Williamson Chang were vociferously opposed by federal recognition advocates and just as passionately supported by the independence proponents.
Using a tactic that would be repeated on the final days of the 'Aha to squelch debate over the final draft of the constitution, federal recognition proponents passed an amendment limiting the time for presentations from 15 minutes to 10 minutes, with a mandatory five minutes reserved for Q&A.
As expressed by Makalehua member Ka'aihue, one of the group's UH Richardson Law grads, they were "in it to win it." It was an attitude that would be seen again and again over the coming weeks as Makalehua members pushed to write a constitution in a mere 20 days.
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/funds-needed-to-continue-building-hawaiian-nation/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 6, 2016
Funds needed to continue building Hawaiian nation
By Timothy Hurley
Got cash? Want to kick-start a nation?
Contact the folks who were part of February's Native Hawaiian constitutional convention, or aha. They may be looking for donations soon to underwrite the next stage of the nation-building process.
Cash, perhaps lots of it, will be needed, they say, to pay for a campaign to educate Native Hawaiians about the new governing document, add new Hawaiian registered voters and stage a ratification election.
Key members of the aha say fundraising likely will be necessary to dodge the same potentially lengthy legal delays that led to the cancellation of November's election of convention delegates.
Na'i Aupuni, the nonprofit tabbed by the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs to oversee the nation-building exercise, discontinued vote counting to duck trouble with the U.S. Supreme Court, which had temporarily halted the balloting in response to a lawsuit claiming public funds were being used to finance a racially exclusive election contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Na'i Aupuni responded by declaring it a private affair and inviting all 196 candidates to a seat at the convention table in Maunawili.
While the high court backed off, the suit carried by the conservative Grassroot Institute of Hawaii continues with the same constitutional objections to racial exclusion.
The constitution, approved Feb. 26 with an 88-30 vote and one abstention, calls for a government led by executive, legislative and judicial branches and representing only descendents of the indigenous people who lived in the islands prior to 1778, or Western contact.
The document leaves room for seeking federal recognition by the U.S. government while holding out for the possibility of independence.
The 1978 Constitutional Convention established the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to act on behalf of Native Hawaiians until a Native Hawaiian governing entity is re-established, and the 2011 state Legislature reaffirmed that path with Act 195, tapping OHA to fund a self-determination effort with trust funds.
Initially, Na'i Aupuni, which received nearly $2.6 million from OHA, was assigned to pay for the ratification election under its agreement with the state agency. It's unclear how much money the nonprofit has remaining in its coffers after switching gears to host a convention with more than three times the number of participants originally planned.
Na'i Aupuni attorney William Meheula could not be reached for comment last week, and a Na'i Aupuni spokesman said Friday he couldn't immediately provide any answers about the organization's financial situation.
OHA spokesman Garett Kamemoto also declined to comment, citing the lawsuit that also names the state agency.
In any case, aha participants say it appears they will need private funds to underwrite the ratification campaign, and they hope to secure the funds fairly quickly to advance the progress of the monthlong convention.
"We don't want to lose any momentum," said veteran Native Hawaiian advocate Davianna McGregor, a University of Hawaii ethnic studies professor who was both a participant and served as an aha expert on kingdom law. "The wave is building."
A group of young aha participants calling themselves Na Makalehua met last weekend to talk about the next steps.
"Our timeline fell somewhere between six months to a year for the ideal ratification," said Zuri Aki, a UH law student who served as chief drafter during the aha. "We wanted to keep the momentum going, but we also wanted to take the time to educate about what we created."
Some participants have already taken a copy of the constitution to Hawaiian civic clubs and it was well received, Aki said.
How much money will be needed?
Asked immediately after the convention, former state lawmaker and participant Annelle Amaral speculated it would cost as much as $500,000 for the election alone. But others suggested new technologies could cut costs.
Another expense will be expanding the voter base. Participants say the convention intentionally wrote its constitution to open eligibility beyond the Native Hawaiian roll, which claims about 90,000 eligible voters.
But how to do that could be problematic. To be eligible, one must be Native Hawaiian and 18 years of age. Verifying ancestry isn't exactly an inexpensive endeavor, however.
Participant Naalehu Anthony, who is vice chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, said the roll is still open for registration but is operating with the help of only a handful of volunteers. Substantial funding will be needed if a large number of people are to sign up, he said.
Another hurdle to ratification are the independence hard-liners who object to the state-initiated origins of the aha and the appearance that it was designed to usher in federal recognition. They have vowed to campaign against the constitution.
Noelani Goodyear-Ka'opua, a UH political science professor, said the independence movement should not be underestimated. Opponents of federal recognition, she said, showed their force when they dominated the 2014 Department of the Interior meetings to speak out against the proposed rule to establish a government-to-government relationship with the United States, and when a series of anti-Na'i Aupuni meetings called "Aha Aloha Aina" were also well attended, including at least 200 people at the Oahu meeting.
Goodyear-Ka'opua said the aha was flawed in process and rushed -- and it shows in the final product. She said she hopes supporters don't race to ratification and instead open up the process to more scrutiny.
"The danger of it being rushed is low (voter) turnout and leaving people behind," she said. "This is a serious issue. It deserves time and real deliberation."
Aha participants counter that the opposition can disagree by voting down the constitution. Anyone opposed to federal recognition can vote for leaders who don't favor that path.
Not every participant who voted for the constitution necessarily supports federal recognition, Aki noted. In fact, when the convention split into two groups during its second week, nearly two-thirds of the participants found their way to the independence caucus, he said.
It soon became clear that drafters would write a document that wouldn't preclude either pathway, Aki said.
As the former majority policy director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs under former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, who was chairman, Jade Danner was one of the participants who would argue on behalf of federal recognition, saying it would lead to greater access to federal programs that will enhance the well-being of Native Hawaiians.
But even if federal recognition is not achieved, she said, a Native Hawaiian government recognized as legitimate by Hawaiians will have value.
"The government we are proposing in the constitution is directly and exclusively accountable to the Native Hawaiian people, and better accountability always means better outcomes for the people served," she said.
Danner said that while she was initially disappointed with the clause in the constitution's preamble that reserves the right to seek independence, she does not see it as a deal-breaker to federal recognition.
"I expect the DOI will see the pursuit of independence as a good thing, especially when it means a desire to provide homes for our houseless, meet the education and health needs of our lahui (nation), and strengthen the vitality of our language and culture," she said.
McGregor, the UH ethnic studies professor, said many Native Hawaiians view an independent nation as a distant goal.
As for the opposition, "I think they're afraid federal recognition will provide programs and services and land and will make people not want to push for independence anymore," she said. "But that's not a good reason for standing in the way of improving the condition of Hawaiians."
----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorial/kalakauas-reign-also-a-time-of-sovereignty/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 6, 2016, Letters to editor
Kalakaua's reign also a time of sovereignty
It seems wrong to have a constitution for Native Hawaiian sovereignty that dates back to a time before the islands were first united by Kamehameha I.
He was the beginning of Hawaiian sovereignty. The proposed constitution ignores the sovereignty and decisions of seven kings (five Kamehamehas, Lunalilo and Kalakaua).
I agree that Queen Liliuokalani's removal was wrong, but if we wish to unwind the unlawfulness of statehood, we should go back to only the constitution of Kalakaua.
Only lands falsely transferred or taken after his reign should be considered for potential reinstatement.
Keep in mind that Kamehameha Schools was formed from a land trust granted by a single royal princess in 1887 and this represents 9 percent of all Hawaiian land.
This occurred 100 years after the date being used in the proposed constitution.
Koni Fillius
Kapolei
-----
Proposed constitution deserves fair chance
Mahalo for the editorial, "'Aha delegates offer a worthy constitution," (Star-Advertiser, Our View, March 1).
As a participant, I sincerely appreciate the view that the document is worthy. We went through many, many challenges. We all worked extremely hard to put it together. It is intended to benefit all Hawaiians and all people.
I hope and pray that, like yourselves, people will give it a fair chance for ratification.
Charles Naumu
Kaneohe
------------------------
https://www.facebook.com/groups/hawaiilegalstatus/permalink/952274671538345/
Hawai'i'imiloa: Status of the Hawaiian State [independence blog], Sunday March 6, 2016
Blog entry by blog creator Z Akiamanō Kaapana Aki, approximately 12:40 PM HST
He was also a delegate at the Na'i Aupuni 4-week gathering, and voted YES to adopt the proposed tribal constitution. He is a 3rd year law student at UH Manoa.
Aloha mai kakou,
I am for the betterment of Kanaka Maoli. Are you? This question is one that seems so simple on its face - the answer, so obvious. The answer, while immediately in the affirmative for most, it doesn't always hold true. We want it to be true - we've convinced ourselves that it is - but sometimes truth escapes us. It's cryptic, I know, but I'll explain soon.
I've been a "Hawaiian rights" activist for as long as I can remember. As a child, I had often heard the stories of how we once had a country and that country was stolen by the United States.
I heard stories, perhaps highly romanticized or perhaps extraordinarily true, about the greatness of Kanaka Maoli stemming from time immemorial. Our struggles, our triumphs. I like many of you, heard them all.
I grew proud, because of my ancestors - because of our people. I, like most of you, am a very diverse synthesis of ethnicities, but here in the Hawaiian Islands, my Kanaka Maoli held a prominent place in my identity.
"Hawaiian." The word to me means the same as "Kanaka Maoli," the native/aboriginal/indigenous - maoli/'ōiwi/kupa - people of the Hawaiian Islands.
When I fought for "Hawaiian rights" I wasn't fighting for the American, European, Chinese, and Japanese naturalized citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I was fighting for Kanaka Maoli, those children of these islands, whose blood, sweat, tears, and bones have become this place for millennia.
Luther Wilcox, Hawaiian Kingdom judge, who married a Kanaka Maoli royal and loved the Kanaka Maoli people. He wasn't Kanaka Maoli - he was a national - and he was my great great grandfather.
He had rights under the Hawaiian Kingdom. He was devastated as a result of the overthrow and he bankrolled the Queen in her fight for restoration until the point where he himself went broke.
People like my great great grandfather deserve justice. What would justice be for him?
You know, the majority of American and European nationals of the Hawaiian Kingdom rallied against the Hawaiian Kingdom government. They met at W.O. Smith's shop before the overthrow and called for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands - in the thousands.
Only a minority of those Americans/Europeans stood with the majority of Kanaka Maoli. For Luther Wilcox, would justice for him be that every Kanaka Maoli fight for the rights of that majority of non-Kanaka Maoli, who voluntarily separated themselves from those rights?
Or would justice for Luther Wilcox be served best by Kanaka Maoli fighting for the betterment of Kanaka Maoli, until such time that our foundation is so strong that we can fight for others as well? I believe this is what my great great grandfather would have wanted.
For me, fighting for "Hawaiian rights" is fighting for the betterment of Kanaka Maoli.
Yes, there were American, European, Chinese, Japanese, etc. nationals of the Hawaiian Kingdom over a century ago. Today, Kanaka Maoli make up the largest number of incarcerated ... the largest number of houseless... the largest number in poor-health.
How can we save others from drowning if we, ourselves, don't know how to swim?
THIS CONSTITUTION IS OURS
The attached image has some beautiful language from the Preamble of the Native Hawaiian Constitution that was drafted at the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha.
Indeed, the 'Aha was established on shaky ground. 'Aha membership and participation was attached to Kana'iolowalu, which was a created by way of the State of Hawai'i (Act 195).
I get it. How can the State of Hawai'i government, a government that stems from a legacy of injustice (overthrow -> illegal annexation -> oppressive territory -> questionable statehood plebiscite) and a government driven by the non-Kanaka Maoli majority ever truly serve the best interests of Kanaka Maoli?
I get it. We don't trust that system. But, we need to realize that our people, Kanaka Maoli, who are for the betterment of Kanaka Maoli, are in that system trying to do good for the rest of us.
Whatever the case may have been that established Act 195, which led to the establishment of Na'i Aupuni and the creation of the 'Aha - whatever the case may be - the Constitution drafted by this 'Aha was not pre-determined.
I know. I was the "chief drafter" of the Constitution. I took what the Committees provided me and I placed them into this Constitution and I always went back to the Committee to confirm that the information given to me came from them. Anyone could join a committee, whenever they wanted.
This isn't a State of Hawai'i or US Federal Government constitution. This is a Constitution that was created by a very diverse group of Kanaka Maoli for the purpose of establishing a government that would truly serve Kanaka Maoli interests.
INDEPENDENCE vs FED-REC vs STATUS QUO
For many, independence vs fed-rec is a false dichotomy. I had the opportunity to speak with many pro-fed-rec participants, who also whole-heartedly support independence.
Many Kanaka Maoli would think that it's impossible to support both and that's really the false dichotomy.
No one can tell an independent State that it cannot be independent. In all simplicity, if someone could, then you're not independent.. what you are, is dependent on what that person/State/government says you are.
Independence is a characteristic. It's your status. It's how you are in relation to others. No one can tell a State that it isn't independent, if it truly is.
There's a false notion that fed-rec could preclude independence. No, it could not. If the US government could tell a Hawaiian government what it could or could not do, then clearly it wasn't independent to begin with.
During the 'Aha, there was a very small group of participants, who believed that fed-rec would settle land claims and in doing so, it would preclude an independent Hawaiian State from forming.
This, again, is a false notion. First, the DOI proposal for federal recognition does not affect land ownership (it's status quo). Second, the US currently controls the Hawaiian Islands and the vast majority of the world recognizes the US's claims. If, as an independence advocate, you're worried that fed-rec for a Kanaka Maoli entity would preclude an independent Hawaiian government's claims, in light of the fact that the international community recognizes the US's claims, then you clearly have bigger things to worry about.
The Constitution created by the 'Aha is the blueprint for establishing a Kanaka Maoli government that could be used for fed-rec, independence, or both. By both, I mean that even in the event of fed-rec, the government could pursue independence and no one can tell it otherwise.
Independence requires independence in all regards socio-political-economic independence. This requires the government to be economically independent if it is to stand on its own. This is something we absolutely do not have at the moment.
The real enemy here is status quo - the same old same old. We're politically and economically weak. How can we begin to expect something as monumental as independence, when we have no political organization and no economic system to sustain us?
The establishment of a Kanaka Maoli government is a great first step toward the necessary political organization we need. From there, we can build a strong economy. When we have these things, we'll be in a better position to evaluate our political aspirations. We need a government first. And that is what the drafting of this Constitution sought to produce.
There's no independent Hawaiian State without an effective government.
UNITE TO PROGRESS
Divided we fail, united we prevail. Our ancestors faced great adversity. In 1897, a formal petition against the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States was submitted with a great many signatures from Kanaka Maoli.
My great great grandfather, Henry Kaiwi 'Aki, was a royalist and had he survived to the latter part of the 19th century he would have been a founding member of Hui Aloha 'aloha, the organization responsible for compiling the Anti-Annexation Petitions. His younger brother Samuel 'Aki was one of the founding members and appears in the top row of that very famous photo of the Hui's founding men.
The President of the Hui was James Kaulia and we all know that powerful statement he made:
"No laila, mai makau, e kupaa ma ke Aloha i ka Aina, a e lokahi ma ka manao, e kue loa aku i ka hoohui ia o Hawaii me Amerika a hiki i ke aloha aina hope loa!" (Therefore, do not be afraid, remain steadfast in your Love for the Land, and be of one mind, forever protest the annexation of Hawaii'i to America until the very last Hawaiian patriot lives).
I am certain that when James Kaulia said this, he did not intend for Kanaka Maoli to protest their own method of survival under a foreign government. I am certain that when James Kaulia said this, he did not intend for Kanaka Maoli to oppose efforts that strengthen Kanaka Maoli.
After the US illegally annexed the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 and issued its Organic Act in 1900, James Kaulia, along with Robert Wilcox and David Kalauokalani, approached Queen Lili'uokalani with an idea to create a unified political party under US governance.
The Queen replied,
"Aloha to all of you: I did not think that you, the lahui, were still remembering me, since ten years has passed since I became a Mother for you, the lahui, and now, the U.S. sits in power over me and over you, my dear nation. What has befallen you is very painful to me, but it could not be prevented. My mind has been opened (hoohamama ia) because of what the United States has now given to the lahui Hawai'i. Here is what I advise -- that the people should look to the nation's leaders, Mr. Kaulia and Mr. Kalauokalani. A great responsibility has fallen upon them to look out for the welfare of the lahui in accordance with the laws that the United States has handed down, to ensure that the people will receive rights and benefits for our and future generations, and I will also derive that one benefit [i.e., the welfare of the people]. We have no other direction left, except this unrestricted right [to vote], given by the United States to you the people. Grasp it and hold on to it; it is up to you to make things right for all of us in the future."
The Home Rule Party was formed and Kanaka Maoli were engaged, politically, under the US system of governance. Kanaka Maoli, like Robert Wilcox (and Prince Jonah Kuhio), served as US Congressman. My great grandfather Henry Kaiwi 'Aki jr. was a royalist and territorial senator.
I am not saying this to tell Kanaka Maoli that they must accept US governance. I am saying this to affirm that our ancestors fought for their rights and they used the US system of governance to do that.
They didn't say, "anything involving the US government is hewa!" They wielded American politics to their advantage. Where would we be today if they had not done so then?
Why are we not doing the same?
This Kanaka Maoli Constitution is our Constitution. It is a blueprint for a vehicle that can take us to far greater heights than we can achieve under the status quo.
If we continue to fight against each other, we will go nowhere. It's only when we can realize the truth of our assertions, whether we're actually serving the best interest of Kanaka Maoli, or if we're just serving a part of the population, that we can actually find the common ground necessary for our advance.
Status quo does not work to our betterment. It keeps us suppressed.
This Constitution keeps all pathways available and it certainly does not perpetuate the status quo. Truly, what does it mean to trash this Constitution. Does it mean that you get independence? Does it mean that you get fed-rec? Or does it just mean that you preserved the status quo? Are you for the betterment of Kanaka Maoli?
-----------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31409733/republican-presidential-candidates-seek-to-woo-hawaii-voters
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations), March 7, 2016
Republican presidential candidates seek to woo Hawaii voters
By Chris Tanaka
Republican presidential candidates sought to get out the vote ahead of Tuesday's Republican caucuses.
In interviews with Hawaii News Now, Marco Rubio and John Kasich both trumpeted the importance of Hawaii, and how it fits in with the US military's evolving strategy in the Pacific.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump took to Twitter to urge Hawaii Republicans to vote for him. Trump will be speaking on HNN's Sunrise on Tuesday.
Both Rubio and Kasich said that Trump was poisonous to Republican party.
"Donald Trump is the most vulgar person that's ever run for president. Has said things about people, from disabled to women to others. I think it sets a bad example," he said. Kasich told HNN: "You don't want to take the low road to the highest office in the land."
Rubio is currently coming in third in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, while Kasich is in fourth.
Rubio said that Hawaii continues to be an important player politically. He also supports America's "pivot" toward the Asia-Pacific. But, he added, "It has to be backed up by manpower and ships."
Kasich agreed. "I do believe we have to raise military spending. In fact in the plan I have to balance the budget I put a hundred million dollars more into military spending."
Both candidates also weighed in on the topic of Hawaiian sovereignty.
KASICH SAID HE DOESN'T "UNDERSTAND THE CALL FOR A NATION WITHIN A NATION. IT'S NOT SOMETHING I WOULD LOOK TOO FAVORABLY ON TO BE PERFECTLY BLUNT WITH YOU.
RUBIO COUNTERED, "PERHAPS THEY COULD REPLICATE THE MODEL INDIAN TRIBES HAVE ON THE MAINLAND WHERE THEY HAVE SOVEREIGNTY OVER CERTAIN AREAS."
----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorial/clinton-cautiously-supports-hawaiian-nationhood-effort/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 8, 2016
Clinton cautiously supports Hawaiian nationhood effort
by Richard Borreca [regular columnist]
There is more than a passing touch of symmetry in Monday's news release directed at Hawaii from the Clinton for President campaign.
In a direct appeal that shows Hawaii has at least a tiny bit of relevance in presidential politics, Hillary Clinton's brief note promises new attention toward Native Hawaiian nation-building.
It was 23 years ago that her husband, President Bill Clinton, signed the apology resolution steered through Congress by Hawaii Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye.
"The Congress apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 ... and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination," said the resolution.
The resolution then urges the president and Congress "to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people."
Now comes former Secretary of State Clinton carefully wading into the issue.
Hillary Clinton recognizes that Native Hawaiians are doing something and that if she is elected, she will support something, but that is all.
"I support the Native Hawaiian community's ongoing work toward self-determination and nationhood, and their recent adoption of a constitution. I commend President Obama's leadership in working with Native Hawaiians on the opportunity to establish a government-to-government relationship with the United States," Clinton said.
There is no direct promise that a Clinton presidency will do any more than, as she said "work to break down all of the barriers that hold people back and create ladders of opportunity to help everyone achieve their full potential."
Asked what he thought it meant, Peter Apo, state Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee, said the Clinton note appeared to be "an oblique indication that if she is president, she will support the strategy of approaching federal recognition by presidential executive order and provide a continuum to Obama's kick-start."
On Sunday, Star-Advertiser reporter Tim Hurley explained that the folks running the convention that adopted the constitutional document appear to be continuing their campaign to run the government outside of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that forbid using public funds for a racially exclusive election.
Simply put, the court said that public money cannot go for an election that is limited just to Hawaiian voters.
So now if Native Hawaiian voters are going to be briefed on the proposed new constitution and then hold a ratification election, something besides taxpayer money will have to be used.
Hurley reported that the nonprofit, Na'i Aupuni, which has been charged by OHA with running the election, is mulling over raising private money for the election.
The election is needed so that the U.S. Department of Interior will have a document to begin negotiations with the Hawaiians about how the federal government recognizes a Native Hawaiian government.
The danger in all this is that if you think the national GOP is on the verge of civil war, you should tap into the online fights among members of the just-concluded Native Hawaiian convention.
Clinton is smart to be the diplomat, not the activist in the realm of Hawaiian activism.
-----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorial/its-hard-to-like-thebus-when-its-making-life-hard/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 8, 2016
Off the News [mini-editorial]
Native Hawaiian nation won't be on public dime
Want a Native Hawaiian nation? Then, say the advocates, you have to show them the money.
But it's got to be private funds. That's because the court challenge of the 'aha, the recent constitutional convention, was based in part on the claim that public funds were used for a race-based election.
So don't be surprised if a crowdfunding campaign is launched. Which platform might be used? For those who want independence, the name Indiegogo might have special appeal.
---------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/03/protecting-hawaiian-kingdom-legacy-is-todays-kuleana/
Honolulu Civil Beat, March 8, 2016
Protecting Hawaiian Kingdom Legacy Is Today's Kuleana
The creation of a Hawaiian nation under the U.S. would imperil the remaining alii trusts and the wealth and landholdings they represent.
By Walter Ritte
The following dynamics are in play today, at a time that the historical facts and events of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States have been fully uncovered and disclosed.
As a consequence, the legal implications and options that have arisen, particularly in international venues of justice, have taken root in communities throughout the islands, to the concern of many in Washington, D.C., the state Capitol and on Merchant Street.
Fundamentally, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is opposed to the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Though it is a given that the United States did illegally conspire to overthrow the kingdom, OHA has asserted strongly that the rights, advantages and opportunities available to our people as Native Americans through the United States and its Department of Interior provide the best possible option for our people and the future of the Islands.
In keeping with the efforts initiated by Queen Liliuokalani, the Acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom determined that the United States is an illegal occupier of the islands, subject to war crimes pursuant to international law, judicial precedent and breach of treaties entered into with the Hawaiian Kingdom. In their pursuit of international justice at the Hague, the AGHK has been deliberate, methodical and low-key, lending to an increasing awareness and support throughout the islands.
With President Barack Obama's tenure ending in January 2017, and the increasing pressure of the AGHK, which is now before the International Court of Justice as well as the International Criminal Court, OHA is intent on fulfilling the procedural requirements of Hawaiian nationhood, pursuant to the U.S. Department of Interior. Such a move would be welcomed by the new president, irrespective of party affiliations, given the significant national security interests of the United States in the Hawaiian Islands.
Notwithstanding the increasing pressure by the AGHK internationally, the United States, the State of Hawaii and OHA will define the territorial and jurisdictional purview of the Hawaiian nation. It will enhance the political and financial structures of the islands, while effectively limiting the interests of our people to that of the proposed Hawaiian nation.
As such, the real property and revenues of OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands will likely be transitioned and vested in the Hawaiian nation as part of DOI's requirements.
It should come as no surprise that the underlying objective of the Hawaiian nation under the United States in the 21st century is to mute the voices of Native Hawaiians who are demanding that the United States abide by and be held accountable for violations and disregard of the rule of law in the islands.
The United States has partnered with various interests in the islands since the overthrow of the kingdom to solidify a political and financial structure that advance both national and local agendas. In this pursuit, the principals who have effectively led OHA down the path of the Hawaiian nation will be ideally positioned to target our remaining alii trusts.
In keeping with the desire of many who seek to force the sale of all leasehold lands in the islands, the most valuable of which are retained by trusts established for the sole benefit of Native Hawaiians, the Bishop Estate and Queen Liliuokalani Trust will become major targets, not unlike the Queen Emma Trust that was discretely dissolved by the Democratic Party in 1967.
Given the likelihood of a second President Clinton in 2017, former Gov. John Waihee and his cousin, OHA Chairman Bob Lindsay, who have been close political allies of Bill Clinton over the years, are ideally situated to assume control of all the assets of the remaining alii trusts, not unlike former Gov. John Burns, Bob Oshiro and Kenny Brown.
In light of these circumstances and the likely outcome of the U.S. presidential elections, and assuming that the power and influence of the United States succeeds in draining the commitment and limited resources of the AGHK, it is critical that our people protect our alii trusts by exposing the power grab, deceit, lies and theft of the Queen Emma Trust and the true character of those political powers who are ultimately the successors of Sanford Dole and those who overthrew our kingdom.
The alii trusts represent a commitment whose origins arose from our ancient civilization, culture and system of governance, all of which have been committed to ensuring the health and welfare of our families in perpetuity. With or without the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Queen Emma Trust must be restored.
About the Author
Walter Ritte is a longtime Hawaiian activist who lives on the island of Molokai.
---------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31432263/native-hawaiian-constitution-lays-foundation-for-future-government
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations), March 9, 2016
Native Hawaiian constitution lays foundation for future government
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
It's still unclear how and when Native Hawaiians will vote to ratify the constitution drafted in last month's convention.
'Aha Na'i Aupuni participants say the document lays the foundation for a future Native Hawaiian government, but what that will look like still needs to be determined. Experts say the strength and success of whatever is decided will come from the participation of Native Hawaiians themselves.
"The very first step in any pathway to self-determination for our people is the re-establishment of our Hawaiian government. We as a people have to come together and determine how we're going to be governed and what's that government going to look like," said Rebecca 'Iolani Soon, a third year law school student who attended the 'aha.
'Aha participants say self-governance begins with the "Constitution of the Native Hawaiian Nation", which was adopted by a two-thirds majority in February and is now being shared and discussed in communities across the state to raise awareness for a future ratification election.
The document details the framework of an executive branch -- which would include a president, vice president, and nine-member Moku Council. It calls for the creation of a one-body legislature with two sets of representatives from 43 districts -- one will be determined by population, the other based on land size. It establishes citizenship through the existing federal definition, which is any descendant of indigenous people living in Hawaii prior to 1778 when Captain Cook arrived.
One thing the constitution doesn't do is describe how self-determination for Native Hawaiians will take shape. Those who helped draft it say that can only happen once a government is seated and established.
"This document ensures that every single pathway remains open. Whether that's relationships independently as our own sovereign nation, whether that's relationships with the United States, whether that's relationships with the state of Hawai'i or with local county governments -- whatever political pathways our future government chooses to have, this document ensures that no paths are closed off," described Soon.
Opponents of the convention process say the constitution is instilled with Native Hawaiian values they agree with, but there are too many inconsistencies and unanswered questions -- including how to determine political territory.
"This gathering that they did was not for nothing. I think in enunciating what they would like to see in the society. It's really the opening ground for a really fine debate, but in terms of being a governing document -- there's really some fundamental disconnects between what they have placed in some of these articles and the political reality that we live with," said Dr. Jon Osorio, a professor of Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
After decades of several failed attempts at self-determination, political analysts say timing is key -- and this may be the best shot for Native Hawaiians, while President Obama is still in office. They say the biggest challenge will be trying to create legitimacy for the process within the Native Hawaiian community, while also operating within existing federal guidelines.
"Self-determination is exactly what we're fighting for. And self-determination means that at some point, we are able to choose the government that represents us as a people. Kanaka maoli and people who are not kanaka living in Hawai'i have been here under the delusion that our destiny is to be Americans. We have a long history of living here without being Americans. We have a history of being a kingdom that was a good kingdom, a good government, taken over by the United States. All we're talking about here is having the opportunity. Give us 10 years, give us 15 years, give us 20 years if that's what's needed -- but we need the opportunity so we can change how people think of this place and their place in it," said Dr. Osorio.
As a legal document, lawyers say the constitution is solid. Whether it will be supported is now up to Native Hawaiians to decide.
Anyone over 18, who can prove their ancestry, is eligible to vote. They are not required to be enrolled with Kana'iolowalu, though the register remains open to those who would like to be added to the list.
In order to avoid litigation, no state or federal funding can be used -- so the plan is to raise money privately to hold a ratification election. If ratified, the constitution will pave the way for negotiations about how a government-to-government relationship would work.
"We need something different. We're tired of the status quo. Our people cannot handle the status quo any longer. And so it took extraordinary measures in order to ensure that we're now on a pathway to creating a government that can create hope for a future nation and hope for our future people," said Soon.
-------------------
http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/what-really-happened-at-the-aha-part-ii
Hawaii Independent, March 9, 2016
What really happened at the 'Aha, part II
Whitewashed press releases, a sinister state bill and a flippant disregard for the rules of the convention
by Ka'iulani Milham [previously known as Mary Alice Milham]
Editor's note: As one of the 154 kanaka maoli who agreed to participate in the state-sponsored, Na'i Aupuni-initiated Native Hawaiian 'Aha, Ka'iulani Milham had a front row seat at the month-long proceedings. What follows is the second installment of a multi-part, first-hand account that highlights various and consistent affronts to democratic processes that ruled during the 'Aha proceedings.
The vivacious Makalehua group's "In it to win it" mantra came into play in important ways during the second week of the 'Aha.
But what exactly was the "it" they were in it to win?
Setting up shop in a side room off the main meeting hall, Makalehua members installed a pair of privately-owned printers -- Na'i Aupuni officials neglected to foresee that drafting a constitution would necessitate such things as printers and paper -- to produce early drafts of documents and hana ka hana (work the work) of the 'Aha.
In the midst of this hurried activity, Makalehua member Makana Paris, the 'Aha's vice chair, was overheard whispering that certain participants had been appointed to an 'Aha communications team, which would be in charge of disseminating information about the 'Aha to the public. Having committed to fostering an atmosphere of free prior and informed consent during the nation-building exercise, the fact that the members of this important team seemed to have been decided on without the participation of the plenary was concerning.
I had made sure to announce my interest in participating in the communications team days before via the 'Aha participant's email list serve. It was no secret that I wanted to be involved. I confronted Paris, asking how these persons had been appointed and by what authority. Paris, who had explained the nuts and bolts of Roberts Rules in a presentation to the largely uninitiated 'Aha participants, claimed this as one of the powers of the elected leadership team.
When I pointed out that he failed to mention such committee appointing power in his presentation, the job of the chair and vice chairs being summed up as one of keeping order, Paris dodged. There are "thousands" of rules in Roberts, he said. In other words it wasn't his kuleana to explain; buyer beware.
Yet, when the plenary resumed minutes later, the official position of the leadership team had changed. Chair Brendon Lee, contradicting what Paris' had just insisted on, announced that participation in the communications team was to be determined by "law of the feet." In other words, anyone who wanted to participate was welcome. As it turned out, this apparent concession to democracy gave only a fleeting relief to concerns over fairness.
At the first meeting of the communications team, Makalehua members Amy Kalili, Na'alehu Anthony, Adrian Kamali'i and Rebecca Soon, in addition to veteran roll commissioner Lei Kihoi, determined that the daily bulletin from the 'Aha to the media was to be a "good news only" report.
Concerned that this was an attempt at whitewashing the proceedings, I objected and cautioned that maintaining whatever credibility we had within the largely disillusioned lahui demanded objectivity and balance in our reports to the community. Already aware of the potential news story brewing, given Bumpy Kanahele's serious concerns regarding the Purpose Statement (see part I), I asked, "What if Bumpy walks out? Shouldn't we let the community know?" Transparency, I argued, was necessary to gain the trust of those kanaka not present.
My concern fell on deaf ears. In the words of Anthony, a former vice chair of the roll commission, "that's on Bumpy."
In the end, the decision was to stick to the bare agenda, a list of motions made and adopted and so forth with a sprinkling of good news in a highlights section. Potentially embarrassing moments, like when Bumpy did decide to resign only a few days later, were omitted from the convention's news releases.
Walking the Talk
Early in week two, participants were notified of an alarming development at the state legislature, which was in the early throes of its own session. An ominous bill, HB 2046, had been introduced by Reps Yamane, Aquino, Cullen, Ito, Oshiro and Tsuji threatening to transfer public trust lands that currently host U.S. military bases in Hawai'i to the state's Department of Defense.
The sudden threat of the military tightening its control over ceded lands prompted a motion the following morning for the members of the 'Aha to show up en masse at the state capitol in protest.
Though the motion had the support of independence advocates, it failed to win majority support, with opposition largely coming from the federal recognition faction. Their argument was that time taken away from the 'Aha would mean less time to write a constitution. As an alternative to protesting at the capitol, a petition objecting to the bill was dashed off, written by Moku o Keawe resident and independence advocate Kaui Trainer. Circulated around the plenary throughout the afternoon, it was signed by 73 out of the roughly 100 'Aha participants there that day. The petition was to be presented to the legislature at the bill's hearing the next morning.
For those who had advocated for the 'Aha to take a firm stance against the bill, the petition felt like a victory; the majority of the 'Aha speaking up against the further obfuscation of the problem of U.S. military control over ceded lands. Or so we thought.
The problem was it wasn't the "official" voice of the 'Aha and, as someone had pointed out to 'Aha vice chair Paris, it violated the following rule:
Only those authorized by the 'Aha shall speak on behalf of the 'Aha.
At the end of the day, Paris had offered to "help." He took the petition to a side-room to apparently rewrite the document so that this problem would no longer exist. No matter that the petition he was altering after the fact had already been signed, the Makalehua member and University of Hawai'i (UH) at Manoa Richardson Law School student was intent on the need to clarify that the document did not represent the voice of the 'Aha.
I found Paris typing away on his laptop and suggested, instead of rewriting the petition, that a simple addition of the word "undersigned" to the sentence reading "We the [undersigned] members of the 'Aha..." would solve the problem without altering the content of a document that had already been signed. When my suggestion was ignored, I insisted that he relinquish the originals. Paris refused, snatching them up and retreating from the room.
When I found him, just minutes later, he claimed that he had only needed to consult with a kupuna, Uncle Ku Ching, who happened to be just outside. He then relented, returning the original documents after having crossed out the words "members of the 'Aha Na'i Aupuni 2016" on all four copies, and substituting the word "undersigned" instead.
The Rules of the Game
During the first week of the 'Aha, participants had spent many hours over several days debating a long list of "Rules of the 'Aha," including the "No one speaks for the 'Aha" rule that forced a "rewrite" of the petition objecting to HB 2046. There were many other rules as well, some of the more contentious being those dealing with transparency and non-participant observers. Another rule, and one of particular note, said:
Any threats or harassment, including those on electronic posts, of 'Aha participants are to be reported to the appropriate authorities. The 'Aha may sanction its participants, up to expulsion, by a vote of two-thirds of the votes cast."
In the third week of the 'Aha, an issue that had begun simmering on the 'Aha email list serve during the weeks leading up to the convention boiled over on the floor of the plenary. Participant Bronson Ka'ahui, a GoPro-wielding video-blogger nick-named "Bronsonto" for his pugnacious support of Genetically Modified Organisms and the companies that research them here in Hawai'i, had just published a particularly heinous attack of 'Aha participant Dr. Williamson Chang on social media, as well as in an email that went out to all 'Aha participants.
The bold-faced headline to the lengthy diatribe had been stricken out in an apparent bid to avoid culpability. It read:
A Response to the Delusional Views of a Washed Up Law Professor
The attack on Dr. Chang, the senior law professor at UH Manoa's Richardson Law School, was one of several disrespectful emails from Ka'ahui directed at kupuna and members of the independence caucus over the course of weeks. He called more than one kupuna "delusional." He called another kupuna, who bravely came to the 'Aha despite undergoing medical treatment, a "simpleton." And when he got into a heated discussion with another kupuna, former Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee Moanikeala Akaka, he had the nerve to mockingly say that he hoped she wouldn't "have a heart attack."
Despite the adopted rule against harassment, Ka'ahui's often long-winded tirades, posted online and designed to defame and undercut the scholarship and spirit of independence participants, continued unabated.
During her 15-minute presentation to the 'Aha the week before, Jade Danner had referenced the Hawaiian cultural response of community rejection and ostracization of those who, as she put it, "make any kine" with kupuna. But with Ka'ahui, suddenly it was as if we were in an alternate universe. Our rules said harassment would not be tolerated, yet this participant -- who happened to be the loudest critic of the independence caucus members -- was given a pass.
Citing our adopted rules against disrespect and harassment of fellow members, I made a motion to have Ka'ahui sanctioned with expulsion, the only remedy for such behavior specified in the 'Aha's adopted rules. But when I began to quote from a sampling of Ka'ahui's vitriolic emails, 'Aha chair Lee cut me off. It was as though a prosecuting attorney was being denied the ability to present evidence to prosecute.
Supported by others who'd had enough of Ka'ahui's attacks, I held my ground over the next two days while the issue was debated.
The federal recognition faction backed Ka'ahui, praising his intellect and excusing his behavior on account of his youth, as though he could be a serious participant in a nation-building exercise and not be held responsible for his own actions as an adult at the same time. (Ka'ahui is nearly 30, married and a father of young boys.)
The rules we had spent days debating had taken a back seat to what was becoming an obvious federal recognition agenda. Ka'ahui was an effective distraction, and the federal recognition camp didn't want their marauding agent expelled. And so he wasn't.
The next day I withdrew my original motion in favor of one asking that the 'Aha at least acknowledge that a violation of rules had taken place and provide Ka'ahui with a warning that further violations would result in expulsion. Again, the idea was strenuously opposed by federal recognition advocates, one of whom even called the motion "hewa" (wicked, sinful). Another federal recognition advocate amended the motion so that, instead of applying only to Ka'ahui, it would apply to all participants. Adding a touch of irony to the ensuing debate, Annelle Amaral, a former police officer, said:
I think we can get a bit carried away with our need to police the action and conduct of everyone. I did not find this conduct to be so terribly offensive ... I think this actually trivializes our intent to write rules on proper behavior.
In the end, the majority of the 'Aha voted against even the watered-down version of the motion. With his relentless reviling of the "fantasy" of independence, Ka'ahui had proven himself indispensable to the federal recognition camp, and that seemed to translate into an ability to act with unchecked impropriety. Unchastened by the experience, Ka'ahui published a mocking Youtube video titled "Trial of Bronson Ka'ahui" the following day.
And so, as we approached the critical final week in this topsy-turvy 'Aha world, where rules were now being ignored when it suited the agenda of one particular faction, the unsteadiness was palpable. Something was definitely askew.
----------------------
http://fusion.net/story/278126/native-hawaiian-constitution-independence/
Fusion, March 9, 2016
INDEPENDENCE DAY
Why some Native Hawaiians want to declare independence from the U.S.
by Casey Tolan
On Feb. 26, a convention of Native Hawaiians announced that they had made history: they had written a constitution for a Hawaiian nation.
For the past month, more than 100 Native Hawaiian delegates had been cloistered in their version of Philadelphia's Independence Hall: the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club, tucked into the verdant hills of Oahu island. They came from every island of the archipelago as well as the mainland U.S. One delegate even traveled from Sweden.
With a vote of 88 in favor and 30 opposed, the delegates approved a constitution
http://www.aha2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Aha2016.FinalConstitution.Approved-022616.pdf
and declaration of sovereignty
http://www.aha2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NativeHawaiianDeclaration-022616.pdf
-- the first steps toward creating a new Native Hawaiian nation. But there's a sharp divide between two camps: activists who want to start what would be a federally recognized, semi-autonomous government in the same vein as other Native American groups, and a growing contingent who instead want Hawaii to become a completely independent nation from the U.S.
Most other indigenous groups in the U.S. have their own federally recognized nations -- the Navajo Nation in Arizona, for example, or the Osage Nation in Oklahoma. These tribal nations come with elected governments, court systems, and reservations. Hawaiians are the only major native group without these kinds of institutions.
If a Hawaiian government gets federal recognition, not much will change in locals' day-to-day experience. There wouldn't be a large Native Hawaiian reservation, reparations, or casinos, said Williamson Chang, a University of Hawaii law professor. One small island that is important in native traditions and has been used by the U.S. military for bombing campaigns would be given over to native control, and Native Hawaiians would have more autonomy for how to use their lands.
The history behind this debate goes back to 1893, when a group of U.S. businessmen and soldiers overthrew the Hawaiian kingdom, stealing land and natural resources. A few years later, Congress annexed the island chain, and for decades officials banned the teaching of the Hawaiian language and the practice of Native Hawaiian culture. President Bill Clinton officially apologized for the overthrow in 1993.
"Our history is painful and ugly in some ways," said Jade Danner, a Native Hawaiian delegate who voted in favor of the new constitution. "We still drive by the palace where our government was overthrown ... Our connection to the stories of the past is still very much alive."
Some activists think re-creating a sovereign Hawaiian nation would help right some of those wrongs. But it's not just about history. Today, Native Hawaiians make up a disproportionate percentage of the state's homeless and incarcerated populations and are far more likely to suffer health problems like heart disease and diabetes. Studies have repeatedly shown that indigenous groups who have their own governments and decision-making power end up with higher socioeconomic indicators.
Other activists, however, say that a federally-recognized government like a Native American tribe wouldn't go far enough. A vocal minority of Native Hawaiians are insisting that only full independence from the U.S. would make up for the colonial legacy. They dream of Hawaii returning to the days before the U.S. takeover, and some even hope for a restoration of the monarchy.
"For a great many Native Hawaiians we feel disfranchised," said Zuri Aki, a delegate who supported independence and helped draft the constitution. "We are a minority in our own homeland. It's a daily struggle for us to protect things like our culture, our traditions, even our land."
The independence drive has gained steam over the last couple of years, especially after a proposal to build a telescope on top of Native Hawaiians' most sacred mountain launched a vigorous protest movement.
The constitution passed last month would seem to allow for federal recognition as well as the possibility of complete independence at a future date. It calls for a president and a 43-member legislative assembly, with government proceedings conducted in Hawaiian and English and strong environmental protections.
Questions remain, however, about whether the constitution will actually go into effect. It would first need to be ratified by a vote of all Native Hawaiians: Experts estimate that there are about 250,000 Native Hawaiians living in the state and about 250,000 more living in the continental U.S., and all would have the right to vote in a referendum.
Right now there's no funding to hold that kind of election, which some observers say would cost at least $2 million. Davianna McGregor, a University of Hawaii ethnic studies professor and another delegate who voted in favor of the constitution, said groups are soliciting donations and hope to hold a vote to ratify the document by the end of 2016.
There are also various legal challenges which could undermine any vote. Some groups say that the government funding used to hold the convention was unconstitutional because the 15th Amendment bars publicly-funded elections that are based on ancestry or race. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a lawsuit brought against the convention on these grounds.
"This is far from settled," said Chang, who was also a delegate and opposed the constitution. "There are a lot of obstacles for the constitution to become a governing body."
If a Native Hawaiian referendum is held and the constitution is approved, then a government would have to be elected and established. Then, the U.S. federal government could recognize it, a process that would give it similar powers to tribal governments.
President Obama, the most famous Hawaiian in history, has repeatedly signaled his support for federal recognition. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton released a statement commending the delegates for approving a constitution and vowing to support Native Hawaiian nationhood. But if a Republican wins the White House, all bets might be off.
Pro-independence activists still say that federal recognition isn't enough -- they want to leave the U.S. completely. Realistically, it's hard to imagine how the U.S. would voluntarily give up a resource like Pearl Harbor, or what would happen to non-Native Hawaiians living in the state. If full independence for Hawaii ever happens, it would probably come generations in the future. But it's still a deeply personal topic to many.
"This doesn't meant that you have to throw away your U.S. passport and your Hawai'i driver's license and quit your state job. That just isn't practical," pro-independence leader Dennis "Bumpy" Kanehele wrote in a Facebook post. "What it does mean, however, is that you make the choice to think of yourself as a Hawaiian national ... and all the rights and responsibilities that come with that."
Kanahele knows independence doesn't seem feasible to many Americans -- but he doesn't care.
"We've waited over 100 years for this to happen," he told me. "This is about justice. We simply need to govern ourselves."
-------------------
http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/three-major-problems-with-the-aha-constitution
Hawaii Independent [secessionist online news magazine], March 15, 2016
Three major problems with the 'Aha constitution
by Jon Osorio [Professor of Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawaii]
Amid speculation about what will become of the Native Hawaiian Convention's constitution, there are certain things that should be addressed. First, that the convention, composed by individuals who were not elected by anyone and whose placement came from a volunteer organization consisting of fewer than a half dozen officers and no membership, cannot claim to represent anyone but these unelected candidates themselves. Second, by limiting the membership of this 'Aha and the citizenry they identify in the constitution to "Native Hawaiians," this document cannot accommodate either loyal Hawaiian Kingdom subjects nor Kanaka Maoli who are seeking decolonization and a UN approved exercise of our right to self-determination.
But the biggest problem with this constitution is its silence on the issue of "Ceded Lands." Instead it refers to something called "National Lands" which, lacking clarification must be assumed to be whatever lands are conveyed to it, presumably by the U.S. government or the State of Hawai'i. Unlike Ka Lahui Hawai'i, which in 1987 laid claim to the "Ceded Lands" as our national lands, this document does nothing nearly so bold. This constitution says that, in terms of land, the Hawaiian government will take, not what it deserves and not what it is still entitled to; rather, it will take what it can get.
This is not the kind of call to nationhood that inspires pride and commitment. Indeed, it is careful to reserve its citizen's right to continue to consider themselves Americans and makes it unlawful to legislate anything that would diminish the benefits they enjoy as Americans.
Even Kanaka Maoli who might not support independence should not enlist in a government that shrinks from offering what even the poorest governments in the world offer their people -- a defined land base and a distinct identity for its citizens.
------
** Online comment by Ken Conklin
Jon Osorio complains that the "biggest problem with this constitution is its silence on the issue of 'Ceded Lands.' Instead it refers to something called 'National Lands' which, lacking clarification must be assumed to be whatever lands are conveyed to it ... This constitution says that, in terms of land, the Hawaiian government will take, not what it deserves and not what it is still entitled to; rather, it will take what it can get."
Jon is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes about what the proposed tribal constitution claims as its land base, and the evil that document proposes.
Regarding what lands and seas the tribal constitution claims: Read the document for yourselves at
http://tinyurl.com/zegptkr
Here's a direct quote from the preamble: We "affirm our ancestral rights and Kuleana to all lands, waters, and resources of our islands and surrounding seas." That would clearly include not only the ceded lands but the entire archipelago spanning 1600 miles from Lo'ihi to Kure Atoll, with all the land and water between, probably extending as an enormous rectangle 200 miles into the ocean in all directions around all the large and small islands. Such a rectangle would be about 500x2000=1,000,000 (one million) square miles. Is that not enough to satisfy Jon's ego? Is there any nation on Earth that large?
Let's also note that the preamble says "[W]e join together to affirm a government of, by, and for Native Hawaiian people"
Now put those two statements together -- indeed they are together in the short preamble -- and what we have is a declaration of race war. All persons who have at least one drop of the magic blood (i.e., "Native Hawaiians") are coming together to declare that their racial group, and only their racial group, will be the government exclusively owning all the million square miles of lands and waters in the Hawaiian archipelago.
Jon Osorio's colleague Lily Dorton (alias Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa) has proclaimed for 25 years her vision for the master-servant relationship she believes ethnic Hawaiians have a god-given right to exercise, after they win the race war now proclaimed in that preamble. In her 1992 book "Native Land and Foreign Desires" she uses the term "foreigner" to refer to anyone who lacks Hawaiian native ancestry; thus, even a Caucasian or Asian person whose family has been born and raised in Hawaii for eight generations spanning perhaps more than 200 years would be called a "foreigner."
Here's what Lilikala says, starting at page 325: "Foreigners must learn to behave as guests in our 'aina and give respect to the Native people. If foreigners cannot find it in their hearts to do this, they should leave Hawaii. If foreigners truly love Hawaiians they must support Hawaiian sovereignty. They must be humble and learn to serve Hawaiians. If foreigners love us and want to support our political movements they must never take leadership roles. Leadership must be left to [ethnic] Hawaiians ... Foreigners who love us can donate their land and money into a trust fund for Hawaiian economic self-sufficiency ... and the Native initiative for sovereignty."
As the tribal constitution's preamble also says "[W]e join together to affirm a government of, by, and for Native Hawaiian people." Yes indeed. A government of the race, by the race, and for the race; where the racial minority owns the government, and lands and waters, of the million-square-mile Hawaiian archipelago; and they are the master race lording it over the other 80% of the people who are their servants because they lack a drop of the magic blood. Reminds me of the apartheid regimes in South Africa, Rhodesia, and the Confederate States of America.
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/native-hawaiian-group-wont-hold-vote-to-ratify-constitution/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 16, 2016, Breaking News at 4:38 PM
Native Hawaiian group won't hold vote to ratify constitution
Associated Press
** Photo caption:
Na'i Aupuni President Kuhio Asam speaks at a news conference about the organization's decision to abandon an election for Native Hawaiians because litigation challenging the process could take years to resolve in Honolulu.
The group that organized a gathering of Native Hawaiians to draft a constitution for self-governance says it won't hold a vote to ratify the document.
Nai Aupuni said in a statement Wednesday the gathering's participants are the best ones to take the next steps on the constitution.
The participants last month approved the constitution by an 88-30 vote. The document allows room for recognition by the U.S. government while holding out for the possibility of independence.
Nai Aupuni has faced legal challenges to its efforts. Plaintiffs sued, alleging a race-based election for 40 representatives to the convention was unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction that prevented votes from being counted, so Nai Aupuni canceled the election and instead invited all 196 candidates to participate.
-------------------
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/hawaii-nation/conversations/messages/1534
Hawaii Nation Info, message # 1534, Wednesday, March 16, 2016
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Media Contact:
Lloyd Yonenaka
(808) 543-3554
[ Na'i Aupuni website says:
For media inquiries, contact Communications Pacific:
Main: (808) 521-5391
Lloyd Yonenaka - lyonenaka@commpac.com (808) 543-3574]
NA'I AUPUNI DECIDES NOT TO PURSUE RATIFICATION VOTE
Education and Ratification of Native Hawaiian Constitution Best Pursued by Broad-based Group
HONOLULU -- Na'i Aupuni said today it would not be conducting a ratification vote on the proposed constitution produced by the recently completed 'aha. It believes that the 'aha participants, who represent a diverse and multigenerational cross section of the Native Hawaiian leaders from Hawaii, the North American Continent, Asia and Europe, or a similarly broad-based group, would be the entity to best advance the ratification vote and conduct the important process of educating our communities about the constitution.
"Na'i Aupuni is appreciative of the participants who utilized the strength of our rich culture, the knowledge from our kupuna and the collective wisdom of the 'aha to significantly advance Native Hawaiian unity. Na'i Aupuni believes that it is the participants, those who prepared and voted on the document, that are best able to lead efforts in effectively sharing the proposed constitution with the community and ultimately arranging for a ratification process. The participants have evidenced a remarkable willingness and ability to identify leadership, build critical teams, and respectfully support the voices of many divergent opinions. It is for these reasons that we are deferring to the 'aha participants to further advance their work," said Kuhio Asam, president of Na'i Aupuni.
Asam said that although the stated objectives of Na'i Aupuni were to conduct an election, an 'aha, and a ratification vote, the overarching goals were to provide an opportunity for Native Hawaiian leaders to exercise their inherent right to self-determination, to discuss self-governance options and, if they so decided, to develop a constitution that would unify and best serve the current and anticipated needs of Native Hawaiians.
Asam also said that although there were many hurdles along the path to the 'aha, it produced more than a constitution. "The 'aha generated a long overdue and significant dialogue among the participants and within the larger community. It is crucial that this conversation continues. The 'aha also allowed leaders from the community to emerge, and created momentum for further educating the public about self-governance, the proposed constitution and nation building."
Bill Meheula, legal counsel for Na'i Aupuni, reviewed the actions taken along the way due to legal challenges. "From the beginning, we anticipated potential legal challenges and we currently continue to defend against the Grassroot lawsuit that is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals," he added. "In addition, now that we cancelled the election and will not be conducting any ratification vote, Na'i Aupuni contends that the appeal is moot and we are hopeful that the case will be eventually dismissed."
Meheula also said that the estimated remaining grant funds of a little over $100,000, allocated to cover the cost of the ratification vote, would be returned to OHA. Na'i Aupuni also plans to publicly publish an accounting of how the funds were spent.
Information on Na'i Aupuni can be found on the website: naiaupuni.org.
About Na'i Aupuni
Na'i Aupuni is an independent organization made up of a volunteer board of directors from the Hawaiian community. It exists solely to help establish a path to an 'aha, where Hawaiians can discuss and explore various options of self-determination. Na'i Aupuni was formed in December 2014 and is separate and independent from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the State of Hawaii. Further information about Na'i Aupuni and the 'aha can be found at
http://www.naiaupuni.org/.
----------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/native-hawaiian-group-hold-vote-ratify-constitution-37705981
ABC News, March 16, 2016
Native Hawaiian Group Won't Hold Vote to Ratify Constitution
By AUDREY MCAVOY, ASSOCIATED PRESS HONOLULU -- Mar 16, 2016, 10:39 PM ET
The group that organized a gathering of Native Hawaiians to draft a constitution for self-governance said Wednesday it won't hold a vote to ratify the document, in an apparent move to avoid further legal rulings against its efforts.
Nai Aupuni said the gathering's participants were the best ones to take the next steps on the constitution, which was approved last month. The group will return more than $100,000 in state grant money that was allocated to cover the cost of a ratification vote, said Bill Meheula, Nai Aupuni's legal counsel.
"The participants have evidenced a remarkable willingness and ability to identify leadership, build critical teams and respectfully support the voices of many divergent opinions," Kuhio Asam, president of Nai Aupuni, said in a statement.
"It is for these reasons that we are deferring to the aha participants to further advance their work," he said, using the Hawaiian word for meeting or convention.
The participants last month approved the constitution by an 88-30 vote, with one person abstaining. The document allows room for recognition by the U.S. government while holding out for the possibility of independence.
Nai Aupuni is a private group that received grant funds from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state agency. Nai Aupuni had planned to hold an election for 40 Native Hawaiian representatives to a convention to draft a constitution and then organize a ratification vote. But plaintiffs sued, alleging a race-based election for the delegates was unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in response to the lawsuit, issued an injunction that prevented votes from being counted. So Nai Aupuni canceled the election and instead invited all 196 candidates to participate. More than 150 people accepted the invitation, and the convention was held anyway.
Meheula said the group hopes the case will be dismissed now that the election has been canceled and it won't be holding a ratification vote.
Kelii Akina, one of the lawsuit plaintiffs and a Native Hawaiian, criticized the decision.
"After the millions that have been spent on the state's nation-building process, from the marketing and lobbying efforts to the aha, what do the Hawaiian people have to show for it? An unconstitutional race-based election effort and a 'constitution' that the state seems to want to wash its hands of," Akina said.
-------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=de6390dc22&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, News release, March 16, 2016
Grassroot Institute Questions Na'i Apuni's Avoidance of the Democratic Process
Decision not to pursue ratification indicates lack of openness in nation-building effort
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- March 16, 2016 -- Today, the Grassroot Institute criticized the announcement from Na'i Aupuni that they do not intend to pursue a ratification vote on the constitution created through their "aha" (Constitutional Convention). Citing the organization's earlier decision not to recognize the election for "aha" delegates, the watchdog group asked why Na'i Aupuni appears so determined to avoid submitting it to a public vote.
"Despite their continued assertions that their actions are lawful and democratic, and that they are soliciting the full spectrum of opinions from the Native Hawaiian people, every decision Na'i Aupuni makes flies in the face of such claims," stated Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute. "At this point, it is obvious that the state recognizes that it lacks the support of the Hawaiian people as well the citizens of the state as a whole. Otherwise, why would they continue to hide from a public vote?"
Dr. Akina continued: "After the millions that have been spent on the state's nation-building process, from the marketing and lobbying efforts to the aha, what do the Hawaiian people have to show for it? An unconstitutional race-based election effort and a 'constitution' that the state seems to want to wash its hands of. This represents a significant waste of funds that could have been better used on the projects that Hawaiians truly care about -- like health care, job training, housing, and education. Perhaps it's time for Na'i Aupuni and the state to open their books and show some accountability to the Hawaiian people for this failed project."
---------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/03/nai-aupuni-wont-pursue-vote-on-native-hawaiian-constitution/
Honolulu Civil Beat, March 16, 2016
Nai Aupuni Won't Pursue Vote On Native Hawaiian Constitution
The group instead says the aha participants themselves should take the lead in ratification, an effort that is already underway.
By Chad Blair
Nai Aupuni said Wednesday it will not be conducting a ratification vote on the proposed Native Hawaiian constitution produced by a convention process, or aha, last month.
Instead, Nai Aupuni -- a private nonprofit organization supported through funds from the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- said it believes that it is the aha participants that can "best advance the ratification vote and conduct the important process of educating our communities about the constitution."
The participants "represent a diverse and multigenerational cross section of the Native Hawaiian leaders from Hawaii, the North American Continent, Asia and Europe," Nai Aupuni said in a press release.
Members of the aha say they are already proceeding to educate people about the constitution and raising money for a ratification vote that could take place by the end of this year.
Naalehu Anthony, an aha participant, said Nai Aupuni's announcement had been expected.
"That had been the sentiment from the close of the aha, that Nai Aupuni would not participate in the ratification effort," he said. "There were a handful of us, supporters of the movement, that had already started a grassroots funding campaign."
The group, which does yet not have a formal name, has a website (alohalahui.com) to raise private funds -- one that as of Wednesday morning had brought in $5,000 -- and another website (HawaiianNation.com) that is under construction.
"Aloha Lahui" can be translated as "love the nation," but Anthony said a name for the new group was less important than the intent to move forward with nation-building. He said he and other aha participants have been participating in outreach efforts to "further articulate what a constitution means" and to raise money.
"I would say that this came out of the aha as well -- a sentiment but also a very real sense of unity and wanting to move forward," he said. "Having been to almost every day of the aha, I saw young people working with kupuna and people I have known my entire life growing up with the movement who for a quarter century had never sat in a room with each other, let alone for a month. They did it for aloha lahui, for this place and the spirit that we are moving forward."
Another aha participant, Mahealani Cypher, agreed and stressed the grassroots-driven nature of the efforts.
"It's actually something beneficial for all of Hawaii," she said of the aha process and the proposed constitution. "There is a lot of confusing information going out, and I want to assure people to not be afraid of it."
Within the aha, however, there was dissent, and agreement on the constitution was far from unanimous.
Meanwhile, another group, Aha Aloha Aina 2016, has held its own meetings on nationhood. It not only opposes Nai Aupuni but also rejects U.S. Department of the Interior efforts to federally recognize Hawaiians as it does other indigenous groups.
Nai Aupuni has also been the target of legal action by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, which fought Nai Aupuni's plan to have a private election for aha delegates before Nai Aupuni gave up on the idea last fall.
But now, leaders of Nai Aupuni say that the group has achieved its goal: to provide an opportunity for Native Hawaiian leaders "to exercise their inherent right to self-determination, to discuss self-governance options and, if they so decided, to develop a constitution that would unify and best serve the current and anticipated needs of Native Hawaiians."
Kuhio Asam, Nai Aupuni president, said in the organization's press release that the aha participants "evidenced a remarkable willingness and ability to identify leadership, build critical teams, and respectfully support the voices of many divergent opinions. It is for these reasons that we are deferring to the aha participants to further advance their work."
As for any continuing legal challenge by the Grassroot Institute, Nai Aupuni's legal counsel Bill Meheula says such efforts are moot now that it won't hold a ratification vote. He said Nai Aupuni is "hopeful" that the case will be dismissed by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Meheula also said remaining grant funds of a little over $100,000 to pay for the aha will be returned to the Office of Hawaii Affairs, and that Nai Aupuni would later share publicly how several million dollars in OHA funds were spent.
'New Center Of Gravity'
Kelii Akina, who leads Grassroot Institute, criticized Nai Aupuni's announcement.
"Despite their continued assertions that their actions are lawful and democratic, and that they are soliciting the full spectrum of opinions from the Native Hawaiian people, every decision Nai Aupuni makes flies in the face of such claims," he said in a statement. "At this point, it is obvious that the state recognizes that it lacks the support of the Hawaiian people as well the citizens of the state as a whole. Otherwise, why would they continue to hide from a public vote?"
Akina continued: "After the millions that have been spent on the state's nation-building process, from the marketing and lobbying efforts to the aha, what do the Hawaiian people have to show for it? An unconstitutional race-based election effort and a 'constitution' that the state seems to want to wash its hands of. This represents a significant waste of funds that could have been better used on the projects that Hawaiians truly care about -- like health care, job training, housing, and education. Perhaps it's time for Nai Aupuni and the state to open their books and show some accountability to the Hawaiian people for this failed project."
Others have different concerns.
"I find it frightening how quickly their process is becoming progressively less democratic and less accountable as it moves forward," said Dr. Kalamaoka'aina Niheu of Aha Aloha Aina. "It's the height of arrogance to think that this un-elected body of only 88 people is trying to position themselves to speak for all Kanaka Maoli, define who is and is not Hawaiian, and worse yet, that anyone is taking them seriously. Rather than educating and including our people, the same small core group is sowing confusion in our community by constantly trying to divorce themselves from the taint of their most recent name: first the Akaka Bill to Kau Inoa to HSEC to Kanaiolowalu to Nai Aupuni to Aha 2016 and now a fundraising site called Aloha Lahui? A'ole pono kela."
Niheu added: "Aha Aloha Aina follows in the footsteps of the Kue Petitions and the 1993 Tribunal Komike, convened by our great kupuna of the Independence movement, Dr. Richard Kekuni Blaisdell. We are unafraid of taking this process directly to our community because we have trust in our communities. Everyone is welcome. Unlike Nai Aupuni, our kupuna will not be barred entry by a chained gate and we will not arrest those who simply ask to bring their concerns to the table."
But OHA Trustee Peter Apo, a Civil Beat columnist, said, "My take is that it is a good move on their part. I suspected that they would kind of distance themselves from the process from a legal perspective, and I also don't think they have the money even if they wanted to proceed."
Apo added: "And then I think they came somewhat to the conclusion that the aha was really pretty positive, that the constitution is out there, the aha leadership seemed really competent. They probably felt it was in good hands and OK for them to bow out. There is a new center of gravity."
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/nai-aupuni-will-not-fund-ratification/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 17, 2016
Na'i Aupuni will not fund ratification
By Timothy Hurley
The Na'i Aupuni board announced Wednesday that it will forgo bankrolling the ratification vote for the newly adopted Native Hawaiian constitution and instead let the convention participants take on that responsibility.
What's more, a group of convention participants launched a crowdfunding website Wednesday that aims to raise $2 million for the ratification process.
The group said it collected nearly $70,000 at alohalahui.com on Wednesday alone.
"I'm excited," said convention participant Kuhio Lewis, president of the King Kamehameha Hawaiian Civic Club. "I'm very optimistic we can pull this off."
The move by Na'i Aupuni, the nonprofit funded through trust fund grants from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, will allow the ratification vote to proceed without the appearance of state involvement, thus avoiding a potential legal challenge to a racially exclusive public election.
Na'i Aupuni said it would return its remaining grant funds, estimated at a little over $100,000, to OHA.
In a statement, Na'i Aupuni President Kuhio Asam said the members of the February convention, or aha, are best suited to share the proposed constitution with the community and ultimately arrange for the ratification process.
"The participants have evidenced a remarkable willingness and ability to identify leadership, build critical teams and respectfully support the voices of many divergent opinions. It is for these reasons that we are deferring to the aha participants to further advance their work," Asam said.
Asam said that although Na'i Aupuni was originally charged with conducting a delegate election, aha and ratification vote, the overarching goals were to provide an opportunity for Native Hawaiians to exercise their right to self-determination, to discuss self-governance options and, if they so decided, to create a constitution.
Na'i Aupuni, meanwhile, continues to fight a lawsuit now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit, supported by the watchdog group Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and the conservative Washington foundation Judicial Watch, accuses the state of putting on a racially exclusive public election, among other things.
On Wednesday, the Grassroot Institute criticized the nonprofit for its latest move.
"Despite their continued assertions that their actions are lawful and democratic and that they are soliciting the full spectrum of opinions from the Native Hawaiian people, every decision Na'i Aupuni makes flies in the face of such claims," Grassroot President Keli'i Akina said in a statement. "At this point, it is obvious that the state recognizes that it lacks the support of the Hawaiian people as well the citizens of the state as a whole. Otherwise, why would they continue to hide from a public vote?"
Akina added: "After the millions that have been spent on the state's nation-building process, from the marketing and lobbying efforts to the aha, what do the Hawaiian people have to show for it? An unconstitutional race-based election effort and a 'constitution' that the state seems to want to wash its hands of. This represents a significant waste of funds that could have been better used on the projects that Hawaiians truly care about -- like health care, job training, housing, and education."
Bill Meheula, legal counsel for Na'i Aupuni, said the board plans to publish an accounting of how its funds were spent.
As for the lawsuit, Meheula said, "Now that we canceled the election and will not be conducting any ratification vote, Na'i Aupuni contends that the appeal is moot and we are hopeful that the case will be eventually dismissed."
However, Akina said his attorneys have argued that just because a defendant disavows the intention to do something doesn't make a case moot, because the defendant could just start doing it again after the case is terminated.
"Thus, this case is not moot even regarding Na'i Aupuni," he said.
The constitution, approved Feb. 26 by an 88-30 vote at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Course in Maunawili, calls for a government led by executive, legislative and judicial branches and representing only descendents of the indigenous people who lived in the islands prior to 1778, or Western contact.
Participant Na'alehu Anthony said Na'i Aupuni officials indicated at the aha that they might not be able to underwrite the ratification effort, so a group of participants has been meeting to discuss how to continue the momentum started at the convention.
Anthony, the CEO of the 'Oiwi Television Network, said the group plans to fund a campaign to educate Native Hawaiians about the new constitution, add new Hawaiian registered voters, stage a ratification vote and, if approved, fund an election of the nation's officers, including a president, vice president and 43 members of a unicameral legislature.
Anthony said the group figures they need $2 million in donations, at least a quarter of which would come from small individual donors. The funds will be held in coordination with the Tides, a California foundation dedicated to social change.
The alohalahui.com website includes supportive quotes from former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka and former Gov. John Waihee, who is also described as being part of the committee spearheading the effort.
The website also explains why OHA will not be asked to help fund the effort:
"The use of ceded land revenues for self-governance is under attack in a lawsuit funded by conservative outsiders who don't believe that Hawaiians have the right of self-determination without the direct participation and voting by non-Hawaiians. While we should be able to use these funds generated from the lands being held in trust for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and it would be pono (righteous) to use them for programs, advocacy and even these self-determination efforts, there is too much at stake right now to risk further barriers to this historic process that will come up with the use of OHA funding."
----------------------
http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/what-really-happened-at-the-aha-part-iii
Hawaii Independent, March 18, 2016
What really happened at the 'Aha, part III
Impediments to carrying out the people's business
by Ka'iulani Milham
Editor's note: As one of the 154 kanaka maoli who agreed to participate in the state-sponsored, Na'i Aupuni-initiated Native Hawaiian 'Aha, Ka'iulani Milham had a front row seat at the month-long proceedings. What follows is the third installment of a multi-part, first-hand account that highlights various and consistent affronts to democratic processes that ruled during the 'Aha proceedings.
** Ken Conklin's note: Parts 1 and 2 were on March 4 and 9.
Two days before the end of the 'Aha, pressure from the federal recognition side was mounting to finish the constitution. The various committees had submitted their input to the drafting committee and now awaited the result. Those in the preamble committee were edgy. Twice now, the input the preamble committee had sent to drafting had come back altered to remove provisions for full sovereignty and independence they had written in. By this point in the process, disillusionment had become a familiar feeling.
After years spent reporting on municipal governments in California, I was accustomed to "Sunshine Laws" protecting the public's right, barring certain exemptions, to know exactly what goes on in government meetings. According to the 1976 federal Sunshine Act:
...every portion of every meeting of an agency shall be open to public observation.
...the people are the only legitimate foundation of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter ... is derived. Government is and should be the servant of the people, and it should be fully accountable to them for the actions which it supposedly takes on their behalf.
But, throughout the entire process, 'Aha officials disallowed outside observers, including media. While protesters petitioning for admittance were ignored or arrested outside the locked gates of the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club, the 'Aha communications committee was disseminating bulletins to media outlets and the general public that were meant to give an impression that all was going smoothly.
The 'Aha may not have been a governing body of elected officials, but we were still there, ostensibly, to draft the governing documents necessary to create a government. Sunshine Laws are meant to apply to entities that create binding laws within such a government so that the public can ensure those laws are just. What does it say about a government that won't allow the public to ensure its very formation is just, let alone the binding laws it would proceed to enact once formed?
Censored From the Start
Three weeks earlier, the purpose statement had established the work of the 'Aha: "draft a constitution that establishes a Native Hawaiian government." Thereafter, the 'Aha meeting hall had become a hive of activity. Bringing the participants together and inviting them to express their personal concerns gave them each an emotional stake in the final outcome of the process.
Given 3x5 note cards upon which they could write their concerns and issues, participants expressed a range of concerns that were deposited in baskets labeled "Judiciary," "Individual Rights," "Collective Rights," "Executive" and "Legislative." Once the cards were collected in their appropriate baskets, they underwent additional screenings. Assigned to designated tables based on these categories, participants were given newsprint sheets upon which to list what participants had written on the cards, after eliminating redundancies and shuttling cards that didn't seem to fit the given category to more appropriate tables.
At the "Individual Rights" table, the illusion of a democratic process quickly dissolved. Dreanna Kalili, of Makalehua (the self-described group of "young Hawaiians") assumed control of sorting the cards, and Annelle Amaral, president of the old guard Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs and a federal recognition stalwart, took control of the Sharpie as the self-appointed arbiter of the table's list.
At one point, a participant who works in the foster care system approached our table to share her concerns about the need to ensure Kanaka Maoli children are protected, including from adoptions that may subject them to abuse or that might separate them from the lahui.
After arguing against the wisdom of including such a provision in the constitution, Amaral agreed to its inclusion, while simultaneously reducing the woman's detailed outpouring of concern into a two-word bullet point: "protect children."
Was this an isolated case or was this not-so-subtle attempt to corral -- and sometimes censor -- the discussion going on at the other tables too? The answer would reveal itself plainly in the ensuing plenary session.
Meanwhile, the leadership team announced the formation of committees based on the input from the note cards and representing various sections of the proposed constitution that had categorized the baskets and note cards, as well as a stand-alone preamble committee. These committees were to discuss and refine the applicable input into more concrete language that would then be forwarded to the drafting committee. Participation in committees was to be determined by "law of feet" -- anyone who wanted to participate in a particular committee could do so. But time and again, throughout the following weeks, participants were disappointed to find specific provisions they had put forward, both on the 3x5 cards and in committees, had been edited out by the drafting committee.
Pursuing Independence
By that third week, independence advocates had seen enough of the 'Aha agenda to have no further illusions about their place at the table. The clear objective was to create a document that would facilitate federal recognition. Advocates who wanted to promote the possibility of a future independent Hawai'i were on their own.
Meanwhile, in local broadcast media, the federal recognition leaders were pushing their message at every opportunity.
"Certainly, independence is not a viable option. It's just not viable. The United States itself will not allow one of its states to secede from the union," Amaral told Hawaii News Now.
Furthering the independence agenda in this sometimes hostile environment would require organization. But the elected 'Aha leadership team, taking an opposite approach from the hired facilitators who had temporarily organized the 'Aha into "independence" and "federal recognition" caucuses, had now separated participants by committee without creating a committee for independence advocates to focus on their concerns. Instead, the committees they had organized were specific to the various sections of the federal recognition-friendly constitution they were intent on drafting.
Taking matters into their own hands, Hawai'i island participants Lunakanawai Hauanio and Keoni Choy organized a new committee on February 17: the international committee began to discuss drafting documents for restoring an independent Hawaiian government.
This committee, which included 15–30 members on any given day, discussed several options for models on which our governing documents could be based. These options included the 1999 'Aha Hawai'i 'O'iwi (AHO) constitution offered by Honolulu attorney and long-time sovereignty activist Keoni Agard. Agard was one of a handful of participants who were elected to the AHO Constitutional Convention and whose work was interrupted when, after the determination of that elected body was to seek independence from the United States, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) pulled the convention's funding.
In addition to the AHO constitution, the committee looked at a Unicameral Independent Constitution drafted by former Hawai'i State Representative Jimmy Wong.
Wai'anae attorney Poka Laenui, a long-time sovereignty activist, offered the body several documents for consideration, including a "Hawai'i National Transitional Authority" plan that could potentially bridge federal recognition and independence factions. Laenui also proposed an international relations unit that would be tasked with building support within the international community for a Hawaiian nation.
University of Hawai'i at Manoa Richardson Law Professor Williamson Chang, offered his own "Maunawili I" and "Maunawili II" documents to the committee: short and long declarations detailing the legal justification for Hawaiian independence predicated on the argument that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists, however "atrophied" in form, while it remains in a state of prolonged occupation by the United States of America.
'Aha chair Brendon Lee made it clear that participation in the drafting committee was likewise open to all who were interested. The initial meeting of the drafting committee took place in a small side room, which was already packed when I arrived. Apparently the response was more than leadership had bargained for. Some culling of the herd was in order.
Kalili once again took the lead, asking for a show of hands of those with experience drafting legislation, constitutions and other such credentials. This prompted an angry response from at least one participant who didn't appreciate the implication that those without such credentials need not apply.
As explained later by Zuri Aki, a Makalehua member who had taken the lead in the drafting committee, the various committees were to submit their input to the drafting committee, which would use it (after running it by research and legal subcommittees) to craft the provisions of the constitution.
Given the overarching nature of a preamble to a constitution, the preamble committee was given leave to do its own drafting. Keoni Kuoha, the committee chair, and I proceeded to draft preamble options using the specific input from our committee members.
Right before the last week of the 'Aha, the drafting committee, which included many Makalehua members, set up shop at Richardson Law School for a feverish weekend of drafting. Having obligations at home, I planned to telecommute, working on the preamble via a shared Google document template in which the text from the draft preambles was to be inserted into columns for side-by-side comparison and evaluation against the committee's list of priorities.
Saturday morning I woke to find my permission to access the document had been denied. As it turned out, another participant had been denied access as well. In an email, Kuoha said the problem resulted from me adding something to the wrong column.
In a subsequent email, Kuoha explained:
Collaborative editing was too confusing, even when some of us were in the same room together. Things kept disappearing and changing in ways no one could account for.
Aki had a more pointed explanation for the problem, which he sent to the preamble committee in an email:
We had about 24 people with access to the document and someone didn't read instructions (and deleted a whole bunch of stuff)
Kuoha would later blame the confusion on a different member whom he said "doesn't understand the process."
Nevertheless, I completed my draft of the preamble, which Kuoha said the rest of the committee seemed to prefer. Nevertheless, the next version of the preamble to come out of the drafting committee, sent via email Sunday evening, bore little resemblance to the draft I had submitted. Once again, there was no mention of independence.
My access to the document may have been restored, but it was at this point that my confidence in the process was shattered.
The Magical Drafting Committee
On February 24, preamble committee chair Kuoha called the previously disbanded committee back to the table at 11 a.m. Projecting the latest version of the preamble on a screen, he explained that there had been another change proposed by a different committee. In addition to preamble committee members, the room was packed with members of the drafting committee, which included many members of Makalehua.
This time it was the legislative committee that had put forward changes and, once again, the result was the striking of the phrase "full sovereignty" from the preamble draft.
Members of the preamble committee were outraged. Even those who were in favor of federal recognition chastised the attempt to subvert the committee's work.
"The Republicans in Congress, they're trying to take our -- any semblance of pono, they're trying to take that away," Kuoha tried to explain. "So putting the word 'independence' in there, adds to fuel. They're already walking around with the paper saying, 'look at these Hawaiians' right? ... So as far as I understand, it's a political argument ... so the impact of their actions could be that we lose benefits."
Poka Laenui argued for solidly embedding self-determination in the preamble, saying, "The first draft should simply include 'self-determination as described in international law.' And that will take care of the missing elements contained in the proposed draft. Then you will not allow the United States to redefine the term 'sovereignty' ... by international law, sovereignty means full sovereignty. What the United States has done is convert that term into a subsidiary sovereignty, in the same way they treat Native Americans. We should not fall for that."
Former OHA trustee Moanikeala Akaka wanted answers. "What was the justification for that change?" she demanded. "This is undemocratic to go against the committee!"
Kuoha backpedaled, saying, "We didn't change anything. It was a major, major political issue that was identified."
Amidst the hubbub, Lei Kihoi, a former Kana'iolowalu commissioner and member of the drafting committee, stepped forward to back the changes.
"This is just a democratic process. I'm one of the drafters and what we do is -- it's not possible to get the true intent of your committee. So we'll draft something and and the process is, it goes back to you and you tell us what you want. It's not carved in stone ... We can't be in all the committees so we have to kind of guess what you guys are doing. So we'll draft and draft. I've written laws, written constitutions ... so it's important for you to tell us what you want.
... We're doing the best we can."
"Who gave drafting committee the right to take out everybody's wordings that they have fought for, for a week and a half? Who gave the drafting committee that kuleana? None of us here. None of us," said Carol Lee Kamekona, from Maui, as applause broke out in the room. "So now that means we only have one day as plenary to go over everything that every single committee has talked about and we have to approve that supposedly by tomorrow? Hewa."
Preamble Committee member Lori Buchanan of Molokai, sister of Walter Ritte, was also critical of the process by which the drafts went back and forth between preamble and draft committee.
"I have a procedure matter ... It should have went: preamble, draft, draft preamble, preamble, draft," said Buchanan. "Take it to the plenary. Let everybody decide. Then we can come down and hash this out. Because when [the constitution] come out, of course we're going to have to."
Even staunch federal recognition supporters were upset by the last minute changes:
"I did not want 'independence' in [the preamble] at this time, so I did dissent," said Kahiolani Papalimu, a participant from Hawai'i island. "However, over the next few days, and in conferring with others and hearing that it is possible to include that and still leave the way open for both, I'm fine with it. But when [the preamble] comes back and it's so different, I feel like I should have stayed at the pool all week ... We thought we was all done, amazing, and so we ran to other committees, and I see it being done [in those committees] too. Their hard work that's going to this magical drafting committee is coming back missing tons of stuff."
Fred Cachola, a kupuna from Hawai'i island, was also adamantly opposed to the drafting committee's unwarranted changes.
"It did have all the mana'o we could have after three days of discussions. And if this meeting is now going to overrule and change ... everything that this committee put into it, I don't think that is pono," said Cachola. "I dearly would love to know, who among the drafting committee decided to change ... I'd like to have those people here and say, 'we, in the drafting committee decided to use this because ...'"
Overwhelmed by the opposition, Kuoha deleted the offending legislature committee suggestion from the screen. But it was too late for some. The impression of an undemocratic process was inescapable.
With just one more day to go, the notion of fairness and balance at the 'Aha had all but been dissolved.
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/h-william-burgess-honolulu-attorney-fought-race-exclusive-programs/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Saturday March 19, 2016
Honolulu attorney fought race-exclusive programs
By Timothy Hurley
H. William Burgess, the Honolulu attorney who campaigned against racially exclusive, publicly funded programs such as the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, died Wednesday.
"Bill Burgess was a great man who loved and served the people of Hawaii," said Keli'i Akina, president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. "His efforts to preserve racial harmony throughout the islands are a testament to the aloha spirit."
After attending the University of Virginia Law School and then serving in the Marine Corps, the native of North Carolina moved to Hawaii in 1956. He practiced law in the islands and would go on to be elected as one of 100 delegates to the Hawaii constitutional convention in 1978. His age was not available.
After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned racially exclusive voting for OHA trustees in Rice v. Cayetano in 1996, Burgess brought suit in federal court with 13 plaintiffs in Arakaki v. State of Hawaii seeking to invalidate racial restrictions on candidates running for the OHA board. He won.
Two years later he challenged the constitutionality of OHA and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in Arakaki v. Lingle, on behalf of 16 plaintiffs. This time he was not successful.
Along with his wife, Sandra Puanani Burgess, they ran Aloha 4 All, a nonprofit dedicated to challenging the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009, also known as the Akaka Bill, and any other special programs, agencies or funds for Hawaiians. Burgess testified against the bill both here and in Washington, D.C.
Akina described Burgess as the founding father of Grassroot Institute, a conservative think tank that has continued to challenge racially exclusive publicly funded programs.
"Bill gave exemplary service to the people of Hawaii, and we strive to carry on his legacy here at Grassroot. He was a great man, and we stand on his shoulders in many of our battles," he said.
Kenneth Conklin, who was a key plaintiff in Arakaki v. State of Hawaii, called Burgess a knowledgeable and friendly person.
"I feel like I've lost a good friend, a patriot and a fellow warrior in service to unity and equality," Conklin said.
A service has yet to be scheduled.
----------------
** Ken Conklin's online comment
Thanks to Timothy Hurley for this news report. Here's a little more information. Bill was 87 years old.
Mr. Hurley confused the date when the Rice v. Cayetano lawsuit was filed with the date when it was decided. It was filed in 1996 in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu by Hawaii Island rancher Freddy Rice, and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 23, 2000. Bill Burgess had been concerned about the illegal violations of civil rights in Hawaii and the underlying racial divisiveness; and he had already written about that in the Honolulu Advertiser. Bill was watching the progress of the Rice v. Cayetano case through the courts and was familiar with the legal arguments on both sides. Knowing my interest, he actually snail-mailed me a transcript of the Supreme Court oral arguments.
I came to live permanently in Hawaii in 1992, and made contact with Bill around 1998 after being inspired by a commentary he had written in the newspaper. By 2000 when the Rice decision was handed down I had already spent more than 7 years studying Hawaiian history, culture and language, and shared Bill's concern about racial divisiveness and the civil rights violations inherent in Hawaii's large number of racial entitlement programs.
So after the Supreme Court ruled that all registered voters, regardless of race, have a right to vote for the board members of OHA, I decided to run for the board in hopes of changing OHA's priorities away from racially exclusionary programs and toward cultural work such as restoring heiaus and reviving Hawaiian language, where people of all races could cooperate in preserving these treasures and helping them thrive. But the Office of Elections in Pearl City refused to give me nominating papers to run for OHA because I have no Hawaiian blood. I said "Rice v. Cayetano." They said "That's only about who can vote, not who can run." I decided to file a lawsuit pro se (on my own), and told Bill about it. He very generously offered to represent me pro bono (free of charge). When the case was filed we had 13 plaintiffs who had a beautiful rainbow of about a dozen ethnicities, including 3 ethnic Hawaiians. We listed the plaintiffs in alphabetical order, which is how Mr. Arakaki (Okinawan) became the lead plaintiff. Federal judge Helen Gillmor ruled in our favor in plenty of time to get on the ballot for November. Meanwhile Governor Cayetano had ousted all 9 OHA trustees because they had been illegally elected. In November there were 96 candidates for the 9 OHA seats including at least a dozen with no Hawaiian blood, and one of them (an American of Japanese ancestry) won election in November.
Bill was rightly very proud of his civil rights success in abolishing racially segregated elections for OHA. He continued his work as a civil rights activist for ten more years, both in the courts and in the community. He and Sandra traveled to Washington D.C. several times at their own expense to fight the Akaka bill, while OHA trustees and their entourage of lobbyists had all expenses paid by a government agency (OHA) using money taken from the people of Hawaii. Bill formally testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in Washington, and on another occasion he testified before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, in opposition to Hawaii Attorney General Bennett whose expenses were paid by Hawaii taxpayers. On another occasion he and Sandra, along with state Senator Sam Slom and Hawaiian sovereignty activist Leon Siu, lobbied Senators and their policy advisors against the Akaka bill and were present in the Senate gallery watching on June 9, 2006 as the Akaka bill went down in flames on a cloture motion.
Mr. Hurley said Bill Burgess and his wife Sandra Puanani Burgess founded Aloha For All to oppose the Akaka bill in 2009. But in fact the Akaka bill was present in Congress for 13 years from Summer 2000 to December 2012. Bill and Sandra led the opposition to that horrible legislation throughout that entire time. I'm not sure what year they founded Aloha For All, but it was during the very early years of the Akaka bill.
The founding father of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii was Richard Rowland, but certainly Bill and Sandra were actively involved from the beginning. Perhaps it would be accurate to invoke a Hawaiian genealogical concept: Grassroot Institute had po'olua -- 2 fathers. I am proud to have had Bill and Sandra Burgess as mentors for two decades, and will miss my friend Bill very much.
---------------------
http://www.hawaiiancouncil.org/forum-on-the-draft-native-hawaiian-constitution/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 21, 2016
CNHA Policy Center to Host Review of Draft Native Hawaiian Constitution
Kapolei, HI-The Policy Center at Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement (CNHA), will host a forum to review the draft Native Hawaiian Constitution that resulted from last month's 'Aha organized by Na'i Aupuni. The forum will be held on Saturday, April 9th, 2016 from 9:30am - 12:30pm at the Honolulu Airport Conference Center, 7th Floor, Room #2 and will include lunch.
The Policy Center will review and breakdown the drafted document and discuss next steps, including the process of a ratification vote. Attendees can look forward to a thorough review of all the sections and in-depth discussion on the governance structure within the document to help anyone interested to better understand the content before the voting process for ratification begins.
"The process of developing the draft Native Hawaiian constitution prevailed due to the hard work and common dedication by 'aha participants toward progress for the Lāhui. The educational component is just as important, if not more important, and the CNHA Policy Center is prepared to work with those who are interested in participating to review the draft constitution," shares Michelle Kauhane, CNHA President and 'Aha participant.
Registration for this forum is $25 and includes a lunch; limited seating is available. Parking validations will be available for a reduced rate of $3.50. All who are interested in attending can register online through the Eventbrite link below or download a hardcopy form at CNHA's website, www.hawaiiancouncil.org, in the events section. SCHHA Homestead members on neighboring islands have available airfare scholarships to attend this event as a part of the SCHHA Summit. For inquiries related to the SCHHA membership please contact schha.associations@gmail.com
For more information on this event or the Native Hawaiian Policy Center, email CNHA directly at policy@hawaiiancouncil.org or call (808) 596-8155. Eventbrite Registration link:
https://cnhapolicycenterforum.eventbrite.com
The policy center at the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement convenes non-governmental organizations around policy priorities and solutions to meet the challenges in Hawaiian communities. CNHA is a national network of Native Hawaiian Organizations, providing assistance in accessing capital and technical resources, and is a policy voice on issues important to Native Hawaiian communities. Its mission is to enhance the cultural, economic, political, and community development of Native Hawaiians. For more information about CNHA please contact us at 808.596.8155, toll-free at 1.800.709.2642, by e-mail at info@hawaiiancouncil.org, or at www.hawaiiancouncil.org.
-------------------
https://berniesanders.com/issues/native-hawaiians/
Bernie Sanders for President campaign website as found on March 24, 2016, two days before Democrat primary election in Hawaii.
Fighting for the Rights of Native Hawaiians
Bernie is proud to stand with Native Hawaiians in the struggle to protect and preserve their rights, honor their culture, advance their traditional ways of life, and improve their quality of life.
Under a Sanders Administration, the right to self-determination and self-governance would rest in the hands of Native Hawaiians where it belongs. Native Hawaiians are currently deliberating the nature of their government and its relationship with the United States, a decision that must be made by Native Hawaiians without interference from the federal government.
In 1993, Bernie supported a Congressional resolution that apologized to Native Hawaiians for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. This shameful act, rooted in the type of corporate greed with which we are still too familiar, had devastating effects on the health, culture, and social conditions of Native Hawaiians, which are still being felt to this day. Native Hawaiians have been lied to and cheated, and the United States government must do everything it can to right these grave injustices.
AS PRESIDENT, BERNIE WILL:
Work with Hawaiians to achieve energy independence
Hawai'i is heavily dependent on fossil fuel imports, which due to the islands' geographic position are more expensive than most other places. Hawai'i spends an unacceptable $5 billion each and every year to bring oil and coal to its shores. Bernie's climate plan would fundamentally transform Hawaii's energy system away from fossil fuel towards sustainable energy by providing grants to native Hawaiian communities for solar, wind and other renewable energy projects. Not only would this improve the environment, it would also create good-paying jobs by establishing a 100 percent clean energy system. And as we make this transition, fossil fuel workers will receive job-training opportunities and the financial assistance they need to maintain family-level wages, health care and pensions until they are able to start new jobs. Bernie's plan will make sure that the state reaches its goal of 100 percent renewable energy by 2045.
Protect the Environment
The beauty that we appreciate in Hawaii's land and water must be protected and preserved. Too often, huge corporations have come in to Hawaii and taken actions that have been damaging to Hawaii's environment and the Native Hawaiian way of life. Bernie will fight to make sure that federal environmental and public health laws are aggressively enforced to protect the land and water in Hawaii.
Fight for affordable housing and responsible community development
Bernie has worked for decades in support of affordable housing. As Mayor of Burlington, Vermont he championed policies that increased homeownership, prevented homelessness, and expanded affordable housing opportunities. Bernie is deeply concerned about the high rate of homelessness in Hawaii, the lack of truly affordable housing, and the high cost of living. He will continue the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee program, and will fight to expand, not cut, HUD's Native Hawaiian Housing Program.
End Mass Incarceration
Native Hawaiians are disproportionately impacted by the criminalization and mass incarceration system, which often tears families apart as Hawaii residents are shipped off to mainland prisons. Bernie's plan will turn back from the failed "War on Drugs," eliminate mandatory minimum sentences and reform a broken criminal justice system.
Enact a Living Wage
In the year 2016, no one who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty. Native Hawaiians suffer disproportionately from income inequality and poverty. The Wall Street crash in 2008 further widened the income inequality gap for many Hawaiians and increased childhood poverty. Bernie's plan will address this problem by increasing the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 an hour.
Provide Quality Education for All
Education is a key element to breaking the cycle of poverty. Bernie's plan to make public colleges and universities tuition free would provide more access and opportunity to Native Hawaiians. In addition, Bernie has been a strong supporter of the Native Hawaiian Education Act which provides grants for early education and childcare; reading and literacy; gifted and talented programs; special education; and other initiatives to ensure Native Hawaiians graduate on-time. Bernie also supported Senator Mazie Hirono's amendment that would have provided more accurate information on the educational progress of Native Hawaiian children.
Implement Fair Trade Policies
Bernie has always opposed job-killing trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that make it easier for large-multinational corporations to outsource good-paying jobs. The inevitable effects of TPP on Hawai'i will negatively impact Native Hawaiians and Hawaii's economy. That would be unacceptable. Bernie will fundamentally rewrite our trade policies to improve the living standards of all working people and end the destructive race to the bottom.
Expand Health Insurance Coverage for Hawaiians
Native Hawaiians are nearly half as likely as other demographics to be insured. That is wrong. Bernie's Medicare-for-all plan will provide high-quality affordable health care to all Native Hawaiians as a right, not a privilege.
Support local, small-scale, sustainable agriculture
As a Senator from a small rural state, Bernie has been a strong supporter of small family farms. Hawai'i, which imports more than 80% of its food, can move away from this dependence, and take advantage of its year-round growing season. As president, Bernie will fight to support sustainable and culturally appropriate agricultural programs for Native Hawaiians. He also recognizes the right of people to know what is in their food, and he has been a leader in the movement to label GMOs. Bernie believes we must stand up to the demands of Monsanto and other multi-national corporations and support local small-scale agriculture.
--------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/03/peter-apo-a-tribute-to-a-prince-of-hawaii/
Honolulu Civil Beak, March 24, 2016
Peter Apo: A Tribute To A Prince Of Hawaii
How Prince Kuhio opened the door to U.S. recognition of the rights of Native Hawaiians.
By Peter Apo
Jonah Kalaniana'ole Kuhio was a Prince of Hawaii and a delegate to the United States Congress. He left a legacy of congressional service that provided Native Hawaiians a place of political refuge and trans-generational opportunity to recover from the trauma of the fall of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, the decimation of a once vibrant culture, and a spiraling of an entire native population into near extinction.
Prince Kuhio was born into the Royal House of Kalakaua in 1871. He was raised on Kauai but attended the Royal School on Oahu, followed by four years at St. Matthew's College in California and the Royal Agricultural College in England. He eventually graduated from a business school also in England. In 1884 he was appointed to the Royal Cabinet as head of the Department of the Interior.
His life began to unravel in 1893 when American businessmen overthrew the Hawaiian kingdom and established the Republic of Hawaii. The Prince joined other native Hawaiians in a revolutionary uprising attempting to restore the monarchy. He and other royalists were arrested, but spared the death penalty after Queen Liliuokalani formally abdicated.
Price Kuhio's world had collapsed. On his release from prison he left Hawaii for South Africa with no intention of returning to his homeland. He then joined the British Army and fought in the Boer War. He traveled abroad with his wife Chiefess Elizabeth Kahanu Ka'auwai. That union unfortunately produced no children, leaving no heirs to his legacy.
The Return Of The Prince
In a change of heart, Prince Kuhio returned home soon after the 1898 annexation of Hawaii as a territory of the United States. Had the Royal Kingdom survived the overthrow, Prince Kuhio most likely would have succeeded Queen Liliuokalani to become King of Hawaii.
In 1903, he re-organized the Royal Order of Kamehameha and established Kamehameha Day as a royal holiday which we continue to celebrate. He notably founded the first Hawaiian Civic Club, now a network of clubs whose members represent the very fabric of the Hawaiian community.
In 1903 he was elected Territorial delegate to the United States Congress. He was the only royal prince to serve in the United States Congress. In 1919 he sponsored the first legislation calling for Hawaii Statehood.
But his most notable achievement -- the full importance of which wasn't clear for decades -- was his authorship of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Homestead Act.
Before explaining why, let's set the stage. In 1968, the Indian Civil Rights Act, in a nutshell, formally guaranteed Bill of Rights protections for Native American Indians (and, later, Native Alaskans). Prior to this act, Native Americans weren't legally guaranteed freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right of assembly, the right to petition for grievances, due process, equal protection, and so forth, in dealings with their own tribal communities. Under the U.S. Constitution, federal regulations and court rulings, tribes can seek federal recognition as nations within a nation. They can negotiate government-to-government relationships with the United States and are recognized as having a right to self-determination.
Hawaiians, although qualifying as both indigenous peoples and Native Americans by every other standard, continue to be denied inclusion and therefore are now branded as racist every time they attempt to organize themselves as Native Hawaiians seeking self-determination. So, without the same constitutional protections afforded American Indians and Native Alaskans, Hawaiians are left vulnerable to judicial constitutional challenges that prevent any full expression of political self-determination.
The Weight Of The Homestead Act
But in 1920, Prince Kuhio's Homestead Act singled out ethnic Hawaiians as a special class of people entitled to recognition for the purpose of federal entitlement of access to land for homesteading. I don't believe that even the Prince could have foreseen how the full weight of the Homestead Act would be felt decades later. This act of the prince unsuspectingly established a federal pathway to self-determination by providing a strategic shield of congressional protection for his people as Native Hawaiians. It was, and still is, the foundation of congressional recognition that acknowledges and gives standing to Hawaiians as an indigenous people warranting special status. The Homestead Act, this tiny little window, this gift from a Prince of Hawaii, gave us a vital opportunity for recovery and survival.
The first major congressional reference to the Homestead Act of 1920, that opened the door to a flow of entitlements, was the Native Hawaiian Education Act of 1965. It reaffirmed a special relationship between the United States and Native Hawaiians. Then, again in 1988, the milestone Native Hawaiian Health Care Act was passed, reaffirming the distinct land rights, and other rights, of Native Hawaiian people.
So, from the Hawaiian Homestead Act has flowed a genealogy of congressional actions; more than 230 federal entitlement programs have translated into millions of dollars for health care, education, jobs and business opportunities. This act of the prince bought Hawaiians the precious time to recover from our trans-generational trauma. The Hawaiian Homestead Act kept us afloat during all the years of struggling just to stand up again. The Hawaiian Homestead Act paved the way for the restoration of our dignity and honor as a people.
Prince Kuhio served in Congress from 1903 till his death in 1922. This is the legacy Hawaiians celebrate on Prince Kuhio Day.
About the Author
A former legislator, Peter Apo is a trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the president of the Peter Apo Company LLC, a cultural tourism consulting company to the visitor industry. He has also been the arts and culture director for Honolulu, the city's director of Waikiki Development and served as special assistant on Hawaiian affairs to Gov. Ben Cayetano. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of OHA or other organizations he is involved in.
------------
** Ken Conklin's online comment
Friday is not only Good Friday but also the state holiday Kuhio Day.
Some ethnic Hawaiians revere Kuhio as a prince for the same reasons the peasantry in any monarchial nation reveres its royalty -- majesty, mystery, pride in the nobility of a great leader, and hope for handouts to help the poor and downtrodden. Wealthy racial separatist Hawaiian government institutions honor Kuhio as their founding father, the man who bowed low enough to the colonizers to bring home the bacon from their far-away seat of power.
But was Kuhio's personal behavior princely? At least two major events in Kuhio's life after the revolution of 1893 should cause Hawaiian sovereignty activists to question his worthiness as their torch-bearer. On these two occasions Kuhio was grossly unpatriotic to his Hawaiian "nation." The first occasion was when he abandoned his nation at its time of greatest peril in order to pursue personal pleasure and foreign adventure. The second occasion was two decades later when he abused his power and prestige to launch a personal attack against Queen Liliuokalani in order to steal her land, for his personal enrichment, from the children she intended to help. Kuhio's behavior on both occasions should be viewed as not merely selfish, but treasonous from the viewpoint of the sovereignty activists.
In January 1895, at age 23, Kuhio participated in the attempted counterrevolution against the Republic of Hawaii led by Robert Wilcox. He was sentenced to a year in prison, where his fiancee visited him regularly. After his release they got married and went to Europe. It's understandable that the heir to the throne would feel unhappy about imprisonment and about the loss of his future crown. Certainly nobody would begrudge him the right to get married, and perhaps to travel for a while.
But Kuhio's extended absence is inexcusable in view of the major political events taking place in Hawaii. He played no part in fighting against annexation, even while his fellow "patriots" were making speeches, writing articles in the newspapers, and gathering 21,000 signatures on a petition in 1897 opposing annexation. Today's sovereignty activists excuse his non-participation by claiming he was "in exile." But nobody forced him to leave.
Kuhio extended his European adventure by going to Africa where he spent three years fighting on the side of England in the second Boer War. Let's put that in different terms so that today's sovereignty activists will get the point. Kuhio, designated heir to the throne, abandoned his native land during a time of great political upheaval and went to war halfway around the world, fighting on the side of one white colonial power against another white colonial power in a war to see which one would win control over the land of a poor, downtrodden dark-skinned native population. Kuhio returned to Hawaii in time to join the Republican Party and defeat Robert Wilcox in the 1902 election for Territorial Delegate to Congress, whereupon he took the oath of office swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (Traitor to the Hawaiian nation!). He introduced the first bill in Congress for statehood for Hawaii (Traitor to the Hawaiian nation!). He finally "brought home the bacon" after 19 years in Congress with passage of his Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (Sellout!).
The case of Kuhio vs. Liliuokalani in 1915-1916 is perhaps even more troubling. The "prince," now Hawaii's Territorial Delegate to Congress for 13 years, abused his power and prestige to launch a personal attack against Queen Liliuokalani in order to steal her land from the children she intended to help. Kuhio publicly accused her of mental incompetence in order to nullify her creation of the Queen Liliuokalani Childrens' Trust, and to establish himself as conservator of her estate, so that after her death her Waikiki properties would go to him instead of to the benefit of the Hawaiian children. Luckily for the children, his lawsuit failed. Full text of the Hawaii Supreme Court decision, including details about what Kuhio was trying to do, is on a webpage: JONAH KUHIO KALANIANAOLE v. LILIUOKALANI, Supreme Court of Hawaii, 23 Haw. 457; 1916. Syllabus and full text of the Court's decision.
http://tinyurl.com/ce7avc
Evelyn Cook's book "100 years of Healing" includes extensive description of the lawsuit, and especially the role of attorney W.O. Smith in defending Liliuokalani. Knowledgeable readers might be surprised, because W.O. Smith was one of the leaders of the revolution of 1893 that overthrew Liliuokalani. But as time went by the ex-queen realized that Smith was completely trustworthy whereas Kuhio was arrogant, selfish, greedy, and profoundly disrespectful to the woman most ethnic Hawaiians still regarded as their Queen. She appointed Smith as trustee.
----------
** Peter Apo, Trustee at Office of Hawaiian Affairs, online reply to Ken Conklin
Ken - the profound legacy he left will never be tarnished by your historical bias and slanted attacks on the way he chose to navigate the political and cultural trauma of the age. No one can deny that he laid a critical foundation for the political and cultural recovery of the Hawaiian people. His legacy is particularly manifested in two of his strategic initiatives. First in the establishment of the concept of Hawaiian Civic Clubs whose footprint today lights up the map of every island and whose thousands of members revere him. And second, breathing new life into the Royal Order of Kamehameha who today provide a strident and important political bridge of continuum of the existence of a Hawaiian nation that was never extinguished or relinquished.
---------
** Ken Conklin online rebuttal
Peter Apo is a tycoon of the Hawaiian racial entitlement empire, so of course he LOVES Kuhio because of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 which established the mother of racial entitlement programs -- DHHL lands. However, notice that Peter Apo was unable to contradict the facts I presented about Kuhio's selfishness, arrogance, and betrayal. Kuhio did one or two things Apo considers good, but several big things which Apo SHOULD regard as very bad but is too "politically correct" to criticize him for or even to mention in his screed.
I showed that Kuhio abandoned his native land during a time of great political upheaval and went to war halfway around the world, fighting on the side of one white colonial power against another white colonial power in a war to see which one would win control over the land of a poor, downtrodden dark-skinned native population.
And I showed that Kuhio launched a personal attack against Queen Liliuokalani in order to steal her land from the children she intended to help. Kuhio publicly accused her of mental incompetence in order to nullify her creation of the Queen Liliuokalani Childrens' Trust, and to establish himself as conservator of her estate, so that after her death her Waikiki properties would go to him instead of to the benefit of the Hawaiian children.
-------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/03/hillary-will-fight-for-native-hawaiians-hopes-dreams/
Honolulu Civil Beat, March 25, 2016
Hillary Will Fight For Native Hawaiians' Hopes, Dreams
Whether supporting World Heritage site designation of the Papahānaumokuākea marine monument or a U.N. declaration on indigenous peoples' rights, Clinton has been there for Hawaii.
By Lilikalā Kame'eleihiwa, Hanalei Y. Aipoalani, Antoinette "Toni" Lee, Rebecca 'Iolani Soon
The people of Hawai'i have an opportunity this Saturday, March 26, to elect a champion for our nation, our state, and for the Native Hawaiian community. The choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is the fighter Hawaii needs in the White House.
How appropriate it is that we are voting on the very celebration of Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalaniana'ole's birthday, Hawai'i's first delegate to Congress. As a delegate, Prince Kūhiō had no vote, but he worked tirelessly to ensure the people of Hawai'i's interests were represented. That included supporting women's suffrage in Hawai'i in 1919. He gave his life to efforts to engage and empower Native Hawaiians with political and land sovereignty.
The Presidential Preference Poll on Saturday is our one opportunity to vote for the candidate who will best represent Hawai'i. Often, Hawai'i is largely ignored during the presidential race, by virtue of being 4,779 miles from the nation's capital, and so the people of Hawai'i are particularly sensitive to ensuring our concerns are heard and addressed on a national stage.
The Democratic nominee will face a Republican party that is disconnected from the real issues challenging our country and our state. We deserve a president who understands our unique needs and who values Hawai'i not just as a beautiful paradise, but also as an important place with real communities and real concerns.
Hillary has a lifelong record of working to break down barriers and build ladders of opportunity for all people. She understands Hawai'i's deep history, our challenges and our potential.
As first lady, Hillary visited Kaua'i to highlight recovery efforts following the devastation caused by Hurricane Iniki, and she worked to protect Hawai'i's natural beauty and our sacred traditions by supporting the World Heritage site designation of the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument.
As Secretary of State, Hillary supported the U.S. endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognized Native Hawaiians and other indigenous peoples around the world.
The Declaration is extremely important as a foundational statement about the unique rights and sovereignty recognized in all indigenous peoples.
Today, Hillary shows her characteristic dedication when considering challenges facing our Native Hawaiian community, and we believe she will roll up her sleeves and stand with us to do the hard work, hand in hand.
Native Hawaiian issues are Hawai'i issues, and they impact people of all ethnicities, ages, genders, and socio-economic backgrounds. We want to end homelessness, ensure access to healthcare and education for all members of society, and fight for equal pay and opportunities.
Protecting Progress Made Under Obama
Our next president will play an important role in re-envisioning how government can work to serve the hopes and dreams of our communities. We believe Hillary is the right candidate to protect the hard fought progress we have made under President Obama, and we know that as president, Hillary won't stop fighting for the progress we all want to see for Hawai'i.
Earlier this month, Hillary released a groundbreaking statement in support of the Native Hawaiian community's ongoing work toward self-determination and nationhood: "I commend President Obama's leadership in working with Native Hawaiians on the opportunity to establish a government-to-government relationship with the United States," she confirmed. Hillary's unequivocal statement underscores what we have always known: We can count on Hillary to stand with our community no matter what.
This is an important statement for the Native Hawaiian community, especially as we wrestle with our future paths and consider the ratification of a constitution. As we continue to have to defend our community programs at the national level, it is more critical than ever that we have a champion like Hillary in our corner.
We are proud to stand in firm support of Hillary Clinton for president of the United States of America, and humbly ask that you join us on Saturday, March 26, in casting your vote of confidence in Hillary Clinton during Hawai'i's Presidential Preference Poll. For more information on caucus times and locations please visit:
http://oahudemocrats.org/ppp/.
About the Authors
Lilikala K. Kame'eleihiwa is a senior professor at the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and currently its director. Trained as a historian, and fluent in the Hawaiian language, she is an expert in Hawaiian ancestral knowledge, history, cultural traditions, and on the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.
Hanalei Y. Aipoalani oversees human resources, administration and fund development functions, and Youth Xchange program at 'Olelo Community Media. He has more than a decade of experience in the private sector specializing in biotechnologies.
Antoinette "Toni" Lee is retired from 41 years of Federal Civil Service. She is president of the Pearl Harbor Hawaiian Civic Club, president of the Friends of the Royal Hawaiian Band, president of the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame and serves on the Board of Directors for the Aloha Festivals.
Rebecca 'Iolani Soon is the chief operating officer at Solutions Pacific. She has dedicated her career to building Native Hawaiian community empowerment through small business and community based economic development programs. She is in her final year at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa William S. Richardson School of Law.
------------------
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/commentary/your-views/your-views-march-25-1
Hawaii Tribune-Herald, March 25, 2016, Letter to editor
Don't ratify it
Originally, 40 participants were to be elected (during the Na'i Aupuni aha) and meet for two months to create a constitution. Instead, 130 of us unelected participants met for one month. A paper constitution was railroaded through the attendees in a few weeks.
This aha was designed to make us an Indian tribe, federally recognized by the Department of the Interior. The DOI rules, introduced months before the aha, state the federal and state governments have sovereign immunity and cannot be sued by Native Hawaiians. Nor can we obtain state or federal land, which is really our stolen Hawaiian nation's land -- a nation recognized since 1870 internationally by more than 30 countries. Is this what we want?
We aloha our Native American brothers and sisters, and sympathize with their treatment as "wards of the state" by America. These natives have no control over their own destiny because treaties with America are repeatedly broken or ignored. They live at the whim of the federal government within a demeaning form of federal recognition. In statewide DOI hearings, more than 95 percent of kanaka maoli expressed "no desire to be under the DOI."
This evolving aha entity is supposed to replace the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Yet, a sitting OHA trustee and many OHA staff, including attorneys and law students, were active aha participants and strong promoters of federal recognition. Makalehua members, along with Kana'e Olowalu (appointed by former Gov. Neil Abercrombie for the Hawaiian roll) and others subsidized by OHA have a conflict of interest and should never have been a part of this aha. These groups gave birth to the aha, nurtured it and controlled the agenda throughout. Consequently, the unelected aha participants' "constitution" was rammed through in a few weeks.
Although there are some positive points in this document, it should not be ratified by our people in its current form. We kanaka maoli need a constitution that is more pragmatic and visionary.
In Section 5, relating to criminal prosecution references, a defendant has to pay for his/her own lawyer. Translation: Poor people arrested are guilty. Knowing so many of our people are impoverished, our Hawaii nation must provide independent public defender services to those who cannot afford them.
How are these legal services to be paid for? The Hawaiian nation should retrieve at least a half million acres of the 1.6 million acres of our ceded (seized) lands the state Department of Land and Natural Resources now controls. Some of that aina should be income-producing to pay for desperately needed programs, including legal fees for impoverished litigants. A nation needs aina to exist -- more than just Kaho'olawe, as recently offered by the U.S. government.
This constitution focuses on restorative justice principles and cultural values of pu'uhonua, malama and ho'oponopono as alternatives to standard incarceration. Hilo's E Ho'opakele, championed by the late kupuna Sam Kaleileiki, uses this alternative for victimless crimes only, not capital crimes such as murder and rape.
Most importantly, a serious examination of the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government must be undertaken.
Also, traditional and cultural intellectual property rights are noted, but there is nothing to guarantee individual intellectual property rights.
Representation by population, land base and residency must be examined and modified -- a very complex issue.
My 4 1/2 decades of experience on the front lines of Hawaiian activism, and as an OHA trustee for 12 years, leads me to believe the proposed constitution should be rejected. Currently, it is a draft needing modifications.
The Na'i Aupuni aha has, however, initiated the needed serious discussion.
Moanike'ala Akaka
Hilo
-------------------
http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/what-really-happened-at-the-aha-part-iv
Hawaii Independent, March 31, 2016
What really happened at the 'Aha, part IV
The international committee struggles to have its alternative documents to the federal-recognition constitution put before the participants for consideration.
by Ka'iulani Milham
Hawaii Independent Editor's note: As one of the 154 kānaka maoli who agreed to participate in the state-sponsored, Na'i Aupuni-initiated Native Hawaiian 'Aha, Ka'iulani Milham had a front row seat at the month-long proceedings. What follows is the fourth installment of a multi-part, first-hand account that highlights various and consistent affronts to democratic processes that ruled during the 'Aha proceedings. Read part I, part II and part III [copy/pasted in this webpage on March 4, 9, and 18]
While the federal recognition-friendly constitution was being finalized, independence advocates in the international committee (IC) were also hard at work.
The day before the 'Aha was to conclude, IC members were sequestered in a downstairs meeting room of the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club finalizing their strategy for the adoption of their "report" -- a collection of governing documents prepared over the previous week.
Ultimately, the decision was made to bring forward two constitutions based on the 'Aha Hawai'i 'O'iwi (AHO) Independent Constitution of 1999, a document that had been crafted over 18 months by the elected delegates to the AHO constitutional convention.
Despite the efforts of those elected delegates, that constitution had never been brought to a vote for ratification. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), after learning the convention had determined to pursue independence, declined to fund the process any further.
Several of the AHO delegates, however, had run for election as delegates to the 'Aha and were now among its participants. Three of them -- Jimmy Wong (a former Hawai'i state legislator) and both Keoni Agard and Poka Laenui (attorneys and long-time sovereignty activists) -- now sought to resurrect the AHO constitution.
Seeking continuity with the Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution of 1887, the document they believe to be the last legitimate constitution of Hawai'i, Agard and Wong's revised AHO constitution drew on provisions from the 19th century document to add authority and to bridge the century-wide gap between then and now.
While taking a slightly different approach, Laenui, the AHO chair, had also adapted the AHO constitution. After nearly two decades on the shelf, it was due for an update and Laenui was hopeful to finally have it brought before the lāhui for consideration and possible ratification.
With these two versions of the AHO constitution, the IC sought to submit both for consideration as alternatives to the constitution federal recognition advocates at the 'Aha had tailored to meet the Department of the Interior's specifications for federal recognition.
In addition to these two constitution alternatives, the IC report included two declarations, titled "Maunawili I and Maunawili II," both written by Dr. Williamson Chang, the University of Hawai'i (UH) Richardson Law School's senior law professor: long- and short-form essays detailing the illegitimacy of the annexation of Hawai'i in 1898.
Although electronic copies had been submitted to the "magical" drafting committee,'Aha vice chair Karen Awana, an advocate of independence, was uneasy. According to Lunakanawai Hauanio, the chair of the IC, the drafting committee had been giving mixed messages about what submission process they wanted other committees to follow.
To ensure the documents weren't misplaced, or otherwise tampered with, Awana asked me to hand deliver the packet to the drafting committee for printing. Containing all four documents, the stack of paper was hefty, about 75 pages in all.
When I arrived, the room formerly occupied by the drafting committee was nearly empty. Makana Paris, the other 'Aha vice chair, sat alone at a table. Approaching him, I asked who I should give our report to get copies printed for distribution. Paris, barely looking up from the table, said the documents needed to first be submitted to the drafting committee. Puzzled, I returned to the IC. Awana, the feeling in her na'au confirmed by Paris' response, urged me to try again.
Spotting Zuri Aki, the drafting committee's "chief drafter," I approached with the documents in hand, explaining what Paris had said. Apparently preoccupied with the 'Aha constitution, Aki said there was no provision for printing on site and suggested we do as the drafting committee had done and take the job to an offsite printer.
With the clock ticking, my thought went to the hired facilitators. Surely, with the stated purpose of the 'Aha being to draft governing documents, they had procured printers? But after seeking out facilitators Peter Adler and Linda Colburn, I was told "no," they did not have printers available. I went back upstairs to the entry where the staff from the paid PR firm Commpac, were stationed.
Among nebulous other duties, the PR firm had been paid to issue and collect our name tags every day. But did they have a printer? Again, the answer was "no."
When I got downstairs again, IC members were in the process of taking up a collection to cover the more than $450 it would cost for the copies. Led by Maui participant Carol Lee Kamekona, they set out in four teams to get the documents printed and distributed to the 'Aha members as quickly as possible.
The Paper Chase
During the plenary session that morning, copies of the "final" draft of the 'Aha constitution sat in a box onstage as 'Aha chair Brendon Lee took the podium. Glowing on the screen at his side, the agenda allowed for an hour and a half for the various committees to review the changes that had been made since the previous draft of the day before.
Among those changes, Lee sheepishly explained that, "We forgot to put in an article to call for a special election for the population to ratify our constitution."
Nevertheless, as he encouraged the participants to come forward and pick up a copy, Lee was jubilant. "Here is our constitution," he said. An hour and a half later, the plenary resumed. Chair Lee took a moment to bask in the rosy glow of success.
"They all out there said that we would fail, that all we Hawaiians do is fight, that there would be protests ... that we'd all never last a month together.... But here we are."
It was a short-lived moment. Before Lee could begin the process of receiving the reports, La'akea Kamauoha, a participant from Orlando who -- like the majority of the participants -- had rarely stepped to the mic, rose to voice a familiar refrain about the lack of due process and transparency in the Drafting Committee:
"The first of last week we were tasked to go to these different committees," he began. "We sat there for two and a half days putting something together and tried to present it. On the fourth day, on Thursday afternoon, folks would come over and tell us that it wouldn't work. And so they tried to change it around. We fought to keep it, as is. And then, when it went to the first draft, it was changed. Second draft, it was changed. And then we hear tell, that this final draft, no changes, no discussions, no nothing; we either accept it or not. And I don't really understand why you had us go through all of that if you already had an agenda, already out there, that you guys were gonna go with. And that's the part that baffles me.
Lee wasn't having it. "Who's 'you guys?'" he demanded. "Your chair had no agenda," he objected.
"The stuff that we put in there is not there. So, who were they, in this drafting committee, who decides to take out, alter, change and everything like that?" asked Kamauoha, one of 26 participants that flew in from outside Hawai'i to be a part of the process.
"The changes were made based on what was submitted from the liaison from the committee," explained Lee.
"But they didn't get there," interjected Kamauoha, "That doesn't make any sense."
At this point Lee, clearly annoyed, asked Kamauoha, with more than a touch of sarcasm, "Are you the liaison for the committee?" as Annelle Amaral (the former police woman) ushered him from the mic.
But instead of proceeding to the agenda, Lee was once again interrupted. Rising to the mic, Lunakanawai Hauanio, chair of the IC, also had issues with the process of the drafting committee.
"I was instructed, yesterday, that we were to submit whatever information from the international committee that we wanted the drafting committee to take into consideration," he said.
He went on to say that he'd been given conflicting information about the drafting committee's submission process and that his understanding had been that he was to submit the IC documents to the drafting committee, they would review them and then return them for a final approval before printing.
"Today it was different. So I am concerned that, in the middle of the stream, that there appears to have been some changes."
Having made his point, Hauanio told Lee copies of the international committee report were being printed in Kailua. Given the confusion about the process, Hauanio wanted to confirm the process going forward. Could they be distributed?
"That's your prerogative," Lee responded. Nevertheless, he was unwilling to equate the international committee's governing documents with the box full of copies of the 'Aha constitution on the stage at his feet.
"I don't believe any other committee has a written report," he added.
Hauanio remained at the mic. But Lee was adamant, "I'm not going to call you up. I am not going to call you right now." Hauanio, persisted, explaining that the copies being distributed did not include the documents his committee had submitted the previous day. "That's what I'm concerned about," he said.
Lee interrupted, said he was confused and that "the document that the drafting committee was tasked to draft is before this body. Are you saying that -- "
"Documents that, obviously, didn't come out in the print out this morning," Hauanio offered.
Lee professed ignorance, saying, "So you had different documents that you wanted the drafting committee to draft?"
At length, Hauanio explained that the committee's documents had been submitted but were nonetheless omitted from the documents the drafting committee printed out for distribution to the 'Aha participants.
Again, Lee played dumb, as if -- despite chairing the 'Aha -- he was nonetheless unaware the international committee had drafted documents. "So you had different documents that you wanted the drafting committee to draft?" Lee asked again.
"To look at and then send back to us," Hauanio clarified. "And then it's not part of the handout that was [distributed] this morning."
"I'm sorry, the chair is still not following," Lee repeated. "The task that the drafting committee was tasked with of drafting this governing document, they completed that task ... and that's what was circulated. So if you submitted ... what? Did you submit things?
"Documents ..." Hauanio offered.
"So you sent already drafted documents? That's not the purview of the drafting committee. The drafting committee is to draft, to write. If you already wrote something, then I don't know why you submitted it to the drafting committee."
"My understanding is it goes to the drafting committee and then it's printed out," Hauanio said.
"Then that is not correct," concluded Lee, adding that he would like to take the matter up with Hauanio during the recess for lunch since this was "not a matter for the body [to discuss]."
"It is a matter for the body ..." insisted Hauanio.
"Then you can still bring that up when you give your report," said Lee, dismissing Hauanio.
In contrast to Hauanio, standing at the other mic waiting to present the drafting committee's report on the final draft of the constitution, Aki was elated.
"I love you all," said Aki. "It's an amazing thing. It's the power of our people all in one, right here."
But the warm-and-fuzzy that had been cast upon the participants was short lived. A half hour later Hauanio was back at the mic, asking Aki for clarification.
"Does the draft include the items that was sent to the drafting committee -- that we sent on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday -- from the independence [international] committee?"
Aki put the responsibility back on the committee:
"Every day for this week, and so long as this committee has been around, I have gone to that committee and asked them if they could submit anything to the drafting committee and provide me with two liaisons to represent that committee and report to me ... That committee has never submitted anything to me, other than hard copy documents to me today, this morning, and they have never provided two liaisons."
Underscoring his point, Hauanio said, "So then the process that was explained to us last Wednesday, so it's changed this week."
Lee intervened to say the process was the same as it had been since the drafting committee was formed.
Was all of this simply a misunderstanding? Or was it a deliberate attempt to prevent the international committee's governing documents from being considered for adoption by the 'Aha?
Out to Lunch
Hauanio's next attempt to bring forward the international committee documents came just before lunch, when the printed copies of his committee's report -- the two constitutions and the two declarations -- were finally in hand. Standing at the mic, awaiting recognition from the chair, he was ready to give his report.
But instead of recognizing Haunio, Lee acknowledged O'ahu participant John Aeto, who stood at the opposite mic to make a motion for the "order of the day" -- an expression in Robert's Rules-speak meaning "proceed without delay to the next item on the agenda"
When Hauanio persisted at the mic intent on being allowed to speak, Lee talked over him, saying it would be "out of order at this time" and insisting, "We have to take this up. We have to take this up. I'm sorry you're out of order."
Holding his ground, Huanio objected again, "I think you're very unfair because you knew I was going to..."
"You're out of order ... I didn't make the motion," interrupted Lee. "All those in favor of moving to the order of the day raise your hands."
"You're unfair," Hauanio muttered, shaking his head in disgust as Kahiolani Papalimu, an outspoken federal recognition advocate, called out for back up: "Sergeant at Arms!"
As the session adjourned, two sets of governing documents, the constitution written by the drafting committee and the packet of documents from the international committee were now printed and available for discussion. But would they both be considered for adoption? The answer was yet to come.
================
================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
RETURN TO VIEW THE ENTIRE HISTORY FOR 2015 AND 2016
or
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2016 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
