Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Hawaii Legislature 2016 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

Webpage published February 7, 2016 and then updated until end of session in May, whenever a new bill or resolution relevant to Hawaiian sovereignty is introduced and gets a committee hearing.

The Hawaii legislature is dominated by Democrats, most of whom are far to the left on the political spectrum. Legislation focusing on ethnic Hawaiians is often explicitly and shockingly favorable to racial supremacy, racial separatism in the tribal concept, and/or restoration of Hawaii as an independent nation. That's because ethnic Hawaiians as a group are the state pet: see "NATIVE HAWAIIANS AS THE STATE PET OR MASCOT: A Psychological Analysis of Why the People of Hawaii Tolerate and Irrationally Support Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism" at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/hawnsasmascots.html

Hawaii has hundreds of racial entitlement programs. These programs provide financial benefits or governmental authority (such as advisory councils or fishing rights) exclusively to people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. People without a drop of the magic blood cannot receive benefits or serve on these special commissions. Racial entitlement programs are stepping stones to political sovereignty. Indeed, one of the primary reasons for pushing the Akaka bill, or federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe, is to provide a legal defense against lawsuits to abolish racial entitlement programs on the grounds that they violate the 14th Amendment clause requiring that government must treat all people equally under the law regardless of race. Tribes are allowed to discriminate; but federal, state, and local governments are not.

Legislation in Hawaii for racial entitlement programs or race-based political power is usually passed unanimously, showing no difference between Democrats and Republicans, most of whom might be called RINOs (Republicans in name only) -- except for occasional "Nay" votes by the lone Republican Senator Sam Slom, who is politically conservative. As the only Republican in the Senate he is automatically a member of every committee but therefore is physically unable to attend most committee hearings.

These bills and resolutions are troubling. The public should study them to get a grasp of how real are the dangers of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism in Hawaii. Citizens should phone or write to their legislators to express outrage when a legislator sponsors or votes in favor of bills and resolutions like these, which are both dangerous and ridiculous.

Each bill or resolution has its own webpage on the legislature's website. On that webpage there are links to full text of the bill or resolution, list of all the committee hearings including a record of how each legislator voted, a pdf file containing all the written testimony, and the official committee report for each committee. If a bill or resolution is introduced in either the House or Senate and also has a duplicate companion introduced in the other chamber, links are provided to the webpages for both of them. Full text is also provided of the testimony of Ken Conklin on behalf of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies. Conklin's testimony was provided to each committee as a formatted pdf file on letterhead, which can be seen in each committee's file of all testimony; but is also provided in simple text here on this webpage to save bandwidth. Bills are arranged approximately in the order in which a bill (or its cloned companion) had its first hearing.

This webpage is being created on February 7, 2016 after 11 different bills (not counting cloned companions) have already had hearings held or scheduled in either the House or Senate, or both, for which Ken Conklin has submitted testimony. More items will be added to this webpage through the end of the legislative session in May, as new items get introduced and have committee hearings and Ken Conklin submits testimony. However, only Conklin's testimony on the first version of a bill or resolution will be posted. If there are amended versions of bills or resolutions and new testimony is provided, readers can track everything through the legislature's webpage for that item as listed for each item below.

============

SB2125 and HB1656, RELATING TO THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL FOR THE DISPOSITION OF REMNANTS.
Provides the office of Hawaiian affairs with the right of first refusal for any disposition of public lands classified as remnants.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2125&year=2016
and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1656&year=2016

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

This testimony explains three reasons why SB2125 should be rejected: (1) An abutting landowner is far preferable to OHA to have the right of first refusal for purchase of remnant land, because the abutter will have an interest in keeping the land clean and putting it to good use for the same purposes as the abutting land is already used, whereas OHA would be merely an absentee landlord; (2) If a Hawaiian tribe gets federal recognition, the remnant land would be controlled by a different set of laws causing conflict with neighbors; (3) The first page of SB2125 is filled with historical, legal, and moral falsehoods dangerous to the State of Hawaii and which the legislature should repudiate.

(1) Why an abutting landowner should have right of first refusal for purchase of remnant land

If an abutting landowner has his own home or residential rental property there, he is likely to take good care of the remnant land he purchases and might use it to build an addition on his house or build a separate house for rental income, such as a recently passed ordinance of the County of O'ahu has authorized. If an abutting landowner already has a farm or business there, he is likely to use the remnant land for the same purpose to increase his income, which will benefit the State of Hawaii and the county by increasing the tax base and providing more services to neighbors. However, if OHA purchases the remnant, the land might lie unused and would be poorly supervised by its absentee owner OHA, which already has an empire of other lands scattered throughout Hawaii whose higher value commands its attention. Vacant unsupervised land becomes a nuisance in a neighborhood -- a place used by gangs and druggies.

(2) If a Hawaiian tribe gets federal recognition, the remnant land would be controlled by a different set of laws causing conflict with neighbors.

It's possible -- indeed likely -- that the tribe would have its own police force and courts with different laws from the state or county. Tribal lands are not required to obey local zoning laws -- thus, a remnant of only an acre or two might be used for a gas station, bar, liquor store, tobacco shop, nightclub, etc. even in a residential neighborhood. Tribal businesses would not be required to obey labor laws such as minimum age for working or the right to unionize; and would not be required to be insured for workers compensation or other liability. Indeed, for these reasons it might be wise to set a negative preference against OHA, so that even if OHA is the highest bidder, the remnant would be sold to any other bidder who then chooses to match OHA's offer.

(3) The first page of SB2125 is filled with historical, legal, and moral falsehoods dangerous to the State of Hawaii and which the legislature should repudiate.

SB2125 says "Hawaii's public lands have a complex history as unlawfully seized and "ceded" former national and crown lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom." Let's be clear. The Hawaiian revolution of 1893 overthrew the monarchial form of government and resulted in a Republic. Hawaii remained an independent nation from January 1893 until annexation in 1898 -- a period of nearly six years. The public lands of Hawaii remained the public lands of Hawaii -- only the government changed, not the government ownership of the public lands. The situation of the public lands was similar to what happens when the U.S. government changes hands between Democrat and Republican -- the land is owned by the government on behalf of all the people, although the laws for using the land might slowly change over time. No private lands were taken. Furthermore, the former crown lands became owned by the government because of an act passed by the Kingdom legislature and signed by King Lot Kamehameha V in 1864. Queen Lili'uokalani never personally owned the crown lands -- see full documentation of the facts in Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct. Cl. 418 (1910), summarized and with full text of the Court decision provided at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/ liliucrownlands.html

SB2125 says "after the illegal overthrow of the sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii, "one million eight hundred thousand acres of crown and government lands were ... ceded to the United States without consent or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people or their sovereign government." and "the Native Hawaiian people never relinquished their claims to ... their national lands ..." Let's be clear. The successor government of the Republic of Hawaii was internationally recognized as the lawful, rightful government by all the nations that had previously maintained relations with the Kingdom. A webpage displays photographs of letters in the State archives personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of 19 nations on 4 continents in 11 languages recognizing President Sanford B. Dole as head of the Republic; see
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/RepublicLettersRecog.html

Therefore, under international law, the Republic had the right to speak on behalf of the nation of Hawaii and to strike a deal with the U.S. for annexation. The Treaty of Annexation ceded the public lands of Hawaii to the U.S. to be placed in trust and held for the benefit of Hawaii's people, with income to be used for education and other public purposes, until those lands were returned to Hawaii upon Statehood in 1959. In return, the U.S. paid the accumulated national debt of the nation of Hawaii, most of which came from the Kingdom period (Kalakaua's trip around the world, construction of Iolani Palace, etc). Thus all the people of Hawaii, including Native Hawaiians, were compensated for the ceding of the public lands; and as noted previously, Native Hawaiians never collectively owned either the government lands or the crown lands. See webpage "Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html

The legislature of 2016 should be ashamed that the legislature of 2013 passed a resolution containing the falsehoods and militant language cited in SB2125, and should certainly not perpetuate those falsehoods by passing this bill.

SB2125 on page 2 refers to Act 176 Session Laws of Hawaii 2009. But SB2125 fails to mention what prompted the legislature to pass Act 176. On March 31, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 -- unanimously -- that the ceded lands belong to the State of Hawaii in fee simple absolute, and that the 1993 apology resolution is merely a resolution of sentiment with no legally enforceable consequences, and does not in any way affect the right of the State to sell any parcel of ceded lands. The decision cited the 1898 treaty of annexation and the 1959 Hawaii statehood act as evidence regarding the chain of custody of the ceded lands. The 12-page decision is easy to read, and can be found on the Supreme Court's own website at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1372.pdf

It should be noted that Act 176 imposing a requirement of a 2/3 vote by both chambers of the legislature to authorize a sale of ceded lands was a session law of 2009. It is not a part of the Constitution and therefore it cannot bind future legislatures. This legislature of 2016, or any future legislature, has a right to set aside Act 176 by a simple majority vote. In any case section 171-52, Hawaii Revised Statutes, allows the sale of remnant lands to take place without legislative approval.

Thus there is no prohibition on the sale of remnant lands. Neither the apology resolution, nor Act 176, nor anything else limits the right of the State to sell remnant lands, nor the right of the State to sell such lands to the highest bidder; and nothing requires the State to give preference or right of first refusal to OHA.

Please reject SB2125 for the reasons described in sections 1 and 2 of this testimony, and because the State of Hawaii should not further enshrine the falsehoods debunked in section 3 of this testimony. When selling remnant lands the best practice is to allow right of first refusal to abutting landowners, and thereafter to sell to the highest bidder.

Indeed, for reasons described in section 2 of this testimony, it might be wise to set a negative preference against OHA, so that even if OHA is the highest bidder, the remnant would be sold to any other bidder who then chooses to match OHA's offer.

------------------

** In addition to Ken Conklin's testimony above, the following excerpt of testimony is of great interest because it was provided on official stationery of the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. The writer is Suzanne D. Case, Chairperson of that Department.

"... [W]hile the Department supports the revision proposed by this measure, the Department takes umbrage with certain remarks contained in the measure�s preamble. ... we find the language in SECTION 1 of the bill to be unfair, vague, and unnecessarily implies wrongdoing on the part of the United States government and the State of Hawaii, and written much like a complaint in a lawsuit. As such, we respectfully ask that all of SECTION 1 of the bill be deleted in its entirety as being unnecessarily inflammatory.

==================

SB2124 and HB1655 RELATING TO INCREASING THE PAYMENT AMOUNT FOR THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS' PRO RATA SHARE OF THE PUBLIC LAND TRUST.
Requires agencies that collect receipts for any disposition of the public land trust shall each fiscal quarter transfer to the office of Hawaiian affairs twenty per cent of each receipt from the disposition. Returns to the office of Hawaiian affairs certain moneys previously claimed as public land trust overpayments to the office. Establishes a public land trust revenues negotiating committee.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2124&year=2016
and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1655&year=2016

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

Summary of main points:

(1) The legislature always has the power to amend or rescind any statute law. Act 273 (1980) requiring payment of 20% of ceded land revenue to OHA has created 35 years of bitter controversy and litigation, and should be rescinded. OHA should be funded the same way as other departments of the State government, through ordinary budget appropriations. Put an end to OHA's incessant lawsuits over the 20% rule.

(2) If the legislature chooses to maintain the 20% rule, the base for calculating 20% should be net income after expenses, not gross revenue. Taxpayers pay for all capital investments and operating expenses whereby the ceded lands are enabled to produce revenue, so it is illegal and immoral for OHA to siphon off gross revenue while the other 80% of the land trust beneficiaries, lacking a drop of Hawaiian blood, pay all the costs and receive none of the revenue.

(4) SB2124 would require an absurd quarterly payout of OHA's share of ceded land gross revenues from each department of government without regard to ceded land deficits (capital investment or operating expenses) incurred by that department in other quarters or deficits incurred by other departments of the State government. Any corporation that irretrievably paid its taxes quarterly for profitable business lines and was never able to offset profits with losses would quickly go bankrupt. The accounting should be done annually, and for all the ceded lands jointly across all departments. As noted in item (3) there would then be zero net income, and 20% of zero would be zero dollars for OHA. Indeed, if ceded land net income is negative, then OHA should be required to send 20% of the negative amount to the State general fund as its share of the loss. Shouldn't OHA help to paddle our collective canoe?

(5) As a condition for receiving budget appropriations or ceded land revenues, OHA should be required to fulfill whatever obligation the State may have to fund the operation of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands -- especially the $28 Million of alleged arrears which a court recently ordered the legislature to pay. OHA has at least a moral obligation to help DHHL; and if OHA won't do what's pono on its own initiative then the legislature should force them to do it instead of further burdening the taxpayers. From July 1, 1990 to June 30, 2002 OHA and DHHL together cost the State treasury more than a Billion dollars, and in 2002 the estimated cost for the 10 years from July 1, 2004 through June 2014 was an additional two Billion dollars, for a total of three Billion dollars. Enough already! No wonder the State is having budget problems!

The details

(1)There is a long history of contentious negotiation and litigation over the amount of money owed to OHA under the rule specifying 20% of ceded land revenue. Section 1 of SB2124, pp. 1-10, recounts some of the elements of that history. The requirement to pay OHA 20% of ceded land revenue is statutory law enacted as Act 273, Session laws of 1980. Therefore, this law can be amended by the legislature at any time to reduce the percentage, or the law can be rescinded entirely. The law should be rescinded. OHA should be funded in the same manner as any other branch of the State government; i.e., by an appropriation included in the annual or biennial State budget, including a line-item listing of the purposes for which the money is to be spent. Then there would be no further conflict or litigation over how to calculate the 20%.

SB2124 proposes another in a long history of complicated formulas for calculating the number of dollars required by the 20% rule -- over the years these recalculations have come to resemble a Rube Goldberg device where a long series of tracks, levers, springs, bells, and whistles eventually propel a ball to its final destination. Let's get rid of that nonsense. Repeal the 20% rule and fund OHA by ordinary budget appropriations in the same way as any other department of the State government.

(2) If the legislature unwisely chooses to keep the requirement of a specific percentage of ceded land revenue to be paid to OHA, then the legislature should write into law that the percentage must be calculated on the base of NET INCOME AFTER EXPENSES rather than gross revenue. It costs a lot of money to construct roads and buildings, supply water and electricity, and pay salaries of staff who operate or maintain the facilities that generate revenue from the ceded lands. Those capital expenditures and operating expenses should be deducted from gross revenue to determine the net income to be used when applying the percentage to calculate how much money to pay to OHA. In many if not most cases, government lands and infrastructure operate at a loss because their purpose is to provide services rather than to make a profit. That's why government imposes taxes in order to provide funding for its operations. Taxpayers pay for all capital investments and operating expenses whereby the ceded lands are enabled to produce revenue, so it is illegal and immoral for OHA to siphon off gross revenue while other land trust beneficiaries pay all the costs and receive none of the revenue.

(3) In 2008, Georgina K. Kawamura, Director of Finance of the State of Hawaii, and Arthur J. Buto, State Land Information Systems Manager, stated in a formal court declaration that the Ceded Lands Trust costs the State many times more annually than the 1.2 million acres bring in. They also acknowledged that this disparity between trust expenses and trust receipts has occurred in every year since statehood. Thus there is no net income from the ceded lands to be distributed to OHA or any of the other ceded land trust beneficiaries named in Section 5(f) of the Statehood Admissions Act -- the ceded lands money already distributed to OHA is actually tax dollars in disguise. As attorney H. William Burgess said, "This can be fairly characterized as a confession of guilt to systematic and massive misappropriation of trust funds over the last three decades." For further details and citations of the Kawamura/Buto declaration see pages 16-17 and 42-45 at
http://aloha4all.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ 2010/01/81119KuroiwaPsAplntsOpBrf.pdf

(4) SB2124, section 2, page 11 says "All departments and agencies that collect receipts for the use, sale, lease, or other disposition of the public land trust shall each fiscal quarter transfer to the office of Hawaiian affairs twenty per cent of each receipt derived from the use, sale, lease, or other disposition of the public land trust ..." This piecemeal attack on each individual department and agency would impose a heavy burden of staff time and accounting. More importantly, it would cause the disappearance of net losses from the overall accounting regarding departments and agencies whose capital expenditures and operating expenses for the ceded lands under their control exceed the revenue generated by those ceded lands. Let's say that more clearly. If a department has a profit for a calendar quarter, it must immediately pay 20% to OHA; but if it has a loss in another calendar quarter, that loss cannot be used to offset the profit in any previous or subsequent quarter; and also, if a department has a loss, that loss cannot be used by any other department or agency to offset its profit. Profits have 20% skimmed off immediately and sent to OHA, whereas losses get swept under the rug. The correct way to do the accounting should be annually not quarterly, and should be done overall for the totality of ceded land revenue from all departments rather than individually for each department separately. A corporation does not send the government irretrievable taxes quarterly for each profitable line of its business while "eating" and ignoring that business line's losses in other quarters and ignoring the losses of other business lines. Any corporation that did its accounting in such a manner would soon go bankrupt (just like the State of Hawaii is on track to do!). As noted in item (3), annual accounting for all departments jointly would then discover that net income is zero or negative, and 20% of zero would be zero dollars for OHA. Indeed, if net ceded land income is negative then OHA should be required pay 20% of that to the State general fund as its rightful share of the loss. Shouldn't OHA help to paddle our collective canoe?

(5) As a condition for receiving budget appropriations or ceded land revenues, OHA should be required to fulfill whatever obligation the State may have to fund the operation of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Page 3 of SB2124 quotes Act 273 (1980) as saying "twenty per cent of all funds derived from the public land trust ... shall be expended by the office of Hawaiian affairs ... for the purposes of this chapter." Act 272 does not say the funds may be invested in an investment portfolio, it says the funds SHALL BE EXPENDED to provide services. Yet OHA seems to think it can grab tens of millions of dollars every year which it then invests or uses for political purposes such as lobbying for the Akaka bill or building a racial registry for "nationbuilding", but OHA fails to provide more than sporadic and inadequate funding for purposes which OHA should be supporting. For example, OHA should pay the approximately $28 Million which a court recently ruled the State owes to DHHL. Let the Office of HAWAIIAN affairs support the Department of HAWAIIAN homelands -- that's the real reason why Section 5(f) of the 1959 Admissions Act specified that one purpose for which ceded land revenues can be spent is "for the betterment of native Hawaiians AS DEFINED IN THE HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION ACT OF 1920." It's doubtful the ceded lands produce any net income after the amortized annual capital investment and operating expenses are deducted. Therefore, the so-called ceded land revenues sent to OHA are actually tax dollars in disguise.

From July 1, 1990 to June 30, 2002 OHA and DHHL together cost the State treasury more than a Billion dollars, and in 2002 the estimated cost for the following 10 years from July 1, 2004 through June 2014 was an additional two Billion dollars, for a total of three Billion dollars. See documentation of these figures, including spreadsheets filed in Arakaki v. Lingle, at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/ ohadhhlburdenstatetreasury.html

Enough already! No wonder the State is having budget problems!

** The committee report for the Senate Committee on Hawaiian Affairs says in part: "Your Committee has heard the testimony of the Department of the Attorney General expressing concerns that an increase of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' share of the receipts from the use of public land trust lands should be determined through negotiation with the State." However, the file containing the compilation of all the testimony on this bill does not include any testimony from the Attorney General. Either the AG testimony was given orally with nothing in writing, or else the committee has chosen to suppress it by not including it in the file of testimony. Either way, one must wonder why.

==============

SB2162 and HB2180 RELATING TO HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE
Appropriates funds to establish long-term Hawaiian language resources for the judiciary.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2162&year=2016
and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2180&year=2016

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

Over the years I have devoted considerable time and effort to learn Hawaiian language. I am able to read, listen, speak, and write the language with moderate (but certainly not expert) fluency. As a result, my appreciation and enjoyment of Hawaiian music and hula have been enhanced, along with my ability to do research in historic and legal documents from the 1800s and my ability to understand the thought process of people whose culture and spirituality were so intimately expressed in the kaona and nuances of their language.

Hawaiian language is a treasure not only for ethnic Hawaiians but for all the people of Hawaii and, indeed, the world. Great strides have been made during the past 30 years in reviving the language to the point where tens of thousands of people now have varying levels of fluency; and perhaps a thousand have expert fluency, capable of thinking in the language without first going through English, and capable of using Hawaiian to engage publicly and spontaneously in oral or written debate.

The question raised by SB2162 is whether it is wise to provide $500,000 in seed money to begin a program to train people to become expert in both Hawaiian language and the specialized concepts of the legal profession to the point where they can translate the Hawaii Revised Statutes into Hawaiian, along with case law that might be cited to support or oppose legal briefs or memos in current courtroom proceedings.

Nobody believes $500,000 is sufficient to complete such a project -- on the contrary, many millions of dollars will be needed every year not only to create an initial set of law books but also to maintain them as new laws are created and as judges make rulings. Wouldn't such funds be better spent providing translation services for needy defendants or plaintiffs whose knowledge of English is so poor they cannot effectively participate in court proceedings? Or -- I know this idea is highly controversial -- how about refraining from spending the money so that taxpayers can be relieved of a burden?

My dear members of the legislature: do you sincerely believe that it would be helpful to you or to the legislative process if citizens and legislators routinely write bills in Hawaiian, present testimony in Hawaiian, give floor speeches in Hawaiian, etc.? You see how many thousands of pages of documents pass through the legislature in every session. Do you individually have the funding to hire staff to handle a large volume of documents in Hawaiian and to respond to constituents or lobbyists who insist on communicating in Hawaiian? Surely you can realize that the long-term result of implementing the project envisioned in SB2162 would be to impose upon every lawyer, client, judge, and clerk the same sort of burden to respond to Hawaiian language documents that you legislators yourselves would find heavily burdensome. Do not impose an unnecessary burden on the people of Hawaii that you legislators would not want imposed upon you during your legislative session.

I believe that every person who speaks Hawaiian also speaks English; and in nearly all cases their English is far more fluent than their Hawaiian. There is no NEED for anyone to demand that legal proceedings take place in Hawaiian in order for him to be able to understand what is spoken or written. There is no NEED for anyone to insist on speaking or writing only in Hawaiian because he is incapable of expressing himself in English. What we're talking about here is a circus stunt to make a political point -- a stunt which is very expensive to entertain, and highly disrespectful to judges, witnesses, jurors, court stenographers, etc. who are forced to participate the stunt. The Mauna Kea protester who recently demanded that court proceedings must take place in Hawaiian is a good example of this. He admitted he had no problem using English, but merely said he felt more "comfortable" with his "preferred" language of Hawaiian. He was a jerk for doing that, and the court officials who granted his wish were guilty of a shameful waste of resources. Someone who would choose to use Hawaiian as the only language in his court filings would be essentially engaged in contempt of court -- performing a stunt for personal gratification, or using the court as a stage for political theatre to assert ethnic privilege at everyone else's considerable expense and annoyance. I'm reminded of Princess Ruth Ke'elikolani, who could understand and speak English perfectly well but who insisted on using Hawaiian language exclusively, as a sort of political weapon, forcing the haoles to knuckle under to her demand to use translators. See my large, detailed webpage on "Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon" (and especially section 2) at
http://tinyurl.com/668vqyz

I have read the 50-page report by Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald to the House Judiciary Committee dated December 16, 2015: "Report of the Hawaiian Language Web Feasibility Task Force" appointed pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution No. 217, House Draft 1, Senate Draft 1 adopted by the Legislature in 2015. It proposes a pay rate of $500 per hour for the expert translators proposed in SB2162. How absurd is that! Most lawyers or expert witnesses cannot command such lavish pay. I notice that Mr. Recktenwald did NOT hire anyone to translate his report into Hawaiian language. Why not? I notice that SB2162 itself is not written in Hawaiian. Why not?

[** Supplemental note by Ken Conklin: The amended version of the bill includes a Hawaiian language translation of it, which comes ahead of the English language version.]

What the heck has the Hawaiian language program at UH Manoa and especially UH Hilo been doing with the millions of dollars appropriated to them if they have not by now trained sufficient Hawaiian language experts to implement the program envisioned in this bill?

OHA has $630 Million in assets, including $350 Million in its investment portfolio. OHA should provide the funding for the project envisioned in SB2162. And if OHA refuses to do what is pono, then the legislature should use its power to force OHA to pay for it, in the same way the legislature passed bills forcing OHA to pay for assembling and maintaining the racial registry in Act 195 (2011), and forced OHA to pay for the training program on "Hawaiian rights" mandated in 2015 for government workers in various departments.

If the judiciary and/or the legislature has extra money to allocate to translation services, that money should be used to assist people whose understanding of English is so poor that they cannot comprehend what is happening and cannot adequately make their case. Do not waste my tax dollars on a stunt.

Instead of asking the taxpayers, or individuals or institutions to spend their own funds, to generate legal documents in Hawaiian, let's propose the following startup project for the Hawaiian language departments at UH Manoa and UH Hilo:

Professors of Hawaiian language teaching advanced-level courses should be asked to assign their students to translate sections of the U.S. Constitution, State of Hawaii Constitution, and Hawaii Revised Statutes into Hawaiian, until those documents have all been translated and made available on the internet and perhaps in print.

A friend of mine with a Ph.D. in linguistics, whose dissertation focused on Hawaiian language, translated into Hawaiian a few years ago the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution). If the professors of Hawaiian language agree to the project I proposed, I will ask my friend to contribute his translation of the Bill of Rights to that project -- unless, of course, you'd like to pay him the several thousand dollars it would take to reimburse him at $500 per hour for the time he spent on his labor of love to translate the Bill of Rights into a style of Hawaiian that might have been in use around 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was ratified).

==============

HB2200: RELATING TO NATIVE HAWAIIAN RESOURCES
Authorizes the BLNR Chairperson to transfer public land trust funds to the Kaho�olawe Rehabilitation Trust Fund. Authorizes the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to expend public land trust funds for purposes consistent with those of the Kaho�olawe Rehabilitation Trust Fund.

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

The concept of this bill is misguided, for reasons that will be explained below. But if the legislature unwisely chooses to enact the concept, please delete the leading sentence/paragraph. Here are the four main points to be explained below.

1. The first sentence/paragraph of HB2200 is false and should be deleted.

2. 20% of ceded land revenue is already being given to OHA for the betterment of Native Hawaiians; therefore the other 80% should not be additionally diverted to that purpose.

3. Kaho'olawe is already set aside by law to become property of the Hawaiian tribe as soon as that tribe has received state and federal recognition, which is now underway. Therefore no state government money should be given to rehabilitate land which is already in the process of being given away to another "nation."

4. Let OHA give whatever funding is necessary to rehabilitate Kaho'olawe. OHA has $620 Million in assets including $350 Million in its investment portfolio. OHA can afford to pay for Kaho'olawe; the State cannot afford it.

1. The first sentence/paragraph of HB2200 is false and should be deleted.

There was never a federal law that mandated 20% of ceded land revenue to be used for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians. In 1898 Article 2 of the Treaty of Annexation said ceded land revenues "shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes." -- there was no mention of betterment of Native Hawaiians.

Section 5(f) of the Statehood Act of 1959 identified 5 purposes for ceded land revenues, with all or part of the money to be used for any one or more of the five purposes. One of those purposes was "betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920)" The purpose of that provision was obviously to ensure that some of the ceded land money COULD be (but was not required to be) used to support the implementation of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.

There was no requirement to spend any money on "betterment of native Hawaiians", and certainly not on social welfare programs or reclamation of a bomb-scarred island to be used by all Native Hawaiians regardless of blood quantum.

The State legislature did pass a law that mandated 20% of ceded land revenue to be used for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, but that law (Act 273) was passed in 1980, which was not "almost a century" ago.

2. 20% of ceded land revenue is already being given to OHA for the betterment of Native Hawaiians; therefore the other 80% should not be additionally diverted to that purpose. By setting aside 20% of ceded land revenue for OHA, the clear intention was that the other 80% of ceded land revenue should go to the general fund for the benefit of all the citizens of Hawaii (indeed, Native Hawaiians should be excluded from any of the benefits flowing from that 80%, since they already got their own 20% first).

However, if this bill HB2200 is enacted, then additional money from the ceded land revenue would be transferred to the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission, where it would be used exclusively for the benefit of Native Hawaiians (explanation below), thereby depriving the other 80% of Hawaii's people of money that is rightfully theirs. Amazingly, nobody complains when Native Hawaiians demand "their" 20% of ceded land revenue and then selfishly push for more through legislation such as this bill. Perhaps it's time for the rest of us to stand up for our own rights.

Language in this bill explains why money going to KIRC is exclusively for the benefit of Native Hawaiians, because "... since its return to the State in 1993, the resources and waters of Kaho�olawe have been held in trust as part of the public land trust; provided that the State shall transfer management and control of the island and its waters to the sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the United States and the State of Hawai'i."

In Act 195 (2011) this legislature set in motion a process now underway to create a Hawaiian tribe; and the U.S. Department of Interior has now proposed a regulation whereby that tribe can get federal recognition. Both Act 195 and the Department of Interior regulation insist that the Hawaiian tribe must be exclusively for Native Hawaiians, and that anyone lacking a drop of the magic blood must be ruthlessly excluded. If events unfold as intended, a Native Hawaiian "nation" will become a federally recognized Indian tribe before President Obama's term in office comes to an end. As soon as recognition happens, according to the language cited in this bill, the island of Kaho'olawe will be ripped away from the State of Hawaii and handed over to the Hawaiian tribe, to which people with no native blood are forbidden to belong.

4. Let OHA give whatever funding is necessary to rehabilitate Kaho'olawe

This bill proposes to authorize OHA to give money to assist the rehabilitation of Kaho'olawe. But no such authorization is necessary. OHA's primary mission is "the betterment of Native Hawaiians", and OHA has given millions of dollars in gifts (grants) to provide funding for various organizations devoted to helping Native Hawaiians (usually to the exclusion of all other people). Since Kaho'olawe is destined to become the property of the Hawaiian tribe, and OHA has loudly pledged to dissolve itself and transfer its assets to the forthcoming tribe, then the state should let OHA fulfill its responsibility.

===================

HB 2034 and SB2582: MAKING AN APPROPRIATION TO THE KAHO�OLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION.
Appropriates funds to the Kaho�olawe Island Reserve Commission for restoration and preservation projects. Requires submission of a financial self-sufficiency and sustainability plan to the legislature no later than twenty days prior to the 2017 Regular Session.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2034&year=2016
and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2582&year=2016

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

1. Kaho'olawe is already set aside by law to become property of the Hawaiian tribe as soon as that tribe has received state and federal recognition, which is now underway. Therefore no state government money should be given to rehabilitate land which is already in the process of being given away to another "nation." Of course, if the law were to be repealed which sets aside Kaho'olawe for transfer to a Hawaiian tribe as soon as the tribe gets federal and state recognition, then the 80% of Hawaii's people who have no Hawaiian native blood might be encouraged that the island belongs to us all, and we might hope the island could be used for cultural or commercial purposes which benefit us all; and therefore we might find it in our own self-interest to spend tax dollars to rehabilitate it and develop infrastructure.

In Act 195 (2011) this legislature set in motion a process now underway to create a Hawaiian tribe; and the U.S. Department of Interior has now proposed a regulation whereby that tribe can get federal recognition. Both Act 195 and the Department of Interior regulation insist that the Hawaiian tribe must be exclusively for Native Hawaiians, and that anyone lacking a drop of the magic blood must be ruthlessly excluded. If events unfold as intended, a Native Hawaiian "nation" will become a federally recognized Indian tribe before President Obama's term in office comes to an end. As soon as recognition happens, the island of Kaho'olawe will be ripped away from the State of Hawaii and handed over to the Hawaiian tribe, to which people with no native blood are forbidden to belong. This legislature simply must not confiscate tax dollars from 80% of Hawaii's people for a project which they will be racially excluded from.

2. Let OHA give whatever funding is necessary to rehabilitate Kaho'olawe and conduct Native Hawaiian cultural activities there. 20% of ceded land revenue is already being given to OHA for the betterment of Native Hawaiians. OHA has $620 Million in assets including $350 Million in its investment portfolio. OHA can afford to pay for Kaho'olawe; the State cannot afford it.

===================

HB2339 and cloned companion SB2868: RELATING TO THE QUALIFICATION OF SUCCESSORS TO LESSEES UNDER THE HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION ACT, 1920, AS AMENDED.
Lowers the required blood quantum to one-thirty second Hawaiian for the lessee's relatives currently eligible to succeed to a lease with one-thirty second Hawaiian including a lessee's husband, wife, children, grandchildren, brothers or sisters.

This bill and its cloned companion were introduced by the Governor as part of the Governor's bill package, but on its first hearing the bill was deferred indefinitely (i.s., killed). A longer version of the bill that was not part of the Governor's bill package but had a less descriptive description was later introduced and passed by its first committee and is included along with this pair of bills on this webpage. Ken Conklin submitted identical testimony to both the shorter and longer versions.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2339&year=2016
and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2868&year=2016

AND ALSO A MORE DETAILED VERSION OF THE BILL
HB1931: RELATING TO THE HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION ACT
Reduces the minimum Hawaiian blood quantum requirement of certain transferees and successors to lessees of Hawaiian home lands from one-quarter to one thirty-second.

Ken Conklin's identical testimony in opposition to both the shorter and longer versions of the bill:

In homage to Archie Bunker, this bill should be given the name "All In The Family." Its obvious purpose is to allow a family to keep a DHHL lease in the family even after the original lessee has died, and the spouse and children have died, etc. -- so long as the successor leaseholder has at least 1/32 Hawaiian native blood and is related to the original lessee from decades ago by blood or marriage. The only way to pry the lease away from the family is if the lease expires after the statutory period of 100 years. Indeed, we are approaching the 100th anniversary of passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, so in the next few years we will see leases in Papakolea (the first homestead) beginning to expire. Therefore we will probably soon see legislation automatically extending leases for an additional century, to keep them "all in the family."

How often do we hear that there are tens of thousands of racially certified 50% blood native Hawaiians who have been sitting on the waiting list for decades? Let's give them a lease instead of guaranteeing the inheritance of a lease by grandchildren, great- grandchildren, cousins, etc. whose connection with Hawaiian culture and with the 'aina may be greatly attenuated or virtually imperceptible. The most obvious result of enacting this bill would be to permanently establish a hereditary elite caste among native Hawaiians and Native Hawaiians -- families who got a lease early in the history of DHHL would remain forever an elite group of ali'i while those who placed their names on the waiting list in later years remain consigned to the lower caste maka'ainana with no hope of moving up. People with as little as 1/32 Hawaiian native ancestry but who are blood relatives of existing lessees would have an insurmountable preference over the native Hawaiians of greater than 50% native ancestry who were the intended beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act but now find they have no hope of getting a lease because they belong to a family from the "wrong side of the tracts."

Many Hawaiians believe that the 50% blood quantum requirement in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is terribly divisive, pitting high-blood natives against low-blood Natives. It's often said that Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole, Territorial Representative of Hawaii who sponsored the HHCA, wanted the blood requirement to be set at 1/32, which in 1920 would have allowed virtually every ethnic Hawaiian to qualify (although I have not seen actual written evidence to support the legend that he proposed 1/32). Now that four more generations have occurred, Kuhio's rationale would need to be updated to say the quantum should be 1/512, to ensure that everyone with a drop of the magic blood is eligible.

But here's my view. I believe that 1/2 is too high, 1/32 is too high, 1/512 is too high, and even one drop is too high. The native blood requirement for a homestead lease on public lands should be zero. During the Republic and early Territorial periods Hawaii had a homesteading law that allowed any citizen of Hawaii, regardless of race, to select a vacant piece of public land, live on that land for a period of years while putting it to good use, and thereby acquire ownership of the land in fee simple. That perfectly fine race-neutral homesteading law fell by the wayside when the well-intentioned but hopelessly racist HHCA was enacted. So now we have a huge bureaucracy costing megabucks to administer in order to ensure that only people of the favored race can establish a homestead on public land; and that they can only lease the land but are denied the most secure way for a family to build wealth -- fee-simple ownership of land. What a shame!

Please defeat this bill.

====================

HB2214 and SB3104: RELATING TO PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
Simplifies the process for an entity to become an authorizer (an entity that approves or denies applications to become a charter school). Establishes a shortened timeline for the release of charter school funds. Authorizes charter schools to retain attorneys for charter contract negotiation, charter revocation, and charter nonrenewal processes.
** Ken Conklin's comment: Looks benign but has a hidden agenda. See my testimony for details.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2214&year=2016
and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3104&year=2016

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

1. Hawaii should have only a single authorizer for charter schools, so that taxpayers who pay the bills can be assured that all students will achieve a single set of minimum standards for knowledge and skills. Hawaii is rightly proud of our rainbow diversity of cultures, ethnicities, religions, and languages. But we must not allow the balkanization of our school system into fiefdoms along the lines of those diversities whereby children will lose the common threads that hold us together as a society. Charter schools are free to add elective elements to their curricula, or to adopt unique methods for delivering basic knowledge and skills. But there must be a single authorizer to ensure that all the tax-supported schools are held to basic standards to produce graduates capable of being productive workers well-assimilated into the fundamental values we all share.

2. Language in the bill says the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (never heard of them!) recommends multiple authorizers (of course they do!) as a check against unnecessary growth in the number of employees and regulations in a single-authorizer entity when more charter schools are created which that entity must authorize and then oversee. But of course a larger number of authorizers would require a sum total of more employees and more regulations than a single authorizer. Adding one more school into the system would require only a little extra work for each employee in the authorizing entity, or perhaps one additional employee; whereas creating multiple authorizers would require entire new bureaucracies for creating reports, processing payrolls, etc.

3. RACIAL, CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS BALKANIZATION IS A LIKELY CONSEQUENCE OF ENACTING HB2214. The State government should not facilitate such an outcome.

HB2214 envisions a setup where all the charter schools established for a specific purpose or serving a particular clientele would be gathered under the umbrella of an authorizer sympathetic to their ethnic group or religion or culture or political aspirations. That's a formula for nepotism, favoritism, and political patronage.

The best example of that is the proposal during 2002-2005 to split off the dozen charter schools that were focusing on Hawaiian culture and to create a separate school system just for them. Bills to accomplish that mission were sponsored in the legislature by Representatives and Senators of the "Hawaiian caucus." HB2214 is probably intended to revive that concept of racial balkanization. In recent years most of the complaints about the charter school commission have come from the Hawaiian-focus schools saying their students need to be evaluated by a unique set of culturally appropriate standards, including tests originally written in Hawaiian language (not merely translated from English).

In 2002 the consortium of 12 Hawaiian-focus charter schools was called "Ka Lei Na'auao" led by the activist Ku Kahakalau and the "Kanu O Ka 'Aina" charter school she founded in Waimea, Hawaii Island. The 12 Hawaiian schools in February 2002 were technically open to children of all races -- indeed, by law they could not be racially exclusionary. But in practice nearly all the children are ethnic Hawaiians or "wannabe" Hawaiians. A few token nonnatives are accepted into these schools primarily to satisfy the legal requirement that they not be racially exclusionary. However, the schools make it clear that the nonnative children are more or less on permanent attitudinal and behavioral probation. They are required to think and behave like the ethnic nationalist sort of Native Hawaiians even though ultimately they cannot become Native Hawaiians for lack of that precious drop of native blood. Language copied below from the 2002 website of the school makes chillingly clear the racial and cultural intent of the school. It all sounds wonderfully inspiring, until you think carefully about the racism of what is being said. As a "thought experiment" when reading this material, replace "Hawaiian" or "native" or "indigenous" with "white"; and then imagine how African Americans or people of Asian ancestry would fit into this "public school."

Judge whether such a school is Constitutionally permissible or morally desirable, even if it were entirely funded by private donations. And then consider that this school is entirely funded by tax dollars as part of the government public school system. Putting aside the racial issue, the final section called "Liberatory Pedagogy" is blatantly Anti-American, sucking up government money to brainwash children to hate the government that provides it. It's bad enough to find kind-hearted, liberal people who think this sort of philosophy is acceptable because of grievances the Hawaiians claim to have against the U.S. and against people without Hawaiian blood. But it's shocking to find elected members of the Legislature repeatedly sponsoring and supporting institutions and attitudes like this when they have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

"As a Hawaiian model of education, Kanu is tailored towards the distinctive cultural wants and needs of Hawai'i's indigenous student population. Utilizing our natives values handed down to us in thousands of proverbs as a philosophical basis, Kanu is designed to assist students to achieve their highest level, while at the same time giving them the skills to perpetuate Hawaiian language and traditions. Based on a unique, culturally driven pedagogy, developed over nearly a decade of action research, Kanu involves not only students, teachers and staff but also parents, community partners and native stake holders from throughout the islands in the educational process. The long-term goal of Kanu is to create a native designed and controlled system of Hawaiian education that will empower native communities throughout the archipelago to achieve political, cultural and economic self-determination."

"The name "Kanu o ka 'Aina" evolved from of a Hawaiian proverb that refers to natives of the land from generations back as "kalo kanu o ka 'aina" literally "taro planted on the land". This name was chosen because this model wants to give native Hawaiians of all ages the opportunity and the choice to remain natives of their kulaiwi and to perpetuate Hawai'i's native language, culture and traditions into the future. In addition, Kanu wants to empower Hawai'i's native people, who are direct descendents of earthmother Papa and skyfather Wakea, to once again assume our rightful stewardship over our archipelago."

The purpose of Kanu is to provide students of Hawaiian ancestry residing in the Hamakua and Kohala area of Hawai'i Island with an equal opportunity to quality education that addresses their distinctive cultural learning styles and allows them to successfully walk in two worlds. ... While we accept students that do not have Hawaiian blood, these students and their families, like their native counterparts, must make a commitment to be actively involved in the perpetuation of native Hawaiian language, culture and traditions. In addition, they must consent to being taught according to native Hawaiian values and teaching strategies and behave in a culturally consistent manner."

Liberatory Pedagogy: Probably the most unique and critical aspect of Kanu's educational foundations is the fact that Kanu wants to actively prepare native students to participate in - and perhaps even lead - Hawai'i's indigenous sovereignty movement. Initially I was sort of hesitant to claim that Kanu represents a liberatory pedagogy. However, the more I reflected on the true purpose of my model the more I realized that my model is definitely designed to liberate. Specifically, Kanu wants to encourage Hawaiian students to become politically conscious, and individually and collectively tackle the problem of Hawaiian oppression by the United States and our subjugation to American law and a Western way of life. In that vein, Kanu has the potential of significantly contributing to the Hawaiian sovereignty effort."

"Utilizing problem-posing as an instructional technique, Kanu hopes to make our students realize that the occupation of Hawai'i by the United States of America is not fatal and unalterable, but merely limiting � and therefore challenging. Additionally, Kanu wants to empower our students to accept this challenge and find solutions to this and the many other dilemma, that face Hawai'i's native people in their homeland today. By actively participating in finding solutions to native problems, it is envisioned that Kanu students will become an intricate part of the process of native liberation from American domination that nearly caused the demise of our native people and our way of life."

If a Hawaiian tribe gets federal recognition, that tribe would have the legal authority to become the authorizer of its own race-based school system which would be paid for by the tribe and/or the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Do not spend Hawaii taxpayer dollars to do what the Hawaiian tribe or BIA should do.

=================

SB2730 and HB2548: RELATING TO THE ANAHOLA HAWAIIAN HOMES ASSOCIATION.
Appropriates funds for the planning, design, construction, and materials and equipment for the Anahola Hawaiian Homes Association.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2730&year=2016
and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2548&year=2016

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

It is bad public policy for the legislature to enact appropriations bills separately for each individual Hawaiian Homes association, just as it is bad public policy for the legislature to enact appropriations bills separately for each individual school, or for each individual state park. Budget and finance for such individual institutions are handled by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, the Department of Education, and the Department of Land and Natural Resources (including the Department of Parks). Does the legislature really want to entertain hundreds of lobbyists, dozens of groups of homesteaders, hundreds of groups of schoolkids waving signs, and dozens of community groups concerned about specific parks, and subject them all to the inconvenience and fear that every year they must make a trip to the legislature to ensure their special concerns are accommodated? Perhaps that would be a way to make the citizens in those groups feel beholden to their legislators and willing to contribute to campaign funds to ensure continued largesse. Is that how we want our government to work?

=================

HCR26 and SCR20: REQUESTING THE HAWAII SISTER-STATE COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INITIATION OF A SISTER-STATE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE OF GOA IN THE COUNTRY OF INDIA AND FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE LEGISLATURE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 229-3, HAWAII REVISED STATUTES, FOR FURTHER ACTION.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HCR&billnumber=26&year=2016
and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SCR&billnumber=20&year=2016

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

Dear legislators, please consider very carefully the various hidden agendas that probably lie behind this resolution to establish a sister- state relationship between Hawaii (a State within the United States, whose statehood some activists deny) and Goa (a State within India whose status as part of India is protested by some activists).

[This paragraph was included in the testimony for the Senate hearing on February 29, which is Leap Day, although it was not included in the House testimony given previously]
On this quadrennial Leap Day I encourage you NOT to line up in lockstep to support this resolution merely because it is supported by Tulsi Gabbard and introduced by her father, but rather to leap up in opposition.

Goa was a colony of Portugal for more than four centuries, continuing through the period when India was a colony of Britain. In the 1950s there was great political unrest in Goa from native Goans seeking independence from Portugal. Because Goa was immediately adjacent to India, and the newly independent India was feeling a desire for a robust and expansive foreign policy and wanted to push out Portugal, India provided economic and military assistance to the independence movement in Goa. In 1961 India staged a massive armed invasion of Goa by land and air, pushing out Portugal and then annexing Goa to become a part of India. There was strong international condemnation of India for its actions in Goa, including a resolution in the United Nations offered by U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, and a resolution in the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. I was a college student at the time and recall campus protests by the same left- leaning activists who protested Israel's existence, protested CIA involvement and military advisers in Viet Nam, and protested domestic civil rights injustices against Negroes (as they called themselves back then). To this day there are claims that India's annexation of Goa was illegal under international law, and Goa should be recognized as an independent nation. Does that sound familiar? Have you heard that rhetoric somewhere in relation to Hawaii?

Today the same people who protest against China's invasion and continuing occupation of Tibet also protest against India's invasion and continuing occupation of Goa; and they also protest against the so- called U.S. "armed invasion" of Hawaii during the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy, and the continuing U.S. "belligerent military occupation of Hawaii." The analogy to Hawaii is historically and morally incorrect; but the activists nevertheless love to assert it. Among the factors you should consider is that the primary sponsor of this resolution in the Senate last year was the father of U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who had made a highly publicized trip to India and gave her strong support to the newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose alleged oppression of minorities is a controversial issue in India's politics.

Why would this legislature wish to embroil itself in the internal politics of India, and the even more obscure internal politics of the Goa region?

If the Legislature of the State of Hawaii wants to establish a sister- state relationship with one of the states in India, I urge you to choose a different Indian state whose status as part of India is beyond dispute and has never been a part of international controversy (and stay away from Punjab and Kashmir too!).

==============

HB1734: RELATING TO MARINE LIFE PROTECTION
Creates administrative penalties for any person who knowingly captures, kills, or takes any shark or ray within state marine waters. Provides exemptions for native Hawaiian gathering rights and cultural practices, research purposes, and public and personal safety.

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT, PROVIDED THE BILL IS AMENDED TO ENSURE RACIAL EQUALITY:

HB1734 provides good reasons why sharks and rays should be protected.

SECTION 2(e)(1) provides a procedure for obtaining a special activity permit that would allow animals to be taken. Subsections 2(e)(2),(3), (4),(5) identify circumstances when animals could be taken even without a special activity permit.

Subsections (3),(4),(5) are commonsense circumstances applicable to all people regardless of race, when a shark can be captured, killed, or taken to protect public safety, or when it is outside State marine waters, or when a person is engaged in defending himself or someone else against an attack by a shark.

However subsection (2) seems to provide a permanent and general racial exemption from this regulation for anyone with a drop of Hawaiian native blood, and seems not to provide the same exemption for anyone lacking a drop of Hawaiian native blood.

There is no good reason to make the exemption racial. The exemption should be based on preservation of historic skills or ongoing cultural uses, regardless of race.

Either subsection (2) should be deleted from this bill, or else it should be reworded to broaden it so that all persons regardless of race can capture, kill, or take a shark for purposes of engaging in traditional and customary cultural practices for personal or instructional use but not commercial use. Examples of acceptable circumstances for automatic exemption would include harvesting sharkskin for making a drum, or harvesting shark teeth to make an ornament for personal adornment or a replica of an ancient weapon for use in museum displays or school lessons.

The same comments apply to SECTION 3(e)(2)

==================

SB3029 and HB1932: RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS
Ensures the legislature fulfills its responsibility under article XII, section 1, of the state constitution by appropriating sufficient general funds for the administration and operating expenses of the department of Hawaiian home lands for fiscal year 2016�2017.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3029&year=2016
and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1932&year=2016

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

1. The Attorney General of the State of Hawaii has stated that he is filing an appeal of the Circuit Court order that the legislature must appropriate "more than $28 million for fiscal year 2015-16" in general funds for the department of Hawaiian Home Lands' administrative and operating budget. There are serious questions which must be litigated, regarding whether it is a violation of the separation of powers for a judge to order the legislature to pass such a bill. The legislature has a fiduciary obligation to the taxpayers to protect the public fisc against unreasonable or illegal demands. The legislature should wait for the legal process to conclude, and not act rashly or prematurely.

2. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has $650 Million in assets, including $350 Million in its investment portfolio. All that wealth is supposed to be used for "the betterment of native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920." OHA should pay in full however much money is owed to DHHL, both arrears and in future. If OHA will not do what is pono on its own initiative, then the legislature should pass a bill transferring the funds from OHA to DHHL. The legislature often "raids" trust funds such as the Hurricane Fund or the Highway Fund to balance the budget. OHA is an agency of the State government and therefore falls under the budget and appropriation authority of the legislature.

==================

HB2773: RELATING TO VOTING
Repeals statutory provisions that disenfranchise incarcerated persons. Provides for the determination of residency of and delivery of ballots to incarcerated persons.

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

HB2773 section 1 says "In Hawaii, this loss of voting power is a burden borne most greatly by the Native Hawaiian community, who are and have historically been disproportionately incarcerated."

As a scholar I cringe whenever I see these claims that Native Hawaiians have the worst statistics, or are overrepresented, in such things as drug abuse, heart disease, diabetes, poverty, incarceration, etc.

There are two main reasons why it is statistics malpractice to lump all "Native Hawaiians" together as a single group.

(1) Native Hawaiians are the racial group that is most racially mixed, and most of them have most of their genealogy from races other than Hawaiian. Therefore "Native Hawaiian" is the most over-counted racial group. The overcounting of Native Hawaiians happens because people who are mostly Chinese, Caucasian, Filipino, or Japanese are counted as "Hawaiian" and only as Hawaiian. But they should be counted as whatever is the largest component of their ancestry, or they should be counted as belonging to ALL the racial groups in their heritages. If the counting were done correctly, it is likely that "Native Hawaiian" would no longer have the worst victimhood statistics. Legislators should be aware of this problem, and keep it in mind every time someone says "Native Hawaiians" have the worst statistics for some problem, or are overrepresented in prisons.

Nearly every so-called "Native Hawaiian" is of mixed race, and in most cases the other components of their heritage are at higher percentage than the Hawaiian component. If someone is 1/2 Chinese, 1/4 Filipino, 1/8 Hawaiian, and 1/8 Irish, he gets counted as Native Hawaiian when he should (also or primarily) be counted as Chinese, Filipino, Irish. That's the obvious reason why "Native Hawaiians" seem to have the worst statistics -- because we refuse to count them as belonging also to the other racial groups in their genealogy, even when the other group is the BIGGEST ONE in their percentages. Why does this happen? Because it's "politically incorrect" to ask a "Native Hawaiian" for his other ancestries and especially for his percentages of pedigree; and because researchers simply don't want to be bothered with the hard work of gathering the percentages and calculating the statistics in a mathematically accurate way. There's also no money or social status to be gotten for being mathematically correct -- government and philanthropic charities don't give grants to study the victimhood of Irish or Chinese -- only grants for studying "Native Hawaiian."

(2) There's a 16 year age gap between "Native Hawaiians" and everyone else in Hawaii. According to Census 2010, the median age for "Native Hawaiian is 26, whereas the median age for the population of Hawaii is 39, which means that if you statistically remove "Native Hawaiian" from the overall population then the median age for everyone in Hawaii who is NOT "Native Hawaiian" is 42. That age gap is HUGE. Some bad things happen mostly to young people, such as abusing drugs, committing crimes (especially crimes of violence deserving longer jail sentences), and placed into foster care because they are being removed from parents who are abusive or druggies etc. It's not that "Native Hawaiians" are more bad than other groups, it's because they are extremely young compared with other groups. Statistical comparison of racial groups for things like drug abuse, incarceration, and foster care should be done only within age cohorts -- compare 19-24 year-old Hawaiians against 19-24 year-old Filipinos or Caucasians.

Are "Native Hawaiians" the most overrepresented group in prison, and therefore Native Hawaiians are the group whose voting rights are the most discriminated against when prisoners are not allowed to vote? I have the solution. Learn how to count! Treat the races equally in the way you count who belongs to which group -- classify a prisoner as a member of whichever racial group is the largest percentage of his ancestry -- or, more accurately -- for each prisoner allocate a fraction of a tally mark to each race that is the same as the fraction of that race in his ancestry, and compare only prisoners who are close together in age.

** Additional note by Ken Conklin for this webpage: A casual reader might think that my testimony focuses on a topic which is merely tangential -- nearly irrelevant -- to the main purpose of the bill, which is to allow prisoners to vote. But read the file of all the testimony on this bill, and you will see that more than half of the testimony prominently reasserts the claim that Native Hawaiians are disproportionately incarcerated. The writers of those testimonies clearly consider this to be a very important assertion.

==================

HCR190 and HR136: REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN EDUCATION TO CONDUCT A STUDY ON HOW TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION IN THE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS STATEWIDE.

Resolution text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HCR&billnumber=190&year=2016

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS TESTIMONY.

THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN EDUCATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS PROCLAIMING TO THE PUBLIC, AND TEACHING TO OUR STUDENTS, FALSEHOODS ABOUT HAWAII'S HISTORY, AND SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE. THE FIRST "WHEREAS" PARAGRAPH IN THIS RESOLUTION HCR190 IS A PRIME EXAMPLE. THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN EDUCATION IS REFUSING TO CORRECT THE FALSEHOODS EVEN AFTER BEING PROVIDED WITH IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THEY ARE FALSE. THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN EDUCATION, AND ITS DIRECTOR, MUST NOT BE GIVEN FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY OR FUNDING UNTIL RACIALLY INFLAMMATORY FALSEHOODS ARE CORRECTED AND REMOVED FROM PUBLISHED INFORMATION AND FROM THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM.

IF THIS LEGISLATURE UNWISELY CHOOSES TO PASS HCR190, PLEASE DELETE THE FIRST "WHEREAS" PARAGRAPH TO AVOID THE RIDICULE YOU WILL SO RIGHTLY INCUR FOR INCLUDING A BLATANT FALSEHOOD EVEN AFTER YOU HAVE SEEN THE PROOF THAT IT IS FALSE.

Let me explain further. The Office of Hawaiian Education has publicly proclaimed falsehoods on its webpage about the history of Hawaiian education. I sent a lengthy, detailed message filled with irrefutable evidence, including quotes from historical documents and citations to scholarly books about the history of Hawaiian language, proving that the statements are false. The Director of the Office sent a brief reply acknowledging receipt of my message, but is stonewalling on making corrections and probably will never correct the falsehoods because, I am confident, she is personally invested in propagating those falsehoods for political purposes. By continuing to proclaim and teach falsehoods after being provided proof they are false, the Director is now knowingly LYING. She is from a family of Hawaiian sovereignty activists, which leads me to suspect that she is working to use her recently upgraded power and influence in the Department of Education to harness DOE as a propaganda factory, filling the minds of our children and the general public with a twisted version of Hawaii's history.

The particular item at issue in this testimony concerns a single topic -- the very first paragraph in this resolution HCR190 -- which might seem small and unimportant but is in fact racially inflammatory, arousing bitter resentment and racial hatred over a historical grievance which never happened. It is one of the most thoroughly entrenched and strongly defended lies told by the Hawaiian grievance industry in a propaganda campaign to arouse public sympathy for political sovereignty and reparations for alleged colonial oppression.

The alleged banning of Hawaiian language in the schools is not the only falsehood being taught in the Hawaiian Studies component of the DOE curriculum. Five years ago I wrote a detailed book review of the two textbooks authorized by DOE which are supported by curriculum guides showing how the books satisfy the "standards" for the 11th grade course "History of Modern Hawaii" which is required for a high school diploma. The book review shows numerous examples of the history- twisting and victimhood mentality spawned by this course, causing thousands of teenagers and young adults to feel rising levels of anti- Americanism and anti-Caucasian racial resentment. See "History of modern Hawaii as taught in Hawaii schools" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/HawnHistPublicSchools.html

Here's the lie being loudly proclaimed in the first paragraph in HCR190:

"WHEREAS, the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 led to a ban on teaching and learning through the medium of the Hawaiian language beginning in 1896, thereby eradicating the Hawaiian language from all formal education for the next four generations;"

There are actually two subsidiary lies told there: the allegation that there was "a ban on teaching and learning through the medium of the Hawaiian language beginning in 1896"; and the allegation that Hawaiian language was "eradicated from all formal education for the next four generations." Both are lies. I have provided detailed proof that they are false (see below). Despite being provided with irrefutable proof more than three weeks ago that those are lies, the Director of the Office of Hawaiian Education, which was recently elevated to a top priority in DOE with no higher entity in the DOE organization chart other than the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent, has incorporated the lie into this resolution HCR190. I'm guessing she authored and asked for HCR190 to be introduced into the legislature to provide legislative authority for her to expand her growing bureaucratic fiefdom. I'm guessing that she can easily recruit Hawaiian language experts to affirm the lie about the alleged Hawaiian language ban -- experts whose careers are built on the money and political power created by a growing Hawaiian language industry founded in part on asserting the lie, and the heroism of overcoming the alleged ban that never was.

News reporters and editors feel confident about repeating the lie in print -- they cite the Office of Hawaiian Education webpage on the history of Hawaiian education as an authority. And relying on that authority they refuse to publish a correction even when shown irrefutable proof that it is a lie. The lie has been taught in our public and private schools for several decades, spurring feelings of anger and hatred by ethnic Hawaiians against "those evil haoles who invaded our nation, overthrew our Queen, imprisoned her in her own Palace, stole our land, and banned our beloved language right here in our own ancestral homeland where my grandmother was beaten for speaking Hawaiian in school"

I love Hawaiian culture and language. That's why the first thing I did after moving permanently to Kane'ohe in 1992 was to enroll in courses in Hawaiian language and culture taught at Windward School for Adults, for three years, followed by additional study through various resources, achieving a moderate level of fluency sufficient to enhance my appreciation of the Kamehameha Song Contest and the Merry Monarch hula festival, and to read some of the old newspapers (with the aid of my well-worn Pukui/Elbert dictionary). And that's why I demand that Hawaiian history and language be taught with fidelity to what is true, and not be used in our schools as vehicles to promote racial hatred or establishment of a race-based government. The schools should be a safe place where students of all races can learn what is true and what helps us all feel unified in the Aloha Spirit, and not to be subjected to racially divisive propaganda.

The "History of Hawaiian Education" webpage would run 2 pages if printed. Its URL is
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/ StudentLearning/HawaiianEducation/Pages/History-of-the-Hawaiian- Education-program.aspx
and its content on March 15 has been preserved (in case of future changes) at
http://big09.angelfire.com/DOEWebpgHistHawnEdMarch2016.pdf

Here are the three places where the very short DOE webpage makes false statements alleging a ban on Hawaiian language:

(1) The second sentence of the top (header) paragraph says "After the language was banned in 1896, it would not be heard in schools for four generations." But the language was never banned, and it did continue to be heard in the schools throughout the Territorial period, as I proved.

(2) In the main body of the webpage, the second paragraph next to the picture of Kauikeaouli includes this sentence: "After the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, teaching and learning through the medium of Hawaiian was banned in 1896." But as I proved, teaching and learning through the medium of Hawaiian was never banned; the law of 1896 only established English as the language of instruction in schools (government and private) which could be certified as meeting the compulsory schooling law, but the law did not single out Hawaiian at all; it explicitly allowed for the teaching of other languages than English as language courses in the day schools; it did not in any way interfere with after-school and weekend academies where Hawaiian, Japanese, etc. could be used as the medium of instruction for all subjects; its primary purpose was to ensure that the private plantation weekday schools for the children of Asian laborers must use English rather than Japanese as the language of instruction; and it had almost no effect on the Hawaiian kids, nearly all of whom were already attending government schools where English was the language of instruction in 95% of all the government schools by 1892 when Lili'uokalani was Queen (the year before the monarchy was overthrown).

(3) The timeline says
"1896 Hawaiian Language banned as medium of instruction in the public education system" But that's incorrect because: the 1896 law applied to all schools both public and private which were allowed to be certified as meeting the requirements of the compulsory school attendance law; it did not ban Hawaiian language from being used as the medium of instruction in after-school or weekend academies; and it did not ban courses teaching Hawaiian language as the subject matter. A law of the Territory required that the teacher-training school curriculum must include a course in Hawaiian language (presumably because it was expected that teachers would need to understand when they heard Hawaiian being spoken by some students, contrary to the bitter assertion that Hawaiian language was not heard in the schools for 4 generations). I have compiled a webpage "Holding the State of Hawaii Department of Education accountable for propagating the lie that Hawaiian language was banned" at
http://tinyurl.com/z77ogbq

The table of contents is displayed below. Items 4 and 6 in that webpage provide detailed proof, with citations to historical documents and scholarly books published by UH Press, that the statements on the DOE webpage are false. Please treat the information in my webpage as being incorporated as part of this testimony.

1. Honolulu Star-Advertiser article of Thursday February 18, 2016 whose first sentence mentioned in passing, as an established fact, that Hawaiian language was "... once banned in the public schools ..."

2. Thursday February 18 (early morning) email from Ken Conklin to newspaper reporter and editor requesting correction and providing proof of falsehood.

3. Reporter's very brief Thursday February 18 (late afternoon) reply citing the Department of Education webpage as authority.

4. Full text of detailed email from Ken Conklin to Dawn Kau'ilani Sang, Department of Education Director of Hawaiian Studies on Monday morning February 22, 2016 with copies to DOE Superintendent, DOE Assistant Superintendent, newspaper editor and reporter.

5. 2-sentence acknowledgment from Dawn Kau'ilani Sang, Department of Education Director of Hawaiian Studies emailed Wednesday night February 24, promising "We will review the website and make changes as deemed necessary."

6. Followup email from Ken Conklin to Dawn Kau'ilani Sang, on Monday morning March 14, 2016 with copies to DOE Superintendent, DOE Assistant Superintendent, newspaper editor and reporter. The email noted that it is 3 weeks after Ken Conklin's initial email to her, and 12 working days after her promise to "review the website and make changes as deemed necessary." The email asked to know what progress has been made, and asked for contact information for any subordinate who might have been assigned the task of reviewing the webpage and making changes.

Further sections will be added to this webpage as events unfold. One purpose of this webpage is to document the stonewalling and lack of accountability of the Hawaiian Studies division of the Department of Education -- its persistent unwillingness to correct a falsehood despite repeated reminders about what is false, why it's important, and requests for progress reports at reasonable intervals.

==================

SR124 and SCR163: COMMEMORATING AND HONORING THE LIFE OF ROBERT WILLIAM KALANIHIAPO WILCOX, AN ENDURING PATRIOT AND ADVOCATE FOR THE RIGHTS OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS, WHO SERVED AS HAWAII'S FIRST ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

It's weird to see a resolution in the legislature commemorating and honoring Robert Wilcox, who died 113 years ago. Why is this resolution being proposed at this particular time? No reason is given. There must be a hidden agenda.

A resolution in the state legislature to commemorate and honor Wilcox at this time is as peculiar as it would be to introduce a resolution in Congress today to commemorate and honor other men who were zealous patriots on the wrong side, such as Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederate states of America), Joseph Stalin, or Mao Tse-tung.

More importantly, aside from weirdness -- Robert Wilcox also does not deserve to be commemorated, let alone honored.

What sort of message would the legislature be sending to today's hot-headed Hawaiian sovereignty activists by passing a resolution to commemorate and honor such a racist man of violence who had no hesitation about killing in order to further his political goals?

I recommend a biography by Ernest Andrade Jr., educated at UH Manoa, Professor Emeritus of History at University of Colorado at Boulder, buried at Punchbowl cemetery on account of his military service to our nation. The book is "Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880-1903" (University Press of Colorado, 1996). 299 pages including extensive footnotes. ISBN: 0-87081-417-6.

My comments about Robert Wilcox are based on facts reported in Professor Andrade's fair, balanced, and heavily footnoted book, and my comments accurately represent Professor Andrade's conclusions about Wilcox.

Andrade uses the word "demagogue" to describe Wilcox's flamboyant style. Andrade describes Wilcox as an arrogant, unprincipled zealot who frequently changed sides in the political struggles and whose only long-term allegiance was to his own quest for political power.

Wilcox, who was half white and half Hawaiian, deliberately stirred up racial antagonism by native Hawaiians against whites in order to build political support for himself.

Wilcox collaborated with Lili'uokalani in a plot against Kalakaua; opposed Lili'uokalani while she was Queen; urged that the monarchy be overthrown in favor of a Republic; and supported annexation to the United States. But after the revolution of 1893 he worked to restore the monarchy and opposed annexation.

Wilcox led armed rebellions, as mentioned in this proposed resolution SR124/SCR163, which resulted in several deaths. Do you legislators approve of that?

One of Wilcox's occasions of violence resulting in death was an attempted Palace coup in 1889 intended to oust Kalakaua at the behest of Lili'uokalani so she could take power. Lili'uokalani despised and opposed Kalakaua because he had signed the Bayonet Constitution of 1887 while she was in London visiting Queen Victoria. The attempted Palace coup was planned in 1888 while Wilcox was living in one of Lili'uokalani's homes, in Palama.

Another time when Wilcox used violence resulting in death, with Lili'uokalani as co-conspirator, was the attempted Wilcox-led counter- revolution in 1895, where guns, ammunition, and hand grenades were found in a buried cache hidden in a flower-bed at Lili'uokalani's private home very near the Palace (Washington Place).

When annexation was achieved, Wilcox maneuvered to become leader of the race-focused Home Rule Party and won election as Hawaii's first Territorial Delegate to Congress. But his performance in Congress was so poor, and the Home Rule's performance as majority party in the Territorial legislature was so bad, that the party split into factions and soon ceased to exist. Prince Kuhio walked out of the Home Rule Party convention in 1902 in disgust, joined the Republican Party, and defeated Wilcox's Home Rule Party in the 1902 election for Territorial Delegate where Kuhio served for 20 years.

==============

HCR82 and HR44: ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO PLAN AND COORDINATE THE CELEBRATION OF THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HAWAII STATE CAPITOL

Ken Conklin's TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT, WITH PROPOSED ADDITION

Dear legislators, it's wonderful to plan for celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Hawaii state Capitol in 2019.

But of course there would be no state Capitol unless there were a State of Hawaii.

And as it happens, 2019 will also be the 60th anniversary of Hawaii statehood.

Therefore please amend this resolution to broaden it to include planning for celebration of both the 50th anniversary of the Capitol and the 60th anniversary of Hawaii Statehood. Why not have both celebrations combined into a single event? Save money and appeal to a wider audience.

=================
=================

HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN PREVIOUS YEARS -- TESTIMONY BY KEN CONKLIN AND SOME MEMBERS OF THE ALOHA FOR ALL AND GRASSROOT INSTITUTE GROUPS.

Personal note by Ken Conklin: I came permanently to live in Hawaii in 1992. From then until 1998 I spent full time doing independent study about Hawaiian language, history, and culture. I felt a strong spiritual relationship with the land and people, which I sensed on three summer vacations beginning 1982 and was one of my main motives for coming to live here permanently. Because of the beautiful spirituality in Hawaiian music, hula, and legends, I was inclined to go along with the historical victimhood narrative pushed by Hawaiian sovereignty activists on such topics as the overthrow of the monarchy (1893), annexation (1898), and statehood (1959). I attended a large number of Hawaiian sovereignty rallies, panel discussions at University of Hawaii, and conversations in public places or in private homes; and read many books. But having a Ph.D. in philosophy I am accustomed to studying issues that are both complex and controversial, asking lots of questions, and doing research. And my masters in Mathematics made me feel a need to be logical and keep my beliefs clear and consistent. The more questions I asked, the more my erstwhile "friends" began questioning my "loyalty" to them and to their movement. In many cases they did not know the facts; and in some cases they did know the facts but persisted in telling me half-truths or outright lies. It took many months of soul-searching, gut-wrenching introspection to figure things out; and then everything fit together within a few days and I saw the whole gestalt picture -- the face of evil in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Since then I gradually began stepping out of private life, writing letters to editor, creating this website, running as a candidate for OHA trustee in 2000, writing my book, etc. I began writing testimony on bills in Congress and in the state legislature around year 1999. For the past decade the internet has made it increasingly easy to keep up to date about bills in the legislature and to submit testimony by email or through the legislature's website.

Below are some webpages providing testimony to the Hawaii legislature over the years, mostly by myself but also some by friends who were members of the Aloha For All and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii groups. This is an incomplete list, but it shows the kind of issues arising in the legislature over time and how civil rights activists are fighting back in an effort to protect unity, equality, and aloha for all. There's a gathering storm in Hawaii as racial supremacists demand either creation of a racial separatist tribe recognized by the state and federal governments, or else restoration of Hawaii's status as an independent nation with racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians under the modern theory of "indigenous rights." See my book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

I hope that Hawaii citizens who read the bills and testimony in the 2016 legislature, and in the legislatures of more than a decade before now, will see the dangers, rise to the occasion, and hold their state Senators and Representatives accountable.

Here are webpages covering State of Hawaii legislation related to Hawaiian sovereignty in previous years, listed in reverse chronological order (most recent listed first).

Hawaii Legislature 2015 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

In 2014 no compilation was kept of racist bills in the Hawaii state legislature. However, special attention was given to very dangerous legislation creating and expanding a racial registry for building a Hawaiian tribe. See webpage

"Building a Hawaiian tribe through actions of the state legislature: May 2014 progress report (Roll Commission failure to follow the requirements of enabling legislation Act 195; identity theft of 87,000 names from earlier racial registries; enrollment of minor children; legislative hearing as cheerleader rather than oversight enforcer; and more issues)" at

https://www.angelfire.com/big09/KanaiolowaluMay2014ProgRpt.html

March 11, 2013: Racial entitlement bills in the 2013 Hawaii legislature (and how all the Republicans except Senator Slom and Representative McDermott are voting in lockstep with the Democrats)

February 10, 2013: U.S. apology resolution 20th anniversary -- A resolution was introduced in the Hawaii legislature to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the U.S. apology resolution; and testimony was offered to the Hawaii legislature in the form of a substitute resolution explaining that the apology resolution is filled with falsehoods, has produced bad consequences, and should be repealed.

July 24, 2011: Racial set-asides of land, money, and political power -- how Act 195 will move Hawaii toward New Zealand and Fiji

July 12, 2011: Gearing up for the divorce -- Klub Kanaka greedily looks ahead to property division and alimony from the State of Hawaii (Hawaii House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs holds informational briefing for government departments to tell how they can help implement Act 195 creating a state-recognized tribe)

May 4, 2011: Hawaii begins to create a state-recognized tribe. SB1520 passed the legislature on May 3, 2011. Why did they do it? What happens now?

April 1, 2011: HR258 and HCR293 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution to rip the Treaty of Annexation out of the hand of President McKinley in his statue in front of McKinley High School

March 22, 2011: HCR107 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution establishing a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Liliuokalani assignment and the agreement of restoration.

February 3, 2009: Ceded lands issues in the Hawaii Legislature, 2009

February 3, 2009: Legislation in Hawaii in 2009 to declare ethnic Hawaiians as an indigenous people

January 17, 2009: Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes in 2009 to Expand the Evil Empire. Subpages include protest of Supreme Court ceded lands case; OHA demand for legislative moratorium on ceded land sales; OHA demand for "back rent" settlement; Akaka bill; other issues as they arise in 2009 including Waimea Valley, Waokele o Puna, etc. Links to coverage of evil Empire expansion in previous years.

January 14, 2009: Some important issues for the Hawaii Legislature in 2009. Stop the giveaway. Just say no.