Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 12, Number 4, 1 April 1995 — Hawaiian groups come together, fight House Bill 2071 [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Hawaiian groups come together, fight House Bill 2071

by Patrick Johnston OHA and a large number of major Hawaiian groups have united in unequivocal opposition to a House bill that could potentially eliminate any revenues OHA receives from the ceded land trust. The list of attendees at a March 15

meeting and press conference read like a who's who of Hawaiian organizations as groups ranging from Bishop Estate to Ka Lāhui rallied behind OHA in a united effort to block passage of the bill. House Bill 2071, H.D. 1 would require that OHA's share of the revenues derived from the public trust

be directly tied to the cost of state capitol improvement projects (CIP).

Under Act 304 - passed in 1990 - the Legislature determined that OHA would receive 20 percent of proprietary revenue from ceded lands. (Proprietary revenues include fees, rents or other incomes derived from the use of ceded lands. These are distinguished from sovereign revenues, whieh are moneys derived through the exercise of sovereign functions such as collecting taxes, fees, or tuition.) The details of Act 304 were incorporated into Chapter 10 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes, whieh is the enabling legislation for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Last year OHA's 20 percent entitlement totaled approximately $18 million. Under the bill, OHA would receive 20 percent of trust revenues minus 20 percent of the cost of state CIP on ceded lands. Bill sponsor, House Finance Chairman Calvin Say, asserts that OHA benefits ffom capitol improvement projects in the form of increased revenues from the ceded land's use and so should be asked to help pay for improvements. The problem for OHA - and Hawaiians - is that 20 percent of total CIP is far greater than the $18 million OHA is now receiving. Most of state land - over 90 percent - is ceded land. OHA estimates the state authorizes, on average, $350 million annually on eapitol improvement projects on ceded lands. Under H.B. 2071, H.D. 1, OHA would be required to pay 20 percent of that $350 million, or $70 million. The net to OHA would be zero. Although the state Constitution provides that OHA shall receive a

pro-rata share of ceded lands revenue, it is chapter 10-13.5 whieh sets the pro-rata share at 20 percent. Onee the money is in OHA's hands, the Legislature can't dictate how they should spend it, but they ean determine how mueh OHA has to spend by adusting Chapter 10-13.5. OHA trustees see things differently. In a statement issued by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Tmstee A. Frenchy DeSoto said that the state is reneging on its promise to help Hawaiians and is taking away whai is rightfully theirs. "By eliminating OHA's revenue, the state has negated the purpose of

chapter 10: the betterment of conditions of all Hawaiians. ... There are no 'excepts' in Chapter 10. There is no 'except in tough eeonomie times' or 'except when OHA files suit to maintain the ceded land tmst.'" Act 304 already established OHA's contribution by excluding sovereign revenues from OHA's share. Moreover, Hawaiians, as tax payers, are already contributing to CIP like everyone else in the state. House Bill 2071 would ask Hawaiians - and Hawaiians only — to pay twice. OHA also objects to the assumption that the revenues OHA derives from C1P on ceded lands warrant the enormous cost OHA will have to bear to support them. OHA receives very little revenue from CIP, cer-

tainly nowhere near what the state is asking the office to pay. The state is not offering the partnership the state says it wants. The state wants OHA to contribute to CIPs but with no provisions for OHA to plan, participate or benefit from the project. A close look at some of the projects the state undertakes on ceded lands show that they are not big money eamers for OHA. OHA will see its resources dwindle away supporting projects it had no part in creating and that retum the office little or nothing. "Onee again, in times of trouble," DeSoto says in her statement, "it is

Hawaiians who must sacrifice their birthright." OHA is also arguing that the bill is unconstitutional because it effectively zeros out OHA's pro-rata share of ceded lands revenue. The constitution does require that OHA get something. At press time the bill was in limbo. Sen. James Aki, Chairman of the Hawaiian Affairs Committee, has refused to hear the bill. This would sound its death knell unless the bill is re-refered to another committee or gets written into another bill. For Hawaiians the issue is clear: make sure legislators know you do not support letting Hawaiian entitlements disappear in the black hole of the state deficit. Call them today and express your eoneem.

"Onee again, in times of trouble, it is Hawaiians who must sacrifice their birthright." - A. Frenchy DeSoto

OHA Administrator Dante Carpenter goes over H.B. 2071 with OHA trustees and representatives from other Hawaiian organizations before a March 15 press conference.