Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 12, Number 12, 1 December 1995 — A violation of ethics laws [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

A violation of ethics laws

by Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr. Trustee, Moloka'i & Lāna i There's bitter and deep turmoil between your e!ected trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. As one trustee I would like to express my humblest apology to those of you, who are embarrassed

and appalled by all this silly nonsense that need not have occurred. But because certain trustees refused to hear my eoncerns I had no other alternative but to file a complaint to the Hawai'i Ethics Commission on October 16, 1995. The following is my complaint. On September 21, 1995, on the island of Kaua'i, by a vote of 5 to 4 the Office of Hawaiian

Affairs Board of trustees voted to appropriate up to $150,000 to defend themselves in their official and individual eapaeities as trustees in a complaint fded by former OHA Administrator Dante Carpenter. By this letter, I am formally filing an offieial compiaint against the five trustees who voted to appropriate OHA trust funds to defend themselves in their individual eapaeity. I believe that by voting to use OHA trust funds for their individual defense the five OHA trustees violated the ethics laws, including HRS 84-13 and 84-14. Regardless of the outcome of the Carpenter lawsuit, whether it is eventually settled out of court or adjudicated by a court of law, the aelion of the five trustees violates at least the fair treatment section of chapter 84 by securing and granting an unwarranted privilege of the use of OHA trust funds. The five OHA trustees who voted yes to set aside $150,000 of OHA trust funds for their defense are: Martha Billie Beanier, Rowena N. Akana, Kīna'u Boyd Kamali'i, Moses K. Ke'ale. and Adelaide Frenchy DeSoto. The four OHA trustees who voted no are: Chairman Clayton H. W. Hee, ViceChairman Abraham Aiona. Moanike'ala Akaka, and me. Furthermore, you should know that by HRS 10-3, entitled "Purpose of the office," OHA trust funds must be used to be used to benefit those native Hawaiians whose blood quantum is 50% or greater. HRS 10-3(1) says in part, "A pro rata portion of all funds. . ,shall bc

held and used solely as a public trust for the betterment of the conditions of the native Hawaiians." "Native Hawaiian" as defined in HRS 10-2 "means any descendant of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian islands previous to 1778, as defined by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended . . ." OHA

trustees Martha Billie Beamer, Rowena N. Akana and Klnau Boyd Kamali'i do not meet the blood quantum statutory eligibility definition and, furthermore, all five of the OHA trustees should not have voted to use OHA trust funds to finance their legal fees in their individI ual capacity. HRS 84-13 entitled: "Fair | treatment" says in part, "No leg-

islator or employee shall use or attempt to use the legislator's or employee's official position to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages, eontracts, or treatment, for oneself or others; including but not limited to the following: (2) Accepting, receiving, or soliciting eompensation or other consideration for the performance of the legislator's or employee's official duties or responsibilities except as provided by law." HRS 84-14 entitled: "Conflicts of interests" says in part. "No employee shall take any official aeūon directly affecting: (1) A business or other undertaking in whieh he has a substantial financial interest. Depending on who you ask there is an ongoing discrepancy as to whether OHA trustees are "elected officials" or "employees." Regardless, I firmly believe the five OHA trustees violated the ethics laws of the State of Hawai'i and should not have taken aelion where they clearly benefit financially by voting to defend themselves as individuals with OHA trust funds on September 21, 1995. Sadly, the five OHA trustees took this action to squander and waste (at least) up to $150,00 of native Hawaiian beneficiary money by eaeh hiring their own lawyer (total of 5), despite the fact that prior to September 21, 1995, OHA Attorney Sherry Broder advised the Board of trustees that Mr. Carpenter will settle the eomplainl filed for $30,000.00.