Originally published July 7, 2006, we are reprinting this article in honor of HB1627 of 2011 which would create a State-run Indian Tribe.  HB1627 will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee Thursday February 17, 2011.  LINK > HB1627 Status.

by Andrew Walden 

After the thumping defeat of the Akaka Bill in the United States Senate, the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is debating "Plan B" methods to create a Hawaiian tribe.

While Senators Dan Inouye (D-HI) and Dan Akaka (D-HI) pledge to bring the Akaka Bill back for a vote next session, a "Nation Building Proposal to the Trustees" published in the HawaiiReporter.com on June 28th (see text below) indicates that after 6 years of attempts, OHA is no longer going to continue waiting for the Akaka Bill.

Instead, the document, outlines a non-Akaka strategy patterned on state-recognized Indian tribes.

The OHA document, labeled “draft-confidential,” outlines six steps ending with “convening of a representative governing entity.” These are followed by a seventh step; “Negotiating the transfer of Hawaiian assets to the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.” An eighth step envisions further efforts to win federal recognition as a tribe. Without federal recognition, the tribal government is unlikely to succeed in shielding Kamehameha schools and other Hawaiians-only entitlements from federal lawsuits alleging racial discrimination. Also there is also no precedent for a state tribe to organize its own legal system as some federal tribes do.

UPDATE: 2009 Ceded Lands Decision shields DHHL from Civil Rights Litigation 

The Supreme Court decision in Rice v Cayetano presents a more immediate obstacle. In this landmark 1999 ruling, the Supreme Court invalidated the use of a Hawaiians-only voter roll in OHA elections and the restriction of candidate eligibility to only those with Hawaiian ancestry.

The document states: “… Hawaiian delegate elections will not be considered State elections since no State funds will be utilized, it will still behoove us to follow the various legal precedents which have been established concerning elections to avoid legal challenges in the future.”

If this is an attempt to dodge Rice by claiming the elections are not State of Hawaii elections, it is a pretty thin dodge. The document itself is evidence that state funds are being used to organize the elections.

Another possibility is that elections will be open to all Hawaii voters, as OHA elections currently are. If so, that would bring into question exactly what it is that is being organized, since the electorate and candidates are not restricted to members of the purported Hawaiian "tribe."

There is noting in the document which indicates this will be OHA’s plan. OHA, however is a state of Hawaii body, elected by the entire electorate of the State and led by elected officials of any racial background.

The state of Hawaii is organizing a racially defined subsection of the population into a tribe whether they want it or not. The Kau Inoa registration list is claimed by OHA to have “approximately 50,000 registrants” as of June 2006, “including individuals who are…under the age of 18 years.”

According to the document, Kau Inoa will form the electorate for the Hawaiian tribe. A timeline is proposed working toward a Hawaiian Constitutional Convention which will run from June 11, 2007, to Sept. 14, 2007, conveniently missing the 2007 legislative session.

According to OHA’s timeline, Kau Inoa will close registration April 7, 2007. While Kau Inoa tribal registration continues, apportionment of Constitutional Convention Delegate districts will be conducted starting Aug. 1, 2006, until Nov. 15, 2006. The deadline for candidates to file to run for delegate to the Hawaiian Constitutional Convention is Jan. 17, 2007. Elections for delegates will occur three months later, April, 21, 2007.

Fifty thousand out of 401,000 Hawaiians is not exactly a rousing mandate for tribal government, but Kau Inoa is not an effort to register every Hawaiian -- just those who support establishing a government or believe that signing up will give them an edge in claiming some future benefits.

The Kau Inoa registration form reads in part: “The Native Hawaiian Registration Form should be completed by Native Hawaiians who would like to participate in the formation of the Native Hawaiian government.” A poll conducted for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in June 2006, shows only 59.5 percent support for the Akaka Bill among native Hawaiians.

OHA’s Numbers Game

In its document, OHA plays a strange little number game in order to make the 50,000 seem larger than it is. Of 401,000 Hawaiians about 240,000 are living in Hawaii and 161,000 living on the mainland. OHA’s numbers ignore Hawaiians living outside Hawaii and start with a 2000 census figure of 177,328 Hawaiians over age 18 living in Hawaii. From this they extrapolate potential registration numbers of 118,378 based on 66.7 percent voter registration levels in the population of Hawaii as a whole.

From that number they again extrapolate another 66.7 percent voter participation leaving 78,891 ballots expected to be cast. This number doesn’t look half bad compared to “approximately” (OHA-speak for “less than”) 50,000 Kau Inoa registrants -- including those under age 18. All one need do is forget about the Hawaiians living outside Hawaii, forget the unknown number of minors on the Kau Inoa rolls, forget about the native Hawaiians who do not support the Akaka Bill and forget about the fact that 78,891 is only 19.7 percent of 401,000 and then “almost 50,000” almost looks good.

UPDATE 2010: Akaka Bill: More than 73% of Hawaiians not "Qualified" for membership in Akaka Tribe

The fact that Hooulu Lahui Aloha is a “confidential” nation-building proposal “to the Trustees” says it all. As long as OHA has the nearly unanimous backing of Hawaii’s political class, participation by actual Hawaiians is secondary.

With a state-recognized tribe likely unable to protect Hawaiian entitlements against court challenges to their constitutionality why would OHA go forward? One reason comes from Sen. Dan Inouye (D-HI).

Inouye’s office indicates that the Senate has appropriated more than $1.2 billion for Native Hawaiian programs over the past 26 years. Inouye’s total of federal pork is equal to about $3,000 for every Hawaiian, but in this spoils system, "trustees" are more equal than other Hawaiians.

In Inouye’s scheme of things, a native Hawaiian "tribal" government is just one more excuse to feed taxpayer dollars into Hawaii’s oligarchic state-capitalist economy.

UPDATE 2010: Federal Contract Preferences – A Boon For Native Hawaiian-Owned Companies

State recognized tribes are usually allotted very limited land, benefits and other assets, but much more could be on offer from the State of Hawaii. It is possible that ownership of as much as one-fifth of all “ceded lands” -- former property of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom which passed to the Hawaii Republic, then to the US federal government and in 1959 to the state of Hawaii -- could be transferred to a Hawaiian tribe by the state. OHA already receives 1/5 of the revenues of the ceded lands every year. Between federal and state pork, land ownership and development deals, the income possibilities for a state tribe are enough to make even the greediest and most ambitious professional “trustee” blush.

Hawaiian Lumbees?

State recognized Indian tribes operate in a little known grey area of Indian law with few legal precedents and under varying state laws. In Hawaii state law there is no precedent at all. Lack of clear legal precedent creates a playground for corrupt politicians and their many friends in the judiciary.

The largest state tribe is the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. With over 40,000 members, the Lumbees have been recognized by the state of North Carolina since 1885 but are still denied full federal recognition as a tribe.

One issue surrounding challenges to federal recognition of the Lumbee is whether they are truly an Indian tribe or whether they are a community descended from an Indian tribe (the Cheraw or Cherokee of South Carolina) which then evolved into a refuge for escaped slaves, free blacks and any other people over the last 150 years who were on the outs with the North and South Carolina slave-owning Democrat elite, the Confederate dictatorship, or the Democrats’ Jim Crow system of segregation.

Civil Rights After 86 Years of Shooting at Democrats

Lumbee formed the nucleus of a community which resisted the Democrats system of slavery until slavery’s Civil War defeat in 1865. Toward the end of the Civil War and during Reconstruction, armed Lumbee guerillas fought Confederate and ex-Confederate Democrat planters who were attempting to steal Indian landowners’ property and force Indian men into indentured servitude. This conflict is known as the Henry Berry Lowrie War. Eighty-six years after the Lowrie War ended, as many as 1,000 armed Lumbee men shot up a 1958 rally of the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party, the Ku Klux Klan.

By 1964 the civil rights movement had made it impossible for Democrats to maintain the support of white southerners as a voting bloc by sustaining segregation. Jim Crow segregation collapsed. In order to replace their lost white dependency voters Democrats enacted the mis-named “Great Society” programs in order to build a new dependency base (at taxpayer expense) among the victims of their former dependents.

In 1968, 10 years after they shot up the Klan rally, the Lumbee got federally funded social services programs under the newly formed “Lumbee Regional Development Association, Inc. (LRDA)” Notably the LRDA describes its goal in non-racial terms as working “aggressively to improve services for members of the Lumbee River community.”

The evolution of the Lumbee community from a group of displaced Indian families to a center of resistance to Democrat slavers and segregationists to a means of distributing social services benefits poses some of the same legal and historical issues as native Hawaiian recognition. Are the Lumbee really an Indian tribe -- or a socio-political "tribe"? These issues are at the core of why the Lumbee have not been federally recognized.

Ethnicity Becomes an Ideology

Jon Osorio, taro protester and chair of the U.H. Manoa Department of Hawaiian Studies calls for the Hawaiian Nation to include the “activist community.” In a recent OHA infomercial touting the need to pass the Akaka Bill, OHA Chair Apoliona suggested that a future Hawaiian Nation would be open to non-Hawaiians.

UPDATE 2010: Akaka Bill: More than 73% of Hawaiians not "Qualified" for membership in Akaka Tribe

The Lumbee, including enemies of racism in the Democrat South, were a community of progressive freedom fighters who understood the importance of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and knew where to aim their guns.

A future Hawaiian Nation, if politically selected to include those from the "activist community," would be an agent for the destruction of Hawaiian culture and the evisceration of a Hawaiian nation in order to transform it into a tool of an anti-American ideological agenda cooked up at University of Hawaii at Manoa.

In the view of the U.H. academic Marxist taxpayer funded "activist community," ethnicity is an ideology. If you have the right ideology, you can become any ethnicity you wish. On the other hand, actual Indians (or Hawaiians or African Americans for that matter) who dare to challenge "politically correct" dogma are personally attacked in terms once used by the Klan and labeled sell-outs. The transformation of Hawaiian ethnicity into an ideology would be the end of the Hawaiian people.

Like the Lumbee, Hawaiians did not proceed directly from tribal society to a recognized tribe with a reservation. King Kamehameha instead unified the islands and chose to form a modern Kingdom. The Hawaiian Kingdom adopted modern ways including individual ownership of private property, advanced technologies, a postal system, a national currency, international trade, and diplomatic relations with other nations around the world.

Connected to its modernization, the Hawaiian Kingdom also chose to admit non-Hawaiians as equal subjects and even as high level officials.

Because of King Kamehameha’s wisdom and all of the history which has occurred since the arrival of Captain Cook, native Hawaiians have the greatest degree of political liberty, personal independence and freedom and highest standard of living of any Polynesian group. Since a state tribe will not be able to defend Kamehameha Schools or Hawaiian Homelands against "the lawsuits" it is a mystery why anybody not personally benefiting from pork and corruption would want to trade the modern Hawaiian lifestyle for a mid-Pacific Indian reservation.

If OHA goes through with its plan, this is where they will be leading Hawaiians over the next 14 months.

---30--- 

A Nation-Building Proposal to the

Trustees

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

June 2006

D R A F T - C O N F I D E N T I A L

Introduction:

      Aloha. Attached is the draft of a plan to create a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity and eventually to receive Federal Recognition of this entity. The Plan has been created in Draft form to allow the Trustees to provide input into the plan before it is finalized for their ultimate approval.

Contents:

Page 3-18      Elements of the Plan

Exhibit A Illustration of the Various Steps in the Nation-Building Process

Exhibit B      Draft Timeline  

Background Information:

      On January 17, 2004, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs kicked off the nation- building registration program for Hawaiians living in the United States. The registration form was developed by a community group and was given the name Kau Inoa or to "place one's name." Since January of 2004, OHA has taken the lead in promoting this registration program and, as of June 2006, over 50,000 individuals have signed the Kau Inoa registration forms.

      The Kau Inoa registration data base is maintained by Hawai'i Maoli a non-profit organization operated by the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs. Hawai'i Maoli is responsible for entering the registration information in a secured data service. Since its inception, the database has not been used. The only criteria for registration is that registrants must be Hawaiian as determined either through previous verifications such as through OHA's Operation `Ohana, OHA's Hawaiian Registry, DHHL's list of homesteaders, or Kamehameha Schools' Ho'oulu data base. Individuals requiring assistance in verifying their ancestry may request the assistance of OHA.

Outreach and Advertising:

      Over the past two-and-a-half years, OHA has been responsible for the majority of outreach and advertising efforts. Community groups participate through a small grants program developed by OHA's governance office. Organizations can raise funds for their non-profit group or school and receive one dollar for each registration form completed. Television commercials have also been used to encourage participation in the State of Hawai'i. Print advertising has been used in various continental states in conjunction with various Hawaiian-related activities.

Relevant Data for Consideration:

(*) Source of Data: 2000 U.S. Census

      As of June 2006, approximately 50,000 individuals have registered for Kau Inoa. This includes individuals who are both over and under the age of 18 years. Assuming approximately 80% of the total number of Kau Inoa registrants are over the age of 18 years, that means approximately 40,000 people would be eligible to vote in a delegate election. Based on our target of 118,378 individuals, that leaves us with approximately 78,378 individuals still to be registered.

      The credibility of our registration and voting efforts regarding delegate elections could be evaluated against the total eligible voter population in Hawaii and the number of those eligible who actually cast ballots.

Recommendations:

1. Outreach

Outreach and advertising activities should be continued and expanded. In addition, the Kau Inoa database should be utilized for the purpose of keeping registrants informed of developments in the nation-building process.

1. Creation of a Kau Inoa Advisory Board

The OHA Trustees should appoint a 9-member Kau Inoa Advisory Board made up of individuals in the community who are versed on genealogy and ancestry verification. The Advisory Board will be responsible for certifying that all individuals who are listed on the database have satisfied the verification process established for the program. The Advisory Board should also be prepared to certify that the process utilized for entering and maintaining the data in the Kau Inoa database satisfies acceptable standards for the handling of sensitive and confidential information. Other duties may be assigned to this group as deemed appropriate by the OHA Trustees.

1. Acquire ancestry verification software similar to that used by various Indian tribes.

Various ancestry verification software programs are available to facilitate the enrollment or registration process in building the rolls of a native nation. Once a member of a family is certified to be Hawaiian, other members can be verified based on the certification of that one member of the family. This will facilitate the enrollment and registration process.

D.  Seek the advice and input of the U. S. Department of Interior, Office of Ancestry Verification, as to requirements relating to Indian tribes and Alaska natives.

Seeking the advice and input of the U. S. Department of the Interior will provide us with further assurance that whatever we end up with concerning our registration and elections process will comply with the rules and requirements of the Department.

Background Information:

      Apportionment refers to the process by which representative districts are created. When apportioning the representative districts, various legal doctrines need to be considered. First is the doctrine of "one man, one vote." Under this concept, the representative districts are based on the total eligible voter population regardless of whether these individuals have actually registered to vote. Other concepts could be based on registered voters as opposed to eligible voters. Further, representative districts should, whenever possible, share things in common with all members of the representative community. Therefore, "canoe districts" should be avoided unless the two (2) communities which are being joined share various interests in common.

      Once an apportionment plan is developed it should be reviewed with the community and comments should be solicited before it is finalized. Obviously the apportionment plan must precede the election of representative delegates.

Recommendations:

1. Creation of an Apportionment Advisory Committee

The members of the Apportionment Advisory Committee should be appointed by the OHA Trustees and have the following duties and responsibilities assigned to it.

1. Oversee the development of an Apportionment Plan for the Native Hawaiian Election of Delegates to a Native Hawaiian Convention.

1. Conduct public hearings and or informational briefings in the various Hawaiian Communities to seek input on the draft apportionment plan and amend the plan as appropriate.

1. Be responsible for circulating the revised Apportionment Plan and finalize the plan following a prescribed comment period.

1. Be responsible for publishing the final Apportionment Plan.

1. The size of the Apportionment Advisory Committee is yet to be determined.
2. Working through the OHA Administration, the Advisory Committee keeps the OHA Trustees advised on progress, developments, and controversies related to the development of an apportionment plan.

1. Other duties and responsibilities yet to be determined.

1. Use of Consultant Services

The Apportionment Advisory Committee should receive the authority and funding to hire consultants which may be necessary to prepare the draft Apportionment Plan, coordinate informational briefings, and perform other tasks.

Background Information:

      The "Election" refers to the election of representative delegates throughout the State of Hawai’i and the U.S. Continent. Generally, in order to qualify to vote in the delegate election, one must be registered in Kau Inoa. The number of delegates which are elected within the Hawaiian community is based on the developed and approved Apportionment Plan.

      A number of policy decisions need to be addressed as it relates to Elections. For example, the type of polling method to be utilized needs to be determined. In certain State elections in Hawaiÿi and across the United States, voters are allowed to cast their ballots at the polls on election day or prior to election day as an absentee voter. In certain states, mail-in ballots are permitted. In previous elections, internet voting was attempted in the states of Arizona, Alaska, and Washington. Internet voting is not yet approved by the United States Elections Assistance Commission (EAC).

      Though Hawaiian delegate elections will not be considered State elections since no State funds will be utilized, it would still behoove us to follow the various legal precedents which have been established concerning elections to avoid legal challenges in the future. These policy issues are best addressed by an Elections Oversight Committee.

      In addition to an Elections Oversight Committee, it is also necessary to establish an Elections Certification Board (ECB). In State of Hawai’i elections, the Elections Administrator certifies the election results and issues certificates to the individuals who have been elected. In the case of Hawaiian delegate elections, the State of Hawai’i Office of Elections will not be able to provide such certifications. Though the State of Hawai’i Office of Elections is not going to be directly involved in the elections process, it is envisioned that both the Elections Oversight Committee and the Elections Certification Board will seek the assistance of the Office of Elections and its Elections Administrator.

Recommendations:

1. Creation of an Elections Oversight Committee

The members of the Elections Oversight Committee should be appointed by the OHA Trustees and have the following duties and responsibilities assigned to it:

1. Based on input from the Hawaiian community address all policy issues relating to the Hawaiian delegate elections.

1. Oversee all logistical and clerical functions related to assuring a fair and impartial elections process.

1. Based on input from the Hawaiian community and after consulting with various legal scholars, determine the type of polling method which will be utilized in the election. Note: The polling method selected should facilitate the broadest participation of Hawaiians.

1. Oversee the development of an educational and communications plan to keep the community advised of the elections process and schedule.

1. Oversee the production of Election collateral materials such as ballots, mail-in materials and procedures, and internet voting procedures if such procedures are deemed appropriate for these elections.

1. Working through the OHA Administration, keep the Trustee informed of progress and controversies relating to the Elections Process.

1. The number of members of the Elections Oversight Committee is yet to be determined.

1. Other duties and responsibilities yet to be determined.

1. Creation of an Elections Certification Board

The members of the Elections Certification Board should be appointed by the OHA Trustees and have the following duties and responsibilities assigned to it:

1. Based on acceptable national standards, create a certification process for certifying the election of Hawaiian delegates.

1. Circulate for comment to the Hawaiian community the proposed delegate election certification procedures.

1. Finalize and publish delegate election certification procedures.

1. Based on the election certification procedures which are adopted, certify the election of Hawaiian delegates and issue certificates as appropriate.

1. Working through the OHA Administration, keep the Trustees informed of progress and controversies relating to the Elections certification process.

1. The number of members of the Elections Certification Board is yet to be determined.

1. Other duties and responsibilities are yet to be determined.

1. Use of Consultant Services

The Elections Oversight Committee should receive the authority and funding to hire consultants which may be necessary to prepare and execute the delegate elections plan. This should also include necessary funds to wage an informational campaign on the elections.

The Elections Certification Board should be provided with legal and research assistance as required.

Background Information:

      The "Convention" refers to the convening of a constitutional convention for the purpose of creating organic documents related to the formation of a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity. Like the State of Hawai’i's Constitutional Convention which was convened in 1978, the Native Hawaiian Constitutional Convention will explore the various powers, immunities and rights which will be asserted by Native Hawaiians throughout the United States. Once the Elections are completed and the delegates have been certified by the Elections Certification Board, they will be ready to be seated at the Convention. Following the procedure utilized by the State of Hawai’i in its 1978 Constitutional Convention, the delegate receiving the largest number of votes is deemed to be the Interim President of the Convention. Once the body is convened, an election for a permanent chair can be undertaken.

Format of the Convention:

      It is likely the Convention will follow the format utilized by other indigenous aboriginal people who have attempted a similar task. Appropriate research will need to be conducted to determine this format. Generally, various subject matter committees will be established to determine what types of constitutional provisions will need to be established. In the case of Native Hawaiians, one of these committees might be Economic Development. Another might be Native Hawaiian Health. The number and membership of the various Committees should be determined by the elected delegates.

Pre-Convention Planning

      To avoid unnecessary delays in the convention, it is essential that pre-convention planning occur. This would include research on various governance models, government authorities, immunities, and powers. Further, training for the new delegates as to their role and responsibilities needs also to be conducted.

Recommendation:

1. Creation of a Convention Oversight Committee

The members of the Convention Oversight Committee (COC) should be appointed by the OHA Trustees and have the following duties and responsibilities:

1. Pre-Convention Planning

The COC should be responsible for assuring that convention facilities have been secured for the anticipated dates of the convention. They should also be responsible for developing a proposed convention budget which will ultimately be presented to the OHA Trustees. Pre-Convention publicity should be coordinated by the COC.

1. Based on the budget approved by the OHA Trustees, the COC should be responsible for all delegate travel, per diem and housing requirements for the duration of the convention.

1. The COC should also be responsible for identifying various legal and other resource requirements of the convention. This would include constitutional experts as well as various subject matter experts such as environmental and native rights, economic development, health, education, housing, and human service requirements of the community and the like.

1. The COC should be responsible for developing a Convention Planning Document which will outline the various pre-convention, convention, and post-convention requirements. This plan should also include a budget for the various phases. The document should also include a communications plan to assure that the community continues to be updated on the work of the Native Hawaiian Convention delegates. The business of the delegates should be conducted in a "transparent" manner and soliciting of public input should occur at every step of the way.

1. Working through the OHA Administration, committee members will keep the Trustee informed of progress and controversies relating to the Elections certification process.

1. The number of members on the Convention Oversight Committee is yet to be determined.

1. Other duties and responsibilities yet to be determined.

1. Use of Consultant Services

The Convention Oversight Committee should receive the authority and funding to hire consultants which may be necessary to prepare and execute the convention implementation plan. This should also include necessary funds to wage an informational campaign on the convention.

Background Information:

      The Ratification process speaks to the issue of having the Native Hawaiian Community ratify or approve the organic documents developed by the Native Hawaiian Convention delegates. Each organic article developed by the delegates to the Native Hawaiian Convention should be voted on separately. The voters should be given the opportunity to ratify or reject each of these articles. Key to a successful ratification process is education of the Native Hawaiian community as to the provisions of the organic documents. Given the fact that registered Hawaiians will reside in all parts of the United States, this task would be considered extremely sizable.

      A Ratification Oversight Committee should be established to assure that the ratification process is handled in a fair and efficient manner. They should be responsible for determining the choices which would be afforded to the community as it relates to the various organic articles, i.e., accept, reject, accept in part, or reject in part.

Recommendation:

1. Creation of a Ratification Oversight Committee

The members of the Ratification Oversight Committee (ROC) should be appointed by the OHA Trustees and have the following duties and responsibilities assigned to it:

1. Oversee the development of a Ratification Implementation Plan.  

This implementation plan should also include a budget for the cost of conducting the ratifying process. The plan should also include a public information component to assure that sufficient information is provided to the community as to the provisions of the organic documents.

1. Working with the Convention Oversight Committee, determine the appropriate timetable for all ratification-related activities. 

1. Working through the OHA Administration, keep the Trustees informed of progress and controversies relating to the Elections certification process.

1. The number of members of the Ratification Oversight Committee is yet to be determined.

1. Other duties and responsibilities are yet to be determined.

B.  Use of Consultant Services

The Ratification Oversight Committee should receive the authority and funding to hire consultants which may be necessary to prepare and execute the ratification implementation plan. This should also include necessary funds to wage an informational campaign on the organic documents.

Background Information:

      Once the organic documents have been ratified, the community will be ready to implement the provisions of those organic documents. For example, if one of those organic documents calls for the creation of an executive branch and a legislative branch, and an election of those leaders, an election must be held. Much of the implementation will depend on the availability of resources.

Recommendations:

1. Establish a Government Oversight and Implementation Committee (GOIC) with the concurrence of the delegates to the Native Hawaiian Convention. The GOIC should be assigned the following duties and responsibilities:

1. Provide oversight to the election and appointment process which will implement the provisions of the organic documents.

1. Provide liaison between the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the newly elected officers and representatives of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.

1. Assure a fair and transparent process for all activities related to the implementation of the provisions of the organic documents.

1. Other duties and responsibilities yet to be determined.

2. Membership in the GOIC should be determined by the OHA Trustees and the officers of the Native Hawaiian Convention.

3. Provide necessary resources to assist in the implementation of the provisions of the organic documents.

Discussions and Negotiations:

      The transition of resources and authority from the State of Hawai’i to the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity will rely on the willingness of all parties to participate. Outlined below are some of the issues and concepts which will need to be worked through.

      The Executive Branch, State of Hawai’i

      The Governor, as the Chief Executive of the State of Hawai’i, must be willing to accept the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity as a legitimate and credible body to which resources and authority may be delegated. Once the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity is in existence, it is envisioned that discussions with the Governor and her designated representatives will begin the discussion of how a transition of resources and authority may be executed. The goal would be to transfer all assets which are currently being managed by the State of Hawaiÿi pursuant to either State or Federal law and which are the subject of these negotiations.

      The Legislative Branch, State of Hawai’i

      Most of what will be the subject of negotiations will require amending State statutes and the State Constitution. It is important, therefore, that the legislative branch be an integral part of these discussions and negotiations. In the best of all worlds, a legislative package would be developed through negotiations between the Executive Branch and the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity. In order that this legislative package receive favorable review by the Legislature, a number of informational and educational briefings need to be conducted with key legislators.

      The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, State of Hawai’i

      During the discussion and negotiation phase, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and its Trustees have a significant role to play. Since the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity will have little or no resources to conduct its business, it is likely it will depend on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to provide interim resources to conduct essential business. The legal and political issues concerning OHA's ability to make such funding available will need to be addressed at the appropriate time.

Recommendations:

1. Establish an Interim Committee made up of OHA Trustees to work together with the Officers and Executives of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity. This Interim Committee should be selected by the Chair of the Board of Trustees and should have the following duties and responsibilities assigned to it:

1. Provide liaison between the Officers and Executives of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

1. Should provide recommendations to the Board of Trustees in terms of resource allocations which may be made to the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.

1. Perform other duties as required.

1. Establish a Transition Committee made up of Officers and Executives of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity, OHA Trustees, and OHA Administrative representatives. The following duties and responsibilities should be assigned to the Transition Committee:

1. Identify all statutes and other legal provisions which will require amendment or repeal to effectuate the provisions of the organic documents adopted by the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.

1. Identify short and long term resource requirements needed to operate the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.

1. Develop a short-term and long-term transition plan for transferring OHA and other State resources to the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.

3. Assure the passage of a joint resolution of the Hawai’i Legislature acknowledging the existence of a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.

Background Information:

      There are a number of State legal provisions which can be legislated without federal recognition. There may also be certain State and Federal statutes which will require the formal acknowledgment of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity. The decision to pursue final Federal Recognition of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity should be a decision made by the Executives and Officers of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity and the Governor of Hawai’i.

Recommendations:

      Note: These recommendations are offered with an understanding that the complete transition of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs resources may not yet have occurred when this action is taken or contemplated.

1. Identify resources to facilitate the passage of a federal measure which would acknowledge the existence of a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.

1. Liaison with the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity, the Governor, the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and members of Hawai’i's Congressional delegation.

            2006       2007          2008

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Registration

Kau Inoa

Note: Registration stops 2 weeks prior to Elections

-------------------------------------------------?

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

Convention

Convening, 6/11/2007

Adjourn: 9/14/2007

Elections

1/17/2007 Filing Deadline for Delegates

4/21/2007

Election of Delegates

Apportionment

8/1/06 to 11/15/06

                        -------------?    ----?    --? Ratification

                                                                                          9/15/07 to

                                                                                                12/15/07

Election Planning

7/15/06 to 1/17/07----------------------------------?

Convention Planning---------------------------------------------------------------------------?

7/15/06 to 6/11/07

Ratification Planning-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------?

7/15/06 to 12/15/07