Couple things, the Senate bill that Mele's office worker said was killed is not true. The word we got is that the Senate bill will go to conference, and at THAT time is when the Bill should be killed. Maybe the worker meant that they were going to kill it at conference? None-the-less Na Kupuna should oppose the bill in writing and ask Mele to kill it. People, you gotta do this, call a meeting with the Kupuna and explain to them how the settlement is not good for us.

PLEASE PASS THE WORD OUT TO ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY THAT WE CAN. THE HEARING MAY BE ON FRIDAY AT THE EARLIEST NEXT WEDNESDAY AT THE LATEST. TESTIMONIES ARE KEY AT THIS TIME.

Urgent SB2733 SD2 & HB266 HD2 (Ceded Lands Settlement Agreement) may be heard anytime between Friday (March 14) to Wednesday (March 19). Your Testimony in Opposition is needed to stop the passage of SB2733 SD2 & HB266 HD2. Future Hawaiian generations are counting on you. Here are several reasons why Hawaiians Should Oppose the Ceded Land Settlement Agreement. Feel free to include these reasons in your testimony. Another individual brilliantly authored these reasons and were included in her testimony.

An example testimony is below these Eight Reasons for your usage, as well. Feel free to cut and paste this example Testimony in Opposition to SB2733 SD2 & HB266 HD2 into an email (make sure to place your name, address, and phone number) and send to:  reps@capitol.hawaii.gov, sens@capitol.hawaii.gov, sentokuda@capitol.hawaii.gov, senhee@capitol.hawaii.gov, sentaniguchi@capitol.hawaii.gov, senbaker@capitol.hawaii.gov, repito@capitol.hawaii.gov, repwaters@capitol.hawaii.gov, repmoshiro@capitol.hawaii.gov

Eight Reasons Why Hawaiians Should Oppose the Ceded Lands Settlement:

1. The Settlement dispossesses Hawaiians of our Ceded Lands trust assets. OHA has negotiated a small package of land and revenue for itself and has agreed to relinquish all claims of our peoples to 1.8 million acres of land, the submerged lands, energy resources, biodiversity and surface and subsurface natural resources.

2. The settlement is supposed to resolve claims to "the portion of income and proceeds from the lands of the public trust for use by OHA" Settlement Agreement (SA), pg. 1 of 9 from 1978 - 2008. In return for the settlement, OHA waives or gives up, not only claims to the income from 1978 - 2008, but...any other tangible right, item or benefit from the public land trust..." (SA, pg. 2 of 9). OHA is giving up these rights not only for OHA, but for "any other person or entity."

3. OHA's waiver of claims is res judicata for all Hawaiians, their organizations and nation - this means that we will never be able to sue the state or OHA for our trust lands, revenues or other rights including an accounting and inventory of our trust assets. This language is so broad and sweeping that Hawaiians will lose rights not related to the OHA 20% pro rata debate. Other rights that Hawaiians claim to the public trust include HRS 7-1 rights (access and gathering), rights to worship at heiau on 5(f) lands, genetic resources, etc. These rights will now be ignored by the State.

4. Under Hawaiian law OHA is entitled to 20% of the Ceded Land revenues. There is no relation between the 20% figure and the 15 million dollar figure. The figure appears to be an arbitrary amount. In addition, the legislative bill deletes all statutory language relating to the Hawaiians share (20%) of revenues. This theft of revenue from Hawaiians is based on the claim of OHA that the courts overruling of Act 304 also overruled the OHA 20% share of proceeds. This is false - in January, 2008, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled in OHA vs. HCDH that the State cannot dispose of Ceded Lands trust assets without resolving native claims - the court cited the Apology Bill, the DOI (Department of Interior) Mauka to Makai report and OHA's claims for 20% (see pg. 6 of the Opinion).

5. For several weeks Hawaiians have requested that OHA provide the valuation reports and other documents (Phase 1 & 2 Real Estate reports) on the status of the lands, and valuation figures and formulas used in the settlement. These data have not been provided to the legislature or native beneficiaries.

6. There is evidence that the Kalaeloa land is contaminated and toxic. The settlement demonstrates that the parties know of this problem but that OHA has agreed to accept the land, pay trust assets to conduct an environmental due diligence effort and then return the land or get a 25% credit once the toxicity is proven. Why is OHA taking toxic land?

7. Under this measure Hawaiians will not be able to sue OHA for accountability. OHA has waived our right to sue the state and all of its agencies, including themselves. The Legislature should take note that the Hawaiian peoples have been excluded from the legislative and legal discussions relating to this measure. Legislative hearings will be over before the "informational sessions" which the Senate forced on OHA are completed. The negotiations took place in secret, the valuations reports and data regarding the figures have been withheld. OHA is soliciting letters of support from its grantees, not its beneficiaries. Finally, the OHA video pushing the settlement features Aunty Gladys Brandt calling for unity and justice. This manipulation is intended to dupe Hawaiians into believing that Aunty Gladys supported this travesty - in reality, she died years before this shameful settlement was conceived by the current OHA trustees (Rowena Akana excluded).

8. The settlement is fatally flawed:
   1. The waiver language and the provisions relating to res judicata should be deleted from the measure;
   2. A reservation clause should be added that states that all claims of Native Hawaiians against the state relating to the Ceded lands trust are reserved and that the scope of the settlement is only for claims relating to revenues owed to OHA from 1978 - 2008;
      • Hawaiians do not need to reserve claims against the US as the settlement does not involve the US or federal claims.
      • Hawaiians know who owns the Ceded Lands - it belongs to the public and the Native Hawaiians under the Admissions Act.
   3. All references to a prospective figure for OHA revenue share (15 million) should also be deleted until OHA and the Governor can justify the figure. We are entitled to 20% of the 5(f) revenues;
   4. Any prospective agreement should be subject to reopening and recalculation every 5 years in order to ensure that Hawaiians benefit from the increase in value, revenue and proceeds of the public land trust.

Example Testimony

The Senate & House
Twenty-Fourth Legislature
Regular Session of 2008
State of Hawai'i


March 10, 2008


To Senate Committees:
Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs, Chair Jill N. Tokuda
Water and Land, Chair Clayton Hee
Judiciary and Labor, Chair Brian T. Taniguchi
Ways and Means, Chair Rosalyn Baker

To House Committees:
Water, Land, Ocean, Resources, and Hawaiian Affairs, Chair Ken Ito
Judiciary, Chair Tommy Waters
Finance, Chair Marcus Oshiro

Subject: Testimony in Opposition to SB 2733 SD2 & HB266 HD2 (Public Trust Lands Settlement)

It is not acceptable that an agreement between the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the State Administration, pertaining to the Ceded Lands was crafted in secrecy from the legislature or from the community at-large, particularly Hawaiian beneficiaries. Because the administration and OHA reached the settlement in this manner without discussion or input from the beneficiaries or their representatives, I humbly submit my testimony in opposition to SB 2733 SB2 and HB266 HD2. I further oppose SB 2733 and HB266 HD2, because beneficiary consultation and an audit of the Ceded Lands gross revenues were not appropriately completed.

Sincerely,

Name
Address
Phone Number