Thanks again to Andrew Walden’s Hawaii Free Press for continuing to shine the light of public scrutiny on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
It seems that the majority of OHA’s Board of Trustees is unhappy about continued criticism by Trustee Kelii Akina of their delays in completing a forensic audit of the agency and its affiliated Limited Liability Corporations.
Akina issued a news release on Thursday, June 20, which the Hawaii Free Press published in full.
In the release, Akina identifies himself as the subject of disciplinary proceedings for violation of the OHA Trustee’s an unusual provision contained in the “Code of Conduct.”
Most of the code is a recitation of provisions of the state’s ethics laws and related prohibitions established by statute, but this provision stands out as something quite different.
Duty of Loyalty and Duty of Obedience and Support for Board Decisions.
Individual Trustees are able to express their opinions vigorously and openly during the decision-making process and may respectfully disagree with colleagues. However, once a decision has been reached and the board has taken official action, it is each member’s responsibility to support the decision. Similary, individual Trustees are expected to adhere to duly enacted Board Executive Policies and actions.
Akina responded in his news release.
According to the OHA Trustee Code of Conduct, Board members who disagree with Board decisions are prohibited from discussing their opposition in public. Otherwise, the Board could not “speak with one voice.” Such a prohibition is a violation of Trustee Akina’s freedom of speech as an elected official, and prevents him from serving constituents effectively.
Additionally, the closed-door executive session is in violation of Hawaii’s Sunshine Law, because it would conceal this matter from OHA beneficiaries and other interested parties. Therefore, Trustee Akina requested that the discussion take place in open session.
“I have demanded that any allegations against me be discussed in full view of the public,” Trustee Akina said. “I welcome the opportunity to defend my actions on behalf of OHA beneficiaries and state taxpayers.”
In addition to fighting for a thorough and timely forensic audit, Trustee Akina has spotlighted OHA’s use of trustee slush funds and wholly owned LLCs used by OHA to circumvent the state Sunshine Law and Procurement Code.
Other OHA board members have also faulted Trustee Akina for pointing out that OHA is a state agency rather than a sovereign body that can make its own rules, such as imposing a duty on dissenters to stay quiet.
The Hawaii Free Press includes helpful links, including a letter to the OHA board’s attorney the lawyer representing Akina, and a copy of the relevant board policies and documents.
In this fight, I think Akina is definitely in the right, and the OHA trustees are again embarrassing themselves by failing to understand that the public has right to openness and accountability guaranteed by law and by the State Constitution. That’s what the state’s sunshine law is all about. Attempts to quash dissenting views and, more importantly, the underlying policy issues underlying the dissent, run counter to the public interest and the interest of OHA’s Hawaiian beneficiaries.
See:
Hawaii Free Press, “OHA majority targets Trustee Akina.”
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, “Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Keli‘i Akina is target of complaints.”
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are “Hawaiian beneficiaries”?
I always thought OHA was just a closed treehouse club where the members also get nice allowances.
OHA’s Waimea Valley Land giveaway by LLC title transfer of beneficiary holdings, secreted away in a shelter, subject to silent transfer by an LLC’s sole designated agent opportunity is a criminal act waiting to happen and should be treated as such.
if one group is wrong, does it mean the others are right? accountability sorely needed at OHA. but akina and walden are both from grassroot institute and i’d have a hard time saying they are right, or even ethical…
Nancy – I think most folks have an easy time saying Akina and Walden are right.
OHA needs to stand up and be accounted for. Are the Hawaiian people really able to lead a sovereignty movement when this is the kind of leadership style that is more of the same we already have in local government: self-gratuity over stewardship.
If a vote were held today, OHA would be abolished.
It was a nice idea backed by good intentions that went horribly wrong.
The right wingers smell blood and OHA is sloppily scrambling to cover their okoles. Hopefully Akina and Walden don’t go overboard and destroy the beneficial programs that OHA provides. Behind his plastic smile, Akina’s rhetoric has a dark Trumpist undercurrent pushing for tearing apart programs that benefit Hawaiians.
OHA: It seemed like a good idea at the time.
The “dark undercurrent.” Sure. Long before there was a Trump and long after there is no Trump – the “dark undercurrent” will remain. Maybe they will even be called what they are: Hawaiian undercurrents and conflicts.
OHA was formed by the 1978 ConCon, two years after the epic Hokulea voyage, a heady time, with dreams even in the mainstream that OHA would evolve into a nation-within-a-nation. In creating OHA, however, idealistic politicians and activists unwittingly gave them enough rope to hang themselves. OHA is like Pinocchio wanting to be a little boy but ending up a donkey.