 Aloha. Welcome to Talk Story with John Whitehead. Today we have a very, very interesting show for you. It's actually a matter that's been in the courts for some time, and it relates to the Hawaiian Homes program. Now, when my very, very first show, I had the honor actually the opportunity to actually interview Moses Hire. Moses Hire was the director, or is the director, of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation. And what the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation had done was through the state of Hawaii were not fulfilling its constitutional mandate. What is that all about? Well, we're going to find out this coming Thursday when the Supreme Court takes up the case. Here's a little history of the case. It actually began as a lawsuit to enforce the mandate in our Hawaii state constitution that requires that the state fund the administrative and operational costs of the Hawaiian Homes program. It went before the courts, including the Supreme Court on that issue. And the Supreme Court, the lower court, and the Supreme Court both upheld the mandate and said that the state of Hawaii was in, was breaching its duty because it had failed to provide funding for the Hawaiian Homes program. The issue then became how much funding? What was that? What does that mean? And it went back to the lower court to decide that issue. The result of the lower court's trial was that it held, the judge held, that a minimum of $28 million a year was necessary to meet that federal, that constitutional mandate. This Thursday, that matter is up in appeal. What happened was that the Hawaii state legislature appealed that decision on the basis, was one of the appeal parents of that decision, on the basis that it violated the state separation of doctrine rule. And what that means is that usually a legislature is there for appropriating money, the executive implements program, and then you have the situation where the court decides whether all of that is, I guess, the kosher, unquote. The legislature is challenging whether the trial court's decision violated that separation of powers. The people, the Hawaiian Homes plaintiffs, or I should say, yeah, plaintiffs, are challenging that position by saying this is a constitutional mandate and a constitutional mandate trumps any kind, to use a phrase, trumps any kind of separation of powers. This is the background to today's this program. I apologize for its length, but this important issue will be before the Hawaii Supreme Court in just a few days. Now, my guest today is the Deputy Director of the Hawaiian Homes program, Mr. William Isla. And I thought it would be very interesting to discuss with him how we got to where we are. So, Bill, are you joining us? I'm here, Governor. Okay. So, Bill, unfortunately, there you are. At least I get to see you smiling. Great late. But anyway, Bill is actually out in Waianae working. So, this is an example of modern technological magic. Bill, thank you. Thank you for agreeing to do this show. You know, let's start from the beginning. The Hawaiian Homes program was established through the efforts of Prince Kohio approximately, oh, I don't know, over 100 years ago in 1920. Yeah, no, not quite 100 years ago. I believe Prince Kohio and the folks who assisted him actually began prior to the 1920 laying the groundwork for what would become the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. Fantastic. What is the act and what was it supposed to do? Well, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, as passed by Congress, has four purposes. One is for the creation of lots for residential agricultural and pastoral leases. The second is to make monies available for loans for those lots that were awarded. The third, I guess, the third purpose of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is the rehabilitation of native Hawaiians. And then, of course, the fourth purpose is what we're going to discuss today is the administrative and operating costs to run the program. Okay, let me, you know, 1920 was just about 20 years after the United States took over Hawaii. And if I remember correctly, Prince Kohio was very concerned that his people may be dying out in their own land and may not even have the means to keep up with the changes that were happening here. Is that pretty much what the program was established to do? It was. It was to get people back on the land because the Prince Kohio was observing the native Hawaiians that were removed from access to ancestral lands were heading to the urban centers of each island, becoming part of the tenements that were evolving and succumbing to, you know, early... What you're talking about is like little slump, right? They were moving in. Alienated from their land. Off of the Aina, which, you know, they're closely related to, into basically the ghettos of the time and suffering from diseases. So the idea was to put native Hawaiians back on the land that they have a bond with. Well, you know, so that was the laudable purpose. Now, how successful was Kohio in getting lands for these fellow people? I think he was very successful. He got Congress to set aside about 203,000 acres. Some of it is very, very good land. Others, not so good land, but at least it forms the corpus of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands trust that we have. Well, so they're good lands and they are not so good land, right? So let's take the time period between 1920 to 1958 when we became a state. Essentially, the program was administered by the Den territorial government, which really was an extension of the federal government in Washington. Was it not? That is correct. And unfortunately, the territorial government did not receive a lot of financial aid from the federal government. And the department at that time or the precursor of the department at that time had to rely upon the revenues from land that the department leads to other folks. So there wasn't a lot of money available to do lot preparation loans and for rehabilitative projects. So we just discussed a little earlier that they were good lands and some not so good land to put it like. So it would seem to me that in order to generate income, you start leasing the good land. Is that pretty much? I mean, this is a little simplistic, but would you say overall I was correct with that? I would say you're correct, Governor, with a little caveat. So the Hawaiian Homelands Commission Act also required that any lands that were still being leased could continue to be leased until the end of the term of the lease. So much of the good man, which was leased to Parker Ranch and Sugar Plantations at that time, continued to be held in the less seized hands and were not available for homesteading until those leases expired. So these lands that the best lands in a sense that were already being used by somebody else had their leases protected. So not only did you have to lease good lands to raise revenues, you also inherited probably leases that didn't pay all that well of the best lands. Would that be a correct analysis of what you just told me? That would be an accurate statement, Governor. Well, I tell you, and that brings us to statehood. And so there is in Hawaii now, with the passage of statehood, an opportunity for the local government to run the program. Let's see if they did any better than the Fed, which brings us to today's conversation. I think at this point, we're going to take a short break, and we'll be right back. For those of you that want to call in, the number is 415-871-2474. I'm Tim Apochella, host for Moving Hawaii Forward, a show dedicated to transportation issues and traffic. We identify those areas where we do have problems in the state, but also the show is dedicated to trying to find solutions, not just detail our problems. So join me every other Tuesday on Moving Hawaii Forward. I'm Tim Apochella. Welcome back to Talk Story with John Wahey. Our guest today is Mr. William Isla, who is the deputy director of the Hawaiian Homes program. We are discussing a little bit of the background that lead us to a Supreme Court case, which will be decided in this coming Thursday. Bill, this is today, and I don't normally do this, you know, identify dates when we have these programs, but today is the day before the Fourth of July. And I thought it might be beneficial for people to know that our statehood in 1959 was in a sense conditioned on the local government, the state government, agreeing to undertake the fiduciary responsibility for the Hawaiian Homes program. Is that correct? That is, that is, that is correct. It is a condition of statehood and and laid out in the admissions act. That is pretty much, you know, if we, it was pretty much, you know, you want to be a state which many, many people in Hawaii obviously wanted to be, you needed to take on this special obligation. I don't think, does anyone dispute that? I have not heard one person say that that's not in dispute. So that's pretty much settled. Now, we now come to the state government taking over the program. And the specific issue in mind is the funding of administrative and operational costs to run the program, much less, you know, everything else that needed to be done. So let's begin with the obvious question. Did the state pick up the responsibility that they, that they agree to as a condition of their statehood? Did the government of Hawaii do that? I think the short answer is the department certainly does not agree. And then you have the plaintiffs with Dickey Nelson leading this current court case referred to as the Nelson case. Right, which is the case that's before the Supreme Court. I guess it's called Nelson too. Where? Yes, yes. We're here today because the state, because the state of Hawaii when it became a state and assumed responsibilities for the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act has not fulfilled its duties. So again, you were paying, how was the department surviving? The department continued until very recently. I think when Governor Abercrombie and later Governor E. Gay started to put in the budget some general funds to pay for part of the administrative and operating costs, but not up to the amount that was decided upon by Judge Caspinetti. Okay, I want to take the $28 million that you referred to. Right. So now we have 1959, state takes over the administration of the program, doesn't really support it. And let's go from 1959 to 1978. There's another milestone with the Constitutional Convention in 1978. But what happens is that the state takes over the program and doesn't really fund it. Would you say that's a fair statement? That is a fair statement. Okay. Now, did they do that with any other department? Was there any other department in the state government where the government didn't fund it and told it and told them you go out there and raise your own money? No. And in fact, no other state agency is mandated or highlighted in the Constitution or in the Admissions Act. So the condition of our state? We're the only one with that relationship and not being funded appropriately. And so they don't fund the program, essentially. And as a result, was the department able to put a lot of people in house lots? What happened for those years, leading up to 1979? If you have any idea, I think we'd appreciate hearing. Well, I think that the people in the department at the time did the best that they could, given the limited resources that they had. But as a result, there was not a lot of lots or a lot of homes being issued to people on the wait list. And as such, many folks are still waiting for their opportunities. You know, we are now getting, I hate to confess, because it makes me a little more senior. But I will. The 70s were sort of my era, leading up to when I was, you know, getting active and participating in things. And I distinctly remember in 1974, a group called the Hawaiian went up to Waimea on the big island and staged a protest against all the lands that Parker Ranch had. And these were essentially people who were on the waiting list. One of the most famous leaders of it was Mr. Uncle Sonny Kaniho, Joe Pastel. Well, you know, these are people, all of that format in the 1970s was based on the fact that this not enough lots were getting out. Were you at all aware of all of these things that were happening back then? Unfortunately, it was a combination of not having resources to put the lots in the hands of our beneficiaries and at the same time, you know, relying on the revenue from those leases to run the department. So it was a very, very tough catch 22 situation to be in. You know, I was, I was a member of the 1978 Constitutional Convention. And I remember prior to the convention, the home Hawaiian Homes director was this wonderful woman, Georgina Paddock. And Georgina seemed to spend all her time trying to do something to increase the economic viability of the Hawaiian Homes program. And and but all of the money she raised was actually going to pay it just for the staff. It wasn't being raised, which was her dream was to raise enough to, you know, sponsor programs, things like that. How much of that has actually changed? Not much. We have received some administrative general funding to pay for existing staff. And the legislature has actually appropriated additional positions, but we're we're in a process of filling those positions so that we can respond to the many questions that come from our beneficiaries. In terms of, you know, what's required for a lease? How do you pass it down? The Department of Hawaiian Homelands does more than just issue leases. It basically runs a probate system when a lease is passed from one person to another. Right. It runs a recordation system. So there are many other functions that the Department is in need of these additional administrative and operating costs so that all of the revenue from the land leases and rents can then go into lot preparation. So you have to prepare lots. You have to do economic development. And you it's not simply a question of handing out leases. I mean, you've got to do genealogy check. I mean, there's a ton of things that the Department is required to do. And it remains for a long time. I was going to say, Governor, in addition, one that, you know, most people don't realize is we run four water systems. So just look at the Moloka'i Hualahua water system. Right. One on Moloka'i. And so, you know, we basically run the equivalent of a county system. And that comes from the receipts and the trust funds because the current administration has decided that those costs do not count as administrative and operating costs. Wow. Okay. Well, I'll tell you in what we had in 1978 was that as one of the delegates there, we went to the convention and we knew, and we talked to the Georgianopatikin and others, and we came out with this mandate that sufficient funds had to be appropriated to the Department of Hawaiian Hualahua. That created the basis for this Nelson case. The idea was after messing up for, at that time, 78 years, surely there was a need to mandate that these things be done. So it's a constitutional requirement in Hawaii for us to fund the Hawaiian Homes program. Isn't that correct? Yes, correct. And the committee and eventually the convention delegates and then ratified through a vote by all of the voters in Hawaii agreed to change the May, the word May, fund to Shao. And that was a conscious effort to get the legislature and the administration to pay the administrative and operating costs of the department. So that the other funds would be available. So that funds would be available to actually put people on the land. So what we had is then, it seemed to me the one department that never got support, all of a sudden was mandated. It was required to be funded. Now the Hawaiian Homes program, so let's review this. Hawaiian Homes program is the basis was the necessary from Coheel's idea of rehabilitating people. It was never funded. And when we became a state, it was actually a requirement of our state. And in 1978, we are our constitution passed by the people required them to do that. So here we are today. And on Thursday, Bill, we are going to find out whether the constitution of Hawaii, Hawaii's constitution and its obligation is actually very effective. You know, we're just out of time. I thank you. And I want to thank you so much for helping me put the issues into perspective. Bill, I know that this is the important day you are working in Waianae. And I truly want to thank you for being here today. Thank you. Thank you, Governor, for helping us get out the word. Thank you. And aloha, everyone, for this. Thank you.