As expected, that proposed between Gov. Linda Lingle and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs over ceded land claims has generated a big old mess of confusion and concern at the Legislature, which has the obligation to approve, disapprove or amend the proposal.

As Gordon Pang reports, some think the offer is too rich, others think it is not enough and others think it has to be tied to some kind of permanent, for evermore bar against any future lawsuits by OHA against the state on this matter.

These are all fair points. But in working this out, it is instructive to go back to the admissions act which gave control of ceded lands to the state and, in the same law, told the state what it could do with those lands and revenue from them.

The Act offers five potential uses for income from ceded lands, including schools, agriculture, the betterment of Hawaiians and other generally public purposes. But it does not say that each of the five potential uses must be funded, nor is there anything about a proportional division of the money.

In fact, the idea of giving OHA 20 percent of the income (five uses equals 20 percent for each) was a somewhat arbitrary compromise decision by the Legislature.

The actual federal law says the state can use any or all of the income from those lands “for one or more” of the five purposes, not necessarily all of them. Until OHA came along, that was generally education.

So, as this debate goes forward, its important to keep clear what the underlying legal groundwork is.

There are many good reasons to work toward the “betterment” of Hawaiians as the law says, but its important to maintain clarity of where all this comes from.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 27th, 2008 at 7:27 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.