Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Saturday, March 4, 2000
Court should decide
OHA trustees’ fateTHE controversy over the status of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees that was ignited by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Rice vs. Cayetano has been defused, at least for the moment, by the decision to take the question to the Hawaii Supreme Court.The issue: Governor Cayetano and the OHA trustees have agreed to take the question of the trustees' status to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
Governor Cayetano, who announced shortly after the ruling was handed down that he intended to appoint eight new trustees, reached agreement with OHA Chairman Clayton Hee on this course of action.
Hee deserves credit for injecting a tone of calm reasonableness into what had been a highly emotional situation. His friendship with Cayetano was undoubtedly helpful.
This is a sensible way to proceed, certainly preferable to the defiance exhibited by the eight trustees initially. The ninth, Donald Cataluna, had been appointed by Cayetano and was not affected by the high court's decision, which threw out the Hawaiians-only voting restriction in OHA elections.
The eight trustees should have resigned as soon as the Supreme Court ruled, because their elections were effectively nullified. Instead, they insist on claiming a right to seats they won in elections that have been declared unconstitutional. Their position is untenable. If they attempt to make decisions for OHA, the validity of their actions can be challenged.
The governor doesn't appear to have the power to remove the trustees from office -- he assumed that the seats were vacated by the Supreme Court decision -- but probably has the authority to fill vacancies on the board, as he has been forced to do in the past when the trustees failed to agree among themselves.
A decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court should end this dispute. However, it would be unfortunate if the court permitted the trustees to continue in office in the face of the Rice vs. Cayetano decision.
This question has nothing to do with the merits of that decision, about which there is strong disagreement, or with claims that Cayetano is trying to seize control of OHA. It is a matter of respect for law, in this instance a decision by the nation's highest court.
The attempt by the trustees to cling to office in the face of that decision is an unfortunate sideshow distracting attention from the more serious issue of Hawaiian sovereignty. The community can only gain by putting the OHA trustee issue to rest as quickly as possible and moving on to more substantive questions.
Fund-raiser conviction
is damaging for GoreAL Gore's presidential campaign could be damaged by the conviction of one of the vice president's fund-raisers for her role in arranging more than $100,000 in illegal donations to the Democratic Party and its candidates.
The Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996 has been tarnished by the disclosure of numerous campaign law violations, which have resulted in charges against 22 people. Seventeen of them have pleaded guilty.
But the latest person convicted, Maria Hsia, has special connections to Gore. Of the total amount of illegal donations in this case, $55,000 was contributed to the Democratic National Committee in connection with the vice president's much-criticized visit to a Buddhist temple in the Los Angeles area.
The event has become a target for Gore's opponents as a way of reminding voters of the 1996 campaign finance scandal. Gore's name was mentioned during the trial and jurors were shown a videotape of his visit to the temple.
Justice Department prosecutors charged that Hsia had arranged for nuns and monks at the temple to write checks to make it appear that they were the donors to the Democratic National Committee. In fact, they were reimbursed by the temple, which could not legally make contributions itself.
In other cases brought against Hsia, witnesses testified that she had helped them find straw donors for their contributions to the Clinton-Gore re-election committee in order to evade the $1,000 limit on donations.
The vice president's insincere comments on the Buddhist temple incident have added to the damage. Gore initially described his visit as "community outreach," but he later acknowledged that he knew the visit was "finance-related."
Former Sen. Bill Bradley, Gore's opponent for the Democratic nomination, has repeatedly said that Gore will be vulnerable in the general election because of his record on fund raising.
The Buddhist temple incident symbolizes that record. Maria Hsia's conviction is an embarrassing reminder of that incident at the height of the presidential primary season.
Bradley is probably too weak to make much progress against Gore on the basis of the Hsia case, but if Gore wins the Democratic nomination it will be grist for the mill of his Republican opponent.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
