Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Thursday, September 7, 2000OHA trustees’ plan
should be rejectedThe issue: Five Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees whose terms are to expire in 2002 have proposed standing for election this year because of a constitutional challenge to the election that brought them to office.
IN an attempt to avoid being replaced by gubernatorial appointees, five Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees are proposing to stand for election to complete terms that have been cut short by the fallout from the Rice vs. Cayetano decision. The proposal comes only days after the state Supreme Court set rules for the transition to an OHA board elected under constitutionally acceptable standards. The trustees' effort to remain in office would violate those rules and should be rejected.
The status of eight of the nine OHA trustees was brought into question after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Rice decision that Hawaiians-only elections were racially discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. (One trustee was appointed by Governor Cayetano to fill a vacancy.) The state Supreme Court ruled last week that the eight elected trustees could retain their positions until the Cayetano administration petitioned for their removal.
Four of the trustees, including the single appointee, are up for election this November. Terms of the five other trustees were to expire in 2002, but a successful challenge by Cayetano would lead to their ouster and allow the governor to appoint replacements for the remainder of their terms.
The trustees' proposal for all nine of them to stand for election this November -- five for terms ending in 2002 -- would forestall those appointments. The filing deadline for the upcoming election is tomorrow.
State law provides that OHA trustee vacancies occurring more than 60 days before an election may be filled through that election. Vacancies occurring closer to the election date are to be filled by selections made within 60 days by two-thirds of the remaining trustees. However, in this situation the OHA board would lack the quorum needed to make such a decision.
OHA Chairman Clayton Hee said the trustees' proposal was the "honorable" thing to do. The honorable thing would have been to resign after the Rice vs. Cayetano decision was handed down last February.
The proposal may be described more accurately as an 11th-hour desperation scramble by the trustees facing removal to remain in office through an election with scant time for opposition to materialize. The course prescribed by the state Supreme Court for removal of the trustees should proceed.
Fishing pact could
conserve tuna stocks
IN the recent legal dispute involving Hawaii longline fishermen and protection of endangered sea turtles, it was pointed out that the local fishing fleet represents a small fraction of the longline fishing being done in the mid-Pacific. Consequently the restrictions imposed by a federal judge on the local longliners could have only a minimal effect in protecting those species.
Only an internationally accepted standard could really protect the turtles, and there is none. In the same vein but perhaps even more important, there is a need for an international program to ensure conservation and sustainable use of migratory fish stocks such as tuna. The Pacific region produces about two-thirds of the world tuna catch, with an annual value of $1.5 billion to $2 billion.
A step toward the establishment of such a program was taken in a conference here this week. Representatives of 24 nations plus other Pacific territories and fishing industry groups had been negotiating for five years in seven sessions.
The pact calls for establishment of an international fishery commission to protect stocks of tuna and other migratory species. The commission will establish fishing quotas in a prescribed management area, lying mostly west of Hawaii. The commission is also supposed to place observers on the boats of major fishing fleets and regulate transshipment of fish at sea.
Nineteen nations voted for the agreement, but two of the most active fishing nations, Japan and South Korea, voted against a preliminary document and China, France and Tonga abstained. Korea later changed its position and signed the final document.
Japan objected that the convention did not provide the right to opt out of majority-approved regulations. It also criticized the proposed northern boundary of the management area, the observer program and the procedure for dispute settlement. Tonga complained that only three nations could veto any measure.
The convention will take effect when it is approved by three nations situated north of 20 degrees north latitude and seven nations south of that latitude. Most of the fishing is done in the southern area although most of the major fishing nations are in the north.
Conference chairman Satya Nandan of Fiji said the agreement "reflects a fair balance of interests" between the Pacific island nations with large tuna stocks in their economic zones and the main fishing nations.
It is too early to gauge the probable effectiveness of the agreement, but the need to preserve migratory fish stocks is real and the only way to achieve that is through international cooperation. If it wins the support of the major fishing nations, this pact could lead the way to attaining that cooperation.
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
