For a number of months now there has been considerable public criticism of the way in which the Office of Hawaii Affairs is conducting its business. I would like to address some of them.

» The most recent charge is that OHA did nothing to arouse public opinion against state Attorney General Mark Bennett's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the state's appeal from the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision enjoining the state from transferring public lands until it has resolved its dispute with Native Hawaiians over ownership of those lands. The critics assert that OHA should have done more to convince Gov. Linda Lingle and Bennett that filing the petition was unwarranted. The charge is ridiculous.

OHA was not forewarned of Bennett's intent, and I doubt that he would have been deterred by us or anyone. Bennett had a duty to file the petition. The state court opinion could have tied up the state's ability to manage its lands for years, indeed for generations. That's how long it might take to resolve the self-determination issue. Bennett would have been derelict if he had not acted. I know Mark Bennett. He would not have been dissuaded by protests from OHA or the public.

Nevertheless, we believe the Hawaii decision is correct and will vigorously defend it in the U.S. Supreme Court.

» OHA trustees also have been unfairly charged with acting with a lack of transparency: that the beneficiaries are not kept informed about what OHA is doing. OHA's meeting agendas are publicly posted as required by law and are shown on OHA's Web site. Everyone is welcome, and the agenda even has a segment for public comment and community concerns. Moreover, OHA publishes a monthly newspaper describing its activities.

The nontransparency assertion gained considerable impetus during the legislative hearings on the proposed settlement of OHA's claim against the state for unpaid rent on ceded lands. Critics charge that OHA should have consulted with the beneficiaries and got their input before reaching an agreement with the state administration.

The negotiation process was arduous, detailed and, at times, quite contentious. It was a negotiating process like any other, involving differing views on the overdue amount and the value of any land that OHA might want to obtain. To discuss those matters with the beneficiaries before agreement would have been impossible. I agree that there should be more direct communication with OHA's beneficiaries, but that simply cannot be done on every issue.

» Criticism of the monies spent on lobbying for the Akaka Bill are simply misguided and stem mostly from those beneficiaries who are opposed to the bill and who seek complete independence from the United States. Aside from the matter of determining the form of a restored Hawaiian government, the Akaka Bill will provide protection against any move in Congress to strip benefits to Native Hawaiians provided in such legislation as the Native American Education Act. Those benefits are extremely tenuous and depend on the strength of our congressional delegation. The Akaka Bill will provide protection from that danger. It is also pure rhetoric to say that our lobbyists were ineffective. They inform us regularly on the status of the support for or opposition to the legislation.

OHA has admittedly spent considerable money on the Kau Inoa program, the registration of Native Hawaiians (in Hawaii and abroad) who will be a part of the new Hawaiian nation and receive benefits provided by the new government. I find the attack on the program rather amusing. For years, Native Hawaiians have complained that the U.S. Census has not adequately reported numbers and locations of Native Hawaiians. Kau Inoa is trying to do just that, nothing more. The information is essential to OHA's mission: the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians. At the time when the information is useful in re-establishing the nation, we will have it.

Lighten up!