Editor’s note: Haunani Apoliona is a candidate for trustee-at-large in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Her opponent is Keli’i Akina. This commentary is a response to a Community Voice in which he criticized her practices as an incumbent OHA trustee.

Keli’i Akina is way off the mark in his misleading commentary on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ reaction to the U.S. Department of Interior’s recent announcement regarding a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

As the executive director of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, my opponent has joined with his organization’s major investors to champion highly inflammatory information designed to undermine Native Hawaiians and OHA.

Despite being Native Hawaiian, he is choosing to be used by political forces to hinder the growing strength of the Native Hawaiian community, which is focused on regaining a voice in building and shaping its future well-being.

It is obvious from his alarmist commentary that he has not been paying attention to OHA’s meaningful contributions over the years to empower Native Hawaiians and strengthen Hawaii. He ignores “Ka ʻŌlelo A Ka Luna Hoʻomalu,” published in 2010 to mark 30 years of OHA’s successful accomplishments on behalf of Native Hawaiians. 

Additionally, had he been paying attention to comparable accomplishments in policy, programs, and governance, he would know that OHA has given out more than $34 million in low-interest loans to nearly 2,000 Hawaiian consumers, who have borrowed the money to start businesses, improve homes, consolidate debts and continue their education.

He would also know OHA provides more than $14 million in grants and sponsorships annually to community-based organizations that advance our strategic efforts to improve the conditions of Native Hawaiians. 

In addition, he would know that OHA awards an estimated $500,000 in scholarship money annually to about 300 Native Hawaiian students. At the same time, he would know that OHA has committed $90 million over 30 years to help the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands facilitate affordable housing for our people.

Above all, he would know that his commentary completely ignores a 2008 federal court ruling, which explained that OHA trustees are reasonably exercising their fiduciary judgment when they expend trust funds in support of the Akaka Bill, and that such action is consistent with the requirement that trust funds be used for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians. 

His commentary also ignores a 2010 federal appeals court opinion that recognized under the Akaka Bill, lands, resources and assets could be transferred to a Native Hawaiian government.

In other words, the courts recognize that Native Hawaiian self-governance is important to addressing issues important to Native Hawaiians.

Finally, my opponent finds fault in my response to a Civil Beat questionnaire in July, when I offered perspective on adherence to OHA “board majority decision,” which should rightfully stand as policy when properly enacted. Perhaps my opponent would undermine board and parliamentary rules if unsuitable to him.

He also insinuates that refining “existing strategies consistent with additional input from the majority of Native Hawaiians” is questionable or, as he puts it, “speaking with forked tongues.”

Obviously, he fails to understand the essence of “ʻoiaʻiʻo and ʻōlelo pono.”

My demonstrated commitment to Native Hawaiians, along with my 35-plus years of service to Native Hawaiians, helps me to see beneath the surface of complex issues facing OHA. 

I will continue to advocate for lawful policies that help Native Hawaiians, which is simply what my opponent apparently does not know that we do, as trustees.