by Andrew Walden
Desperately seeking to avoid Rice v Cayetano, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs claims that Nai Aupuni--its contractor for the latest attempt to invent a Hawaiian Indian tribe out of thin air--is a "separate, independent entity."
Nai Aupuni's recently published bylaws say otherwise:
Section 1.3 Formation Background.
By Action Item dated March 6, 2014, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) authorized and approved the use of the Funds to enable Native Hawaiians to participate in a process through which a structure for a governing entity may be determined by the collective will of the Native Hawaiian people by transmitting the Funds to an entity that is independent of OHA and any apparatus of the State of Hawai'i. OHA initially invited nine Ali'i trusts, Royal societies and Civic organizations to discuss the development of this independent body. From that group of nine, the following three organizations, each represented by two individuals, continued the discussion: King Lunalilo Trust & Home (James Kuhio Asam and Michelle Nalei Akina), 'Ahahui Ka'ahumanu (Pauline Nakoolani Namuo and Geraldine Abbey Miyamoto) and Hale O Na Ali 'i O Hawai 'i (Naomi Kealoha Ballesteros and Selena Lehua Schuelke). Eventually, the three organizations and the six individuals decided that the purpose of the Corporation would be best served if the six individuals, in their individual capacity and not as representatives of any organization, should form and lead the Corporation by serving as directors of the Corporation.
OHA authorized the funds and OHA invited the participants to form Nai Aupuni.
This text may also support claims that Nai Aupuni was selected in violation of the Hawaii Procurement Code.
In another development, a Nai Aupuni representative informs Hawai'i Free Press that its subcontractor, Election-America, has not yet sent out the 'Notice of Elections' which by contract was due July 15.