The state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, with its mission of making homesteads available to Native Hawaiians, has been given a fiscal boost, thanks to a recent state judicial ruling.
But that windfall shouldn’t mean the department, which frequently comes under fire for its shortcomings, should get a free pass.
The agency is getting only about a third of what it’s owed from state coffers, Circuit Court Judge Jeannette Castagnetti wrote in her decision on a case filed eight years ago on behalf of DHHL. In the current state budget, lawmakers set aside $9.6 million, and Castagnetti said the appropriation should top $28 million to sufficiently cover administrative and operating expenses.
That conclusion — the state has a debt of nearly $20 million to pay, almost immediately — comes at a terrible time for a state government struggling to keep up with myriad bills coming due. Lawmakers will need to make sure there’s more accountability for how precious state resources are deployed by DHHL than has happened historically.
DHHL was established to administer the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921, a federal law enacted in the years after annexation to provide homesteads for those of 50 percent or more Hawaiian ancestry.
Disproportionately impoverished, Native Hawaiians were deemed to be among the responsibilities of the state of Hawaii by the state Constitution, and putting them on the land officially became a federal mandate.
DHHL’s charge is the development and management of some 200,000 acres of land for the benefit of the “50-percenters.”
The nonprofit Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. argued in its 2007 complaint, filed on behalf of six Native Hawaiians, that the state had fallen short of fulfilling that mandate. Castagnetti agreed, finding that DHHL had been underfunded each year since at least 1992, which amounted to a constitutional violation.
“DHHL suffers from a lack of funding and staffing, which adversely affects beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust,” she wrote.
The court battle erupted after then-Gov. Linda Lingle defunded the department during her term in office to save the state money, with the argument that the appropriation was optional.
The case first worked its way up to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which ruled in 2012 that the administrative and operating budget was not a political question left up to an elected administration and could be set judicially; Castagnetti’s court was the one that got that task.
The constitutional provision cited is Article XII, which states that lawmakers need to provide “sufficient sums” available for four purposes:
>> Development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots.
>> Home, agriculture, aquaculture, farm and ranch loans.
>> Educational, economic, political, social and cultural rehabilitation projects to improve the welfare of Native Hawaiians.
>> The administrative and operating budget of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
Only this last category was found to be judiciable. Castagnetti cited testimony from DHHL officials stating that funding would enable the department to devote more of its resources — the bulk of it from trust funds — to homestead awards.
It would be gratifying to see that result, but this is a department that has been in critical need of reform for years.
Castagnetti herself was none too complimentary of the job the agency has done. Prior to 2012, she wrote, DHHL officials “breached their trust duties by failing to seek from the Legislature all the funding (DHHL) needs for its administrative and operating budget.”
And for too long DHHL escaped the public scrutiny it merited, but more recently investigative work by Honolulu Star-Advertiser writer Rob Perez began uncovering irregularities in how that mission is fulfilled.
Among the many problems: a land-management program offered revocable permits that, critics said, was erratically and unfairly administered, with some awards being made to non-Hawaiians.
More recently strides have been made toward reform of that program specifically. A year ago, the Hawaiian Homes Commission approved a basic framework for a significantly overhauled permit process, requiring competitive bids. That should yield a more transparent operation for the beneficiaries, but continued oversight is imperative.
When the Legislature convenes next month and sorts through its budgetary demands, the ruling has assured this department of a fatter cut.
It’s incumbent on elected leaders — who have a responsibility to serve the needs of the entire state — to apply enough pressure on DHHL to deliver on its promised reforms, and use its allotment effectively.
