Elected representatives of Native Hawaiian beneficiaries decide on matters affecting the trust fund the Office of Hawaiian Affairs manages for them. Each individual trustee is supposed to cast his or her votes freely, based on the best interest of those beneficiaries. But surely few of those constituents realize that as a matter of policy, “loyalty” to the Board of Trustees is supposed to factor in pretty heavily.

That, it seems, is what the board expects of one of its members, name still undisclosed, who is facing accusations of disloyalty. The trustees discussed in private, executive session last week whether a panel of three would investigate the allegations that one member made public statements disloyal to OHA and unsupportive of its decisions.

The board has deferred the matter — but should simply drop it.

The voting record on any issue is on the public record, so the fact that not all members of an elected body agree on any particular issue is known. The majority position stands, but this shouldn’t deprive the minority of the right to object to it.

Any court in the land would agree with that — the Supreme Court itself enables justices who dispute any ruling to file a dissenting opinion.

Media-law attorney Jeffrey Portnoy, who represents the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and other news organizations, rightly described this OHA practice as “problematic.” It’s arguably a violation of constitutional free speech rights. Is the board’s suggestion that trustees have none?