The serious legal challenges facing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs over its constitutionality have now been complicated by a blistering audit issued by State Auditor Marion Higa.
In some ways, the management, financial and organizational problems cited by Higa’s auditors are more serious than the constitutional challenge.
That’s because if OHA cannot get its act together in a way that satisfies constituents, state and federal law, it won’t matter whether it is constitutional or not. In fact, part of the argument in defense of OHA in the constitutional lawsuits is that it performs work that no one else is equipped to accomplish.
Higa’s audit makes that particular defense ring somewhat hollow.
While the audit does not say it in so many words, it suggests strongly that without improvement, OHA is in danger of being put into receivership or otherwise taken over by the Legislature or the state administration. If that happens, the grand experiment envisioned by the 1978 Constitutional Convention would come to a crashing halt. The current board of trustees of OHA must not allow this to happen.
The underlying premise of OHA is solid: an agency that enables Hawaiians to better themselves through their own bootstrap efforts. In other words, in the face of an avalanche of programs aimed at "helping" Hawaiians, here was one in which they had the opportunity to run such programs themselves.
But that effort has been hampered, Higa’s audit suggests, by confusion over goals, a lack of a comprehensive plan, muddled financial policies, chaotic internal administration and deep divisions and rancor among the OHA trustees themselves. Here’s how the audit put it:
"Given the seriousness of our audit findings and recommendations, the board must not allow itself to resort to the internal discontent, suspicion and discord reported in our previous audit. If the Office of Hawaiian Affairs fails to improve within a reasonable time period, the Legislature may need to consider options to increase oversight of the agency."
That sounds like receivership, and it is the last thing Hawaiians or OHA should want.
To some extent, the flaws outlined in this and previous audits can be seen as the growing pains of a new agency trying to find its way down an uncharted path. OHA trustees acknowledge they have been slow in getting management and financial controls into first-class shape, but they contend the overall goal of helping Hawaiians help themselves has been progressing nicely.
One has to wonder, however. The audit details loans that were poorly researched, trustee expenditures that had no sound basis (or may even have been illegal) and grants that were made without any indication that they served the goals and duties of OHA.
"Although OHA requires each grant recipient to provide evidence of serving native Hawaiians, we were unable to find any documentation in 90 percent of the grant files reviewed to indicate that services were in fact provided to any Hawaiians," the audit says.
Last fall’s elections saw a number of new faces added to the OHA board and a reorganization has led to a new leadership lineup. It is imperative that OHA put its internal problems behind, heed the recommendations of the audit and focus single-mindedly on its purpose of bettering the condition of Hawaiians.
If it cannot do that, then there is no point in winning the legal battle over its constitutionality.
