Each week Editorial and Opinion Editor Jeanne Mariani-Belding hosts The Hot Seat, our opinion-page blog that brings in elected leaders and people in the news and lets you ask the questions during a live online chat.

On The Hot Seat last week were state Attorney General Mark Bennett and state Office of Hawaiian Affairs Administrator Clyde Namu'o. They discussed the new ceded-lands settlement with our readers.

Here is an excerpt from that Hot Seat session. To see the full conversation, go to The Hot Seat blog at www.honoluluadvertiser.com /opinion and click on "The Hot Seat." (Names of questioners are screen names given during our online chat.)

Caroline P.: I read about this settlement, and then I saw the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ads in the paper saying this is not a complete settlement. What is it then? Will taxpayers have to pay more? And how does the state justify this settlement, given competing needs like education, transportation, etc.?

Mark Bennett: This finally settles this one issue: OHA's share of the income and proceeds from the ceded lands. OHA will continue to receive money in the future, as provided in the settlement. I justify this as it is fair, reasonable, and, as importantly, payments by the state to OHA of a portion of the income and proceeds from the ceded lands is absolutely required by our state Constitution.

John: Does the proposed settlement the state is offering between OHA and the Hawaiian people exempt OHA or any other Hawaiian group from getting other land or settlements from the state?

Bennett: The settlement bars any other payments due in the past to OHA for the income and proceeds from the ceded lands. And the only payments due in the future are at least $15.1 million per year — per the terms of the settlement.

This is a very important and long-lived issue, but is the only issue resolved in this settlement.

Ken Conklin: This "settlement" actually settles nothing, because the Office of Hawaiian Affairs will continue to demand ceded-land revenues forever and will sue when it doesn't get as much as it wants. This transfer of lands and money is one more slice taken out of the state in the death of a thousand cuts. Notice that the only question seems to be whether ethnic Hawaiians will go along with this deal, and nobody seems to give one flying leap whether the general population of Hawai'i wants to keep forking over money, land and jurisdictional authority to a race-based agency. Our attorney general and governor are co-conspirators with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs against the 80 percent of Hawai'i's people who lack a drop of native blood — not only on this so-called "settlement" but also on the Akaka bill to create a race-based government and break apart the state of Hawai'i.

Bennett: Your statement that this settles nothing is simply false. It absolutely and finally settles a 30-year dispute over an obligation in Hawai'i's Constitution.

You have an absolute right to express your disagreement with the settlement and the Akaka bill. Your expressions of opinion, however, are just that — opinions and not facts.

Namu'o: We believe that the settlement represents a significant step forward for the state of Hawai'i and OHA. Our claim to income and proceeds from the Public Land Trust is clearly established in the state Constitution. We believe that the settlement is fair and just, and look forward to legislative approval.

Finally, we believe what is good for Hawaiians is good for all citizens of the state of Hawai'i.

Ken Conklin: Clyde Namu'o repeated the mantra so often spoken by Linda Lingle: "What is good for Hawaiians is good for all citizens of the state of Hawai'i."

I think you got that backwards. What we all should understand is that what is good for the state of Hawai'i is good for (ethnic) Hawaiians. The whole is far more important than any of its individual parts — unless you think there's one particular part that is more important than all the rest put together. Shame on Lingle and Bennett for thinking that way. It's understandable that Clyde Namu'o thinks that way because he claims to speak on behalf of the highly favored race that asserts special rights not available to anyone else.

Bennett: You want the state to ignore the requirements of our state laws and state Constitution (both of which I have taken an oath to defend) because you believe that they are in conflict with the United States Constitution, or perhaps because they are in conflict with your view of what the law ought to be.

No court has, for example, ever ruled that the constitutional provisions, which require payments to OHA of income and proceeds from the ceded lands, violate the Constitution of the United States in any way.

And while you are free to express your opinion as to what the law ought to be, it is the actual laws that control, and not the views of any particular citizen or group of citizens.

I believe Hawai'i's Constitution and laws dealing with income and proceeds from the ceded lands are fully consistent with the United States Constitution, and I will continue to abide by my oath to support and defend them.

Roy: Will the Office of Hawaiian Affairs use any of the money or land from the agreement between the state and OHA for the use of affordable housing or for the homeless Hawaiian people?

Namu'o: In 2007, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs provided a grant of $1 million to help the homeless on the Leeward Coast of O'ahu. Providing housing solutions continues to be part of our strategic plan. We are near completion of an OHA Housing Plan that will provide us further guidance in terms of how the Office of Hawaiian Affairs may be effective in creating these housing solutions. The challenge that the trustees face is having a large mission and limited resources. Mahalo for your question.

H. William Burgess: According to the U.S. Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals), the 1.2 million acres in the ceded-lands trust) sometimes referred to as the sec. 5(f) trust are to benefit all the people of Hawai'i, not simply Native Hawaiians.

As you know, Mark, the state, as trustee of the ceded-lands trust, has a duty of impartiality and a duty not to comply with illegal trust terms.

That means the state has a fiduciary duty to use the income and proceeds as much for every non-Hawai'i citizen as for every Native Hawaiian and Hawaiian citizen. But for the last 27 years, the state has been distributing 20 percent of revenues (before payment of trust expenses) to OHA exclusively for Native Hawaiians. The total is more than $400 million. Yet no revenues have been distributed exclusively for non-Hawaiian beneficiaries, who make up 95 percent of the beneficiaries. To me, that suggests the state has short-changed non-Hawaiians by massive amounts.

Will you please explain how the state can justify such a massive giveaway exclusively for a chosen few and no distribution at all to the rest of the beneficiaries?

Bennett: The Admission Act specifically provides that the state shall use the income and proceeds from the ceded lands "for one or more of the foregoing purposes" which include "for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians."

Before 1978, most proceeds were used for public education. Since then, a part of the income and proceeds have gone to OHA to benefit native Hawaiians, as required by Article XII of our Constitution, and the remainder, more than 80 percent, has gone for the other public purposes specified in the Admission Act.

This is both in conformity with the Admission Act, and in compliance with Hawai'i's Constitution.

We are entering into this settlement to fulfill our state constitutional obligation, and because the settlement is fair, reasonable and just.

Burgess: In answer to my question, you said: "Since then a part of the income and proceeds have gone to OHA to benefit native Hawaiians, as required by Article XII of our Constitution, and the remainder, more than 80 percent, has gone for the other public purposes specified in the Admission Act."

Native Hawaiians benefit fully from other expenditures for roads, infrastructure, etc., in addition to the cash distributions to them. My question is why has the state not distributed cash exclusively for non-Hawaiians? How do you explain such lopsided cash distributions: $400 million to Native Hawaiians; zero for everyone else?

Bennett: I know you know precisely what Hawai'i's Constitution and laws say. Our Constitution provides specifically for payments to OHA for one of the Admission Act's five purposes.

The Admission Act states:

"The lands granted to the State of Hawai'i by subsection (b) of this section and public lands retained by the United States under subsections (c) and (d) and later conveyed to the State under subsection (e), together with the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of any such lands and the income therefrom, shall be held by said State as a public trust for the support of the public schools and other public educational institutions, for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, for the development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible for the making of public improvements, and for the provision of lands for public use. Such lands, proceeds and income shall be managed and disposed of for one or more of the foregoing purposes in such manner as the Constitution and laws of said State may provide, and their use for any other object shall constitute a breach of trust for which suit may be brought by the United States. The schools and other educational institutions supported, in whole or in part out of such public trust shall forever remain under the exclusive control of said State; and no part of the proceeds or income from the lands granted under this Act shall be used for the support of any sectarian or denominational school, college or university."

I believe our system fully complies with the Admission Act.

100Shibai: Some legislators and some opponents of the OHA-state settlement complain that they were not consulted or included as parties in the negotiations. Is that a reasonable expectation to lay on OHA trustees and the state? At this stage, what is the proper role for the Legislature and the community regarding this settlement, from your point of view?

Bennett: The settlement was between the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the state. Those were the only individuals who could actually participate in the settlement negotiations themselves.

The state and OHA, for the years of the negotiation, have periodically informed the Legislature of the process and the goal of a complete settlement.

When we worked out a partial plan in 2006, that required legislative approval — that we obtained — we told the Legislature in public hearings that we were continuing to negotiate a complete and final resolution of the issue.

I believe the public have an absolute right to weigh in, and should weigh in, and the Legislature has to decide if this is the right thing for Hawai'i.

But as to the Legislature, the Legislature has had the ability, since 1978, to come up with its own complete resolution of this issue, on its own, as the state Constitution provides, and it has not done so. It has allowed the Waihee, Cayetano and Lingle administrations to negotiate and then present something to the Legislature for consideration.

We hope that the Legislature will agree with us that this settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of our state.

Bill Punini Prescott: Ceded and held "in trust" are terms used as if they were synonymous. Ceded means to give up, and wasn't it because the U.S. paid off a huge debt incurred by the monarchy? Ceded lands were the one-third of all lands the king kept for himself. One-third went to the people, the other third to the chiefs. The people and chiefs were not bound to sell their portions to Hawaiians only. The king's third was to have benefited the citizens of Hawai'i was it not?

Namu'o: In 1898, after the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, the Republic of Hawai'i ceded the former crown and government lands to the United States. These lands were taken from the Kingdom of Hawai'i without consent from, or compensation to, the Hawaiian people.

Kalei: Why is OHA accepting nonceded lands as part of the settlement? Don't they want to get the kingdom lands back?

Namu'o: The state had a hand in selecting the parcels that would provide OHA the back due revenue. In OHA's land policy, our mission includes protecting and preserving our lands and their cultural significance, and having financially viable property involvements. We believe the settlement parcels, ceded and nonceded, will balance our portfolio that includes Waimea Valley on O'ahu's North Shore and the Wao Kele O Puna rainforest on Hawai'i island.

Roy: Will OHA and the Bishop Estate ever get together and come up with a plan to help the Hawaiian people? With the combined influence and money of the two, it could really help out the Hawaiians.

Namu'o: OHA partners with Kamehameha Schools in providing additional resources to Hawaiian-focused charter schools. For the last three years, OHA has appropriated $2.2 million annually in this regard. We will continue to work closely with Kamehameha Schools in identifying other partnership opportunities. Moreover, we also work with other Hawaiian groups such as the Queen Lili'uokalani Children's Center, state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Alu Like and other Hawaiian-focused entities to coordinate our efforts to better the conditions of Native Hawaiians.