§10-3 Purpose of the office.

678 words·~3 min read·/hi/chapter-10/10-3

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

§10-3 Purpose of the office. The purposes of the office of Hawaiian affairs include:

(1)The betterment of conditions of native Hawaiians. A pro rata portion of all funds derived from the public land trust shall be funded in an amount to be determined by the legislature for this purpose, and shall be held and used solely as a public trust for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians. For the purpose of this chapter, the public land trust shall be all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or other disposition of lands ceded to the United States by the Republic of Hawaii under the joint resolution of annexation, approved July 7, 1898 (30 Stat. 750), or acquired in exchange for lands so ceded, and conveyed to the State of Hawaii by virtue of section 5(b) of the Act of March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4, the Admissions Act), (excluding therefrom lands and all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or disposition of lands defined as "available lands" by section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended), and all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or other disposition of lands retained by the United States under sections 5(c) and 5(d) of the Act of March 18, 1959, later conveyed to the State under section 5(e);

(2)The betterment of conditions of Hawaiians;

(3)Serving as the principal public agency in this State responsible for the performance, development, and coordination of programs and activities relating to native Hawaiians and Hawaiians; except that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be administered by the Hawaiian homes commission;

(4)Assessing the policies and practices of other agencies impacting on native Hawaiians and Hawaiians, and conducting advocacy efforts for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians;

(5)Applying for, receiving, and disbursing, grants and donations from all sources for native Hawaiian and Hawaiian programs and services; and

(6)Serving as a receptacle for reparations. [L 1979, c 196, pt of §2; am L 1990, c 304, §§4, 16]

Law Journals and Reviews

Ensuring Our Future by Protecting Our Past: An Indigenous Reconciliation Approach to Improving Native Hawaiian Burial Protection. 33 UH L. Rev. 321 (2010).

Reconciling Maoli Interests in a Haole Forum: Limitations to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Consultation Policy That Undermine Native Hawaiian Self-Determination. 46 UH L. Rev. 93 (2023).

Case Notes

Trustees of the office of Hawaiian affairs established as a matter of law that each of the challenged expenditures constituted a "use" "for one or more of the [§5(f)] purposes" and that was sufficient to defeat plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim under federal law for breach of the [Admission Act] §5(f) trust; district court's summary judgment in favor of the trustees, affirmed. 616 F.3d 918 (2010).

Determination of whether damages received by State from illegal sand mining operation was funds derived from a public land trust was a nonjudicial discretion; whether income from sales, leases, or other dispositions of lands surrounding harbors on all major islands, of land on Sand Island, of land on Airport, fell within section was a nonjudicial discretion. 69 H. 154, 737 P.2d 446.

Act 304, L 1990, was invalidated by its own severability clause when amendments made to §§10-2 and 10-13.5 by Act 304 were found to conflict with the federal Forgiveness Act (Pub. L. No. 105-66, §340, 111 Stat. at 1448), leaving court with no judicially manageable standards to determine whether office of Hawaiian affairs was entitled to the specific revenues sought in the suit. 96 H. 388, 31 P.3d 901.

Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a breach of fiduciary duty claim under §10-16(c) where the complaint:

(1)did not allege that the office of Hawaiian affairs trustees' spending decisions were made for any purpose other than benefiting native Hawaiians;

(2)did not allege that the expenditures were in conflict with or adverse to the interests of native Hawaiians; and

(3)lacked factual allegations that the expenditures were in furtherance of programs that do not benefit native Hawaiians. 131 H. 62, 315 P.3d 213 (2013).