Wow! How’s this for an election year?

What with all the mud-slinging going on between our two major party presidential candidates, it’s no wonder that we nearly missed the ecosystem-collapsing distress calls of the Great Barrier Reef, the impending doom of over 100,000 white collar jobs due to automation (#CareerChoicesArrgh!), and that Icelandic Parliament member, who breastfed her infant daughter, while defending her bill. She put into perspective our own problem of hypersexualizing the female form to such a degree that something as natural as breastfeeding is regarded as obscene.

With record-matching low voter turnout in the state of Hawaii, you would think we were suffering from entertainment drought in the theater of politics, but we most certainly aren’t. The race for Honolulu Mayor is speeding down the tracks and who could forget – even if we wanted to – that unfiltered candidate, who wanted to “Make Honolulu Great Again” (in her own twisted way)?

But, I suppose this isn’t like the movies, where loads of entertainment mean box-office-breaking turnout. Maybe we just get turned off and ignore the “lesser of two evils” choice and find something to do – anything else – that doesn’t put us in a term-long state of depression until the next election season.

Hey, they say, “no vote, no grumble,” and perhaps, to a degree, there’s some solid advice there. We can’t always have our cake and eat it, too, right? The lesser of two evils isn’t the ideal, obviously, but there is a lesser. So, which one would you rather have?

There’s another big race this election season that has gone relatively unnoticed in our local news media, but it’s blowing up in certain social media circles. It’s the race for a trustee position in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The trustee election is one of those races that gives many people pause, because the position specifically serves the betterment of Native Hawaiians, and most people in the state are not Native Hawaiian.

I’ve heard my fair share of, “I’m not Native Hawaiian, so should I vote for OHA trustee?” If you’re wondering that right now, I can’t say if you should. I can only ask that if you do, please be informed about your choice — and what I say here isn’t everything you need to make an informed choice.

The 1959 Hawaii Admission Act, the U.S. law that made Hawaii the 50th state of the union, provided that a portion of the income generated by “ceded lands” shall be used for one or more of the listed purposes, which included the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians. OHA was constitutionally established in order to fulfill that Admission Act provision. Part of the agency’s purpose is the betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians.

Why is that important? The 1993 Apology Resolution, signed by President Bill Clinton, explained that the United States participated in the “suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people” and urged support for “reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.”

The State of Hawaii revenue that is set aside for the betterment of – specifically – the Native Hawaiian people and managed by OHA, exists because of U.S. policy. It’s also part of that reconciliation – and that necessary healing process – between Native Hawaiians and the United States. It’s also important because the “betterment of Native Hawaiians” is reliant on benefits, programs and services that are sustained by OHA’s income.

OHA receives 20 percent of the ceded lands revenue. OHA is tasked with the betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians, whose numbers are comparable to 40 percent of the Hawaii resident population, with a disproportionate amount of funding to do it. OHA trustees (and their work force) have done a darn good job at working with what they got.

Akina vs. Apoliona, Trask vs. Lindsey

With that said, the focus of this OHA race has been on issues concerning the effective management of OHA funds and political pathways that offer Native Hawaiians a chance to better their conditions. There are two challengers in this election that don’t appear to shy away from the mudslinging, and their positions on the management of OHA – and sometimes allegations of hypocrisy or questionable practices – leave much room for concern.

These two candidates are Kelii Akina and Mililani Trask, almost polar opposites when it comes to indigenous peoples’ rights, but also seemingly running as a slate – that only Akina would imply in his social media posts with Trask.

Akina challenges long-time OHA trustee Haunani Apoliona. He has been questioned regarding connections with the Koch brothers and is tied to the right-wing organization Judicial Watch. His affiliation with individuals and organizations that are rather infamous for their opposition to the interests of minority communities doesn’t exactly scream out “Trustee for an agency responsible for the best interest of a minority group of people!”

The State of Hawaii revenue that is set aside for the betterment of the Native Hawaiian people and managed by OHA, exists because of U.S. policy. It’s also part of a necessary healing process between Native Hawaiians and the United States.

Akina’s approach to changing OHA includes deviating from established U.S. policy recognizing the Native Hawaiian right to self-determination. It pretty much undermines the purpose for which OHA was created. Ironically, he also speaks against the “waste” of OHA funds, and yet, he practically opened the year with an ongoing lawsuit against OHA, which wasted OHA money, costing its beneficiaries.

Trask, on the other hand, challenges OHA trustee/uncle Bob Lindsey. She offers criticism of OHA leadership, calling for transparency and accountability; she stated it in her Civil Beat candidate Q&A and offered them up again as her top two priorities in her Star Advertiser Q&A. Hey, we like a candidate who is transparent and accountable, but while that always seems to be the selling point, we are, from time to time, left disappointed.

Trask, in her 2014 Hawai‘i State Ethics Commission Candidate Disclosure form, listed Innovation Development Group, Inc. and Huena Power, LLLP as clients that she personally represented before state agencies. In essence, she was a paid lobbyist for these two organizations.

In that same year, state Rep. Chris Lee criticized Trask for attacking him in an editorial because he would not serve the interests of Trask and her employer, IDG. Lee noted that as a “paid lobbyist” for IDG, Trask was getting “thousands (for her) campaign for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs” from IDG so “she can continue to push the projects her employers seek.”

While Trask noted her lobbying activities in her candidate disclosure form, it does not appear as if she actually registered as a lobbyist with the state Ethics Commission. Where’s the transparency and accountability in that? I think Lee said it best: “If there is one lesson in politics, it is that special interests with millions of dollars on the line will do anything to get what they want.”

It begs the question, is Trask running for OHA trustee to really address transparency and accountability issues (if these are, in fact, issues), or having failed to successfully lobby OHA support for her employer in the past, has she now taken it upon herself to secure the trustee seat for her own personal interests?

We have some big races ahead of us, and I urge all registered voters to get to the polls on Nov. 8. Some of these races might seem like a “lesser of two evils” deal, but remember, one of them is going to get elected even if you don’t vote — so, just vote. And then run as a candidate the next time around.