Kahana: what was, what is, what can be. - Legislative Reference ...

1996
KAHANA: WHAT WAS, WHAT IS, WHAT CAN BE
"Exhibit C," the lease provision requiring the twenty-five hours of interpretive
service per family, was continuing to be a troublesome issue. The park manager
drafted his own "plan of operation" to help implement that requirement, but the residents
found a considerable number of discrepancies in it. One of them came out with a report
of inconsistencies between the two. 119 She pointed out the following:
(1) Exhibit C requires the park manager and the advisory committee to meet
annually and review and evaluate the overall interpretive program, but the
park manager's plan makes no mention of the advisory committee at all,
much less its role in evaluations;
(2) Exhibit C places the burden of monitoring hours on the park manager, but
in reality, the lessees work unsupervised and turn their hours in, which
may lead to a discrepancy between hours worked, hours reported, and
hours recorded, 120 and "an obvious problem regarding effective
monitoring"; 121 and
(3) General park maintenance was not intended to be considered an
interpretive service, yet there seems to be credit granted for that, and so
the distinction between the two should be clearly defined. She adds that
"[r]esidents of Kahana were granted leases to participate in interpretive
Hawaiian cultural programs, not to serve as indentured servants for park
beautification." 122
This lessee's report made a specific critique of the park manager, noting the
"tense relationship" between the residents and park management. 123 She noted that
the 1992 Rodrigues report called for resident commitment and empowerment, but as
the residents still are not empowered, they do not commit themselves to the park. 124
The report also notes that Rodrigues' first requirement for a park manager was
knowledge and expertise in Hawaiian culture, but found that the park manager is
"lacking in most of the necessary credentials, especially the first criteria." 125 She also
notes that while the park manager is supposed to be responsible for coordinating all
scheduling assignments, a schedule is nonexistent, and that the park manager is
supposed to submit a monthly record of hours to lessees, but rarely dies.
This report agrees with the 1978 EIS that a modern day konohiki is needed as a
middle man between the residents and the State. However, this report saw the konohiki
not as a paid state employee, but someone who should be given a dwelling in the park
and live the culture. The report recommends that the konohiki "be elected" by the
residents, with a provision for review and yearly evaluation and removal or renewal. 126
24