The Office of Hawaiian Affairs plays a critical role in advocating for Native Hawaiians, with decisions about its finances, lands and advocacy shaping how it carries out that mission.
As voters prepare for the general election on Nov. 3, Hawaiʻi Public Radio asked candidates for the OHA’s Board of Trustees At-Large Trustee to share their priorities, perspectives and plans for addressing the issues facing Native Hawaiians. The top three vote-getters in this race will become At-Large Trustees. The candidates running in this race are Adrian Kealʻi Akina, Ikaika Anderson, Kanekoa (Koa) Crabbe, Brickwood Galuteria, Keoni Souza and John D. Waiheʻe IV.
Voters are also choosing two other trustee seats for Oʻahu and Maui:
- For coverage on the candidates vying for the Oʻahu seat, click here.
- For HPR’s reporting on the candidates competing for the Maui seat, click here.
For more guidance on the election, click here for HPR’s voter guide.
Here's what the candidates competing for the At-Large Trustee had to say:
Kealiʻi Akina
1. What do you see as the most pressing issues facing Native Hawaiians? If you are elected as an OHA trustee, how would you address those issues?
Three issues stand above the rest which impact the unity of our lāhui:
First, the Public Land Trust. OHA's share has been frozen since 2006, when Act 178 called it "interim." Audits show underreporting. That means money owed to our people has not reached them. I would support HB1358's $1 million independent audit, pursue back payment from 1978, and publish a real-time financial dashboard showing the shortfall.
Second, disconnection. Our people do not know what OHA is doing or where the money goes. I would publish every dollar, every decision, every land deal, and hold talk-stories on every island, not just Oʻahu.
Third, education. OHA does no public education on Hawaiian Kingdom law or legal continuity. I would build curricula, public materials, and community workshops so our keiki learn who they are.
These three are connected. Money without transparency does not reach people. Transparency without education does not build a nation.
2. OHA has been trying to acquire two local TV stations, KITV and KIKU. Do you think OHA should continue to move forward with this proposed purchase? Why or why not?
I cannot support moving forward until OHA answers three questions publicly.
First, what is the total cost, including purchase price, operating losses, and future capital needs? OHA's trust fund exists to serve beneficiaries, not to subsidize broadcast operations with an unclear return.
Second, how does owning two television stations serve OHA's mission better than funding data sovereignty and lāhui-controlled communications infrastructure? I have called for OHA's core data and communications to live on lāhui-controlled infrastructure. Buying existing stations is one path. Building our own is another. The Board should compare them openly, with numbers.
Third, where is the beneficiary input? This is trust money. The people whose trust it is should be heard before, not after.
If OHA can show the purchase produces recurring income, serves beneficiaries directly, and does not drain principal, I would consider it. Until then, I would not vote to proceed.
3. Do you think OHA should have more say in military lease negotiations? Why or why not?
Yes. OHA should have a formal seat, not a courtesy seat.
The lands in question are Crown and Government lands ceded from the Kingdom and now in public trust. Many military leases run as low as one dollar a year. Meanwhile 29,000 Hawaiians wait for homestead land. OHA currently sits on the Governor's Advisory Committee, and Interim Administrator Sylva expressed deep disappointment that the Governor issued a letter without prior consultation. That is not a seat. That is a waiting room.
As leases expire, the presumption should be return to Hawaiian use. If any renewal is considered, three conditions must be met. Full environmental cleanup with responsibility assigned and funded. Fair market rent or land return. Free, prior, and informed consent from affected communities, with protection of cultural sites, wai, and traditional practices.
All three conditions or nothing. Where military officials claim lands are essential to security, OHA should require documented need, full accounting, and a plan for eventual return. National security cannot be a blank check written against Hawaiian trust lands.
4. What are your opinions on OHA’s social grants going towards storm recovery efforts and those affected by federal cutbacks to social programs, like SNAP beneficiaries?
I support these initiatives, with conditions.
When federal funding for Hawaiian health, housing, and education is cut, the first question is not how do we replace it. The first question is what is owed. Federal money for these programs comes from a trust relationship tied to land never lawfully given away. In 1840, the Kingdom's constitution said the land belonged to the people and the chiefs in common, with the King as head and manager. That is a trust, not a charity.
Storm recovery and SNAP support fit OHA's mission because they serve beneficiaries directly and meet immediate need. But OHA should not quietly fill holes left by federal cuts. That lets the federal government off the hook and drains principal meant for future generations.
Other issues OHA should get involved in: water protection, food security, housing for diaspora families returning home, and Kingdom law education.
5. What do you think OHA should do with its lands in Kaka‘ako Makai? How do you propose getting that done?
First, the honest assessment. The current strategy is not working. A decade of chasing residential and mixed-use authority has produced no comprehensive development.
Second, the history. Kakaʻako Makai was traditional fishing and swimming grounds. The shallow reef was filled in the 1940s and 1950s, after the Kingdom period. State Historic Preservation determined the makai area is fill land with no effect on subsurface cultural deposits. We are not talking about intact iwi or buried sites in that fill.
Third, the deal. OHA received these lands through Act 15 of 2012, settling back revenue claims. That is trust land. It must be treated as trust land.
I would support a Native Hawaiian cultural, educational, and economic development model, not another luxury tower. Partnership with another Hawaiian institution, including DHHL or Kamehameha Schools. Leasing portions is fine if it produces recurring income and never alienates the land. Exchange only if the replacement is equal or better in value, location, and income, with beneficiary input.
How to get it done: bring a concrete plan to the Board within the first year, with beneficiary input, transparent numbers, and a partnership structure. No more decade of studies.
6. Is OHA getting its fair share of ceded land revenue? Why or why not?
No. And the numbers show it.
The law is clear. Article XII, Section 4 creates a public land trust. Section 6 gives OHA a pro rata share. HRS 10-13.5 sets it at 20 percent. But OHA's share has been frozen, when Act 178 called it "interim." Interim was supposed to be temporary. Twenty years later it is still not getting pro rata share.
Audits show underreporting of Public Land Trust revenue. OHA is supporting HB1358, a $1 million independent audit of the Public Land Trust Inventory System, and secured release of $55 million in 2026. That release proves the point. Money was owed and held under cap.
Three principles should guide any settlement. Full accounting. Back payment from 1978. Future share tied to actual revenue, not a capped number.
Do not raid principal. Do not waive the pro rata principle. Fair share today, protect principal for the next generations.
Brickwood Gaulteria
1. What do you see as the most pressing issues facing Native Hawaiians? If you are elected as an OHA trustee, how would you address those issues?
The most pressing issues facing Native Hawaiians are housing instability, the erosion of cultural and land protections, and widening gaps in health and economic opportunity. Our people deserve stability, dignity, and a future rooted in ʻāina. As an OHA trustee, I would prioritize measurable outcomes: expanding housing partnerships, strengthening cultural access and stewardship, and investing in programs that improve health and economic resilience. My approach is disciplined and beneficiary focused — ensuring every dollar advances our people’s well being. Unity is essential; whether Hawaiian or of Hawaiʻi, we rise together when our lāhui is strong.
2. OHA has been trying to acquire two local TV stations, KITV and KIKU. Do you think OHA should continue to move forward with this proposed purchase? Why or why not?
We are currently doing a due diligence report after which we will decide on acquisition or not all the while remaining focused on OHA's core mission: improving conditions for Native Hawaiians. Obviously media ownership can offer long term value and it wouldn't be the first time an indigenous.entity has owned media. The Maori people have a successful model of media ownership. The question is not whether media is important — it is whether this acquisition directly strengthens beneficiary outcomes, protects the Trust Fund, and aligns with OHA’s fiduciary responsibilities. OHA will reassess, and ensure transparency, financial prudence, and clear strategic purpose before moving forward. If the purchase cannot demonstrate measurable benefit to our people, then OHA will redirect its efforts toward higher impact priorities.
3. Do you think OHA should have more say in military lease negotiations? Why or why not?
Yes — OHA should have a stronger, formal role in military lease negotiations. These lands are part of our national inheritance, and decisions made today will shape the next hundred years. Native Hawaiians deserve meaningful authority, not symbolic consultation. OHA must insist on environmental accountability, cultural access, cleanup commitments, robust community benefits packages and clear pathways for land return where appropriate. Strengthening OHA’s role ensures that stewardship of these lands reflects aloha ʻāina, transparency, and long term protection of cultural and natural resources. This is not about opposition; it is about responsible governance and honoring our kūpuna and future generations.
4. What are your opinions on OHA’s social grants going towards storm recovery efforts and those affected by federal cutbacks to social programs, like SNAP beneficiaries?
OHA’s social grants for storm recovery and SNAP related hardships reflect the agency’s responsibility to respond when our people are hurting. These initiatives are appropriate, compassionate, and aligned with beneficiary needs — but they must be part of a disciplined, data driven strategy. Emergency relief should not replace long term solutions. OHA must also address broader social issues: housing stability, mental health, kūpuna care, and economic resilience. Our people deserve support that is both immediate and sustainable. I believe OHA should invest in programs that strengthen families, protect vulnerable communities, and build long term stability across the pae ʻāina.
5. What do you think OHA should do with its lands in Kaka‘ako Makai? How do you propose getting that done?
Kakaʻako Makai is one of OHA’s greatest opportunities to create generational value. I support a balanced plan that blends cultural spaces, workforce housing, community gathering areas, and revenue producing components that strengthen the Trust Fund. The development must feel like Hawaiʻi — not a mainland waterfront — and must serve beneficiaries first. To get this done, OHA needs transparent planning, strong community engagement, disciplined financial modeling, and partnerships that honor cultural integrity. My focus is long term sustainability: building a place that reflects our identity, generates recurring revenue, and becomes a source of pride for Native Hawaiians.
6. Is OHA getting its fair share of ceded land revenue? Why or why not?
Is OHA getting its fair share of ceded land revenue? No — OHA is not receiving its fair share of ceded lands revenue. The current payments fall short of what is owed under law, history, and justice. Native Hawaiians deserve full and accurate compensation for the use of our lands. OHA must pursue a stronger, unified strategy: legal action where necessary, legislative advocacy, and public education that clarifies why this issue matters to all of Hawaiʻi. My commitment is to protect the Trust Fund, secure a correct and complete Ceded Lands inventory, rightful revenues from a consistent reporting system, and transparency in how those funds benefit our people. This is a matter of fairness, dignity, and long overdue accountability.
HPR did not hear from other candidates.
