Opinion ID: 871559
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The 1978 Constitutional Convention History Provides Judicially Discoverable and Manageable Standards and Makes Initial Policy Determinations as to What Constitutes Sufficient Sums for DHHL's Administrative and Operating Expenses.

Text: At issue is the interpretation of the phrase sufficient sums in Article XII, Section 1. The general rule is that, if the words used in a constitutional provision . . . are clear and unambiguous, they are to be construed as they are written[.] Spears v. Honda, 51 Haw. 1, 6, 449 P.2d 130, 134 (1968) (citation omitted). The words in a constitutional provision are also presumed to be used in their natural sense. Employees' Retirement Sys. v. Ho, 44 Haw. 154, 159, 352 P.2d 861, 864 (1960). In its natural sense, the word sufficient means marked by quantity, scope, power, or quality to meet with the demands, wants, or needs of a situation or of a proposed use or end, and the word sum means an indefinite or specified amount of money. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2284, 2289 (1967). Even with these popular definitions in mind, it is unclear what precisely the constitutional delegates intended when they used the term sufficient sums. In such a situation, we may look to the history of the times and the state of being when the constitutional provision was adopted. State v. Kahlbaun, 64 Haw. 197, 202, 638 P.2d 309, 315 (1981) (citations omitted). In doing so, the object sought to be accomplished and the evils sought to be remedied should be kept in mind by the courts. Hawaii Gov't Employees' Ass'n v. County of Maui, 59 Haw. 65, 81, 576 P.2d 1029, 1039 (1978) (citation omitted). In order to give effect to the intention of the framers and the people adopting a constitutional provision, an examination of the debates, proceedings and committee reports is useful. Kahlbaun, 64 Haw. at 204, 638 P.2d at 316 (citations omitted). We first start with the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, which crafted the amendment. The Committee stated the following: Your committee proposal makes it expressly clear that the legislature is to fund DHHL for purposes which reflect the spirit and intent of the Act. Your Committee decided to no longer allow the legislature discretion in this area.  Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 56, in 2 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawai`i of 1978 (2 Proceedings), at 630 (1980) (emphasis added). As to the mandatory nature of the word shall, Delegate Hagino explained to the Committee of the Whole: I would like to focus on the word shall in the phrase shall make sufficient sums available in lines 3 and 4, page 2 of Committee Proposal No. 11; shall mandates the legislature to fund the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for purposes which reflect the spirit and intent of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. . . . The rehabilitation concept could not work because the act was never intended to work. Most of the available lands were poor faming quality and only 2 percent of the land could be properly developed at a reasonable cost. Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm. Prop. No. 11, 1 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawai`i of 1978 (1 Proceedings), at 412-13 (1980). The committee elaborated that it intended for the legislature to fund DHHL for the following purposes, consistent with the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act: 1. For the development of site improvements for home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots. Development shall include but not be limited to off-site and on-site improvements which are necessary to provide grading, access (roads) and utility services (drainage, sewerage, water and electrical systems) for the developed lots; 2. For lessee loans in the areas of home construction and farm and ranch construction and equipment. Under this loan mandate, DHHL is authorized to request loans for lessees or native Hawaiians for agricultural purposes, which includes but is not limited to aquaculture; 3. For various rehabilitation projects, including education, social, political, economic and cultural processes which contribute to the general welfare and betterment of native Hawaiian conditions; and 4. For administrative and operational costs, which expenditure requests are to be utilized for all of the above-mentioned. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 56, in 2 Proceedings, at 630. The committee found that mandating legislative funding of DHHL for these purposes was necessary because DHHL was established by the Act to provide means to rehabilitate its beneficiaries through a series of projects and yet was given very little financial assistance to perfect its mandate. Id. at 631 (emphasis added). Delegate De Soto explained that the committee had held public hearings statewide, where it became apparent that the identifiable problem areas werefirst, that the DHHLthe Department of Hawaiian Home Landswhich provides a land base, has a monumental and eternal dilemma in funding[.]  Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm. Prop. No. 11, in 1 Proceedings, at 410 (emphasis added). The committee considered it especially problematic that DHHL was the only one of 17 executive departments [6] forced to finance itself by leasing its own land in order to generate revenues to support its administrative and operating budget. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 56, 2 Proceedings, at 631; Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm. Prop. No. 11, 1 Proceedings, at 415. Delegate Ontai elaborated: [T]he Hawaiian homes department and the act were and are the most neglected part of the State of Hawaii, the most neglected department. It was woefully lacking in funds at its inception, and for the past 50 years and even today, it lacks funds to run the department properly, lacks funds to construct homes and facilities necessary to service existing and future applicants. Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm. Prop. No. 11, in 1 Proceedings, at 422. The Committee noted that overreliance on leasing occurred at the expense of the department's mission to rehabilitate native Hawaiians: DHHL cannot afford to lease more acreage to the general public for the purpose of generating income to accommodate a minimal employee level. It is clear to your Committee that the intent and spirit of the Act would be better moneys served [sic] by releasing the department of its present burden to generate revenues through the general leasing of its lands. Your Committee decided that through legislative funding this dilemma would be resolved. In that manner more lands could be made available to the intended beneficiaries. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 56, 2 Proceedings, at 632. The severity of the leasing problem was highlighted by Delegate De Soto, in light of the fact that leased lands became unavailable for homestead lots: Today over 113,000 acres of [a total of 203,500] DHHL lands are leased to the public through leases, revocable permits or licenses. Another 16,000 acres are under governor executive orders, this all coming prior to 1972. Another 22,000 acres are utilized by federal, state and county agencies without document, and another 40,000 acres are classified as conservation. In all, 85 percent of DHHL lands (170,000 acres) are utilized by the general public; 12-1/2 percent have actually been utilized by the intended beneficiaries, or 400 acres per annum have been transferred to native Hawaiians since 1920. At that rate, it would take over 400 years to fully dispose of the lands, provided the department could regain those lands utilized by the government and public sector. Mr. Chairman, this is 1978, 130 years after the Great Mahele, and the maka'ainana are still a landless, drifting nonentity. Through no fault of their own, they have been foreclosed from the breath of lifethe ` aina. Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm. Prop. No. 11, in 1 Proceedings, at 411. Delegate Crozier remarked that only 2,000 acres [are left] for more general leases or for Hawaiians to use. . . [T]he department, in terms of general leases, has reached a point of diminishing returns. The reality of this is that the department cannot lease out any more land. Id. at 415. In short, in 1978, it was apparent that DHHL was swept up in a vicious cycle: in order to fulfill its mission of providing homestead lots to beneficiaries, the department had to raise revenue to sustain its programmatic and human infrastructure costs (administrative and operating expenses), and in order to raise money for administrative and operating expenses, the department had to lease the vast majority of its lands that otherwise would have been used for homestead lots. One commentator viewed the problem as creat[ing] a conflict of interest: the Commissioners and other Department officials must choose between making land available to homesteading beneficiaries or leasing the lands to non-Hawaiians, thus assuring that at least their own salaries will be paid. Lesley Karen Friedman, Native Hawaiians, Self-Determination, and the Inadequacy of the State Land Trusts, 14 U. Haw. L.Rev. 519, 544-45 (1992). The primary problem the 1978 delegates focused on was the impending crisis that would result when DHHL ran out of land to general lease to raise revenue for administrative and operating expenses. The Hawaiian Affairs Committee explained in greater detail how the administrative and operating expenses at that time were raised and used: [DHHL's] revenue from general leases, licenses and revenue permits [7] is approximately $1.1 million. . . . The department presently general leases its lands to obtain moneys for administrative expenses and salaries. In order to keep up with a builtin inflation rate and to rehire prospective employees through [State Comprehensive Employment and Training] []SCET[] losses, DHHL continues to general lease more of its lands. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 56, 2 Proceedings, at 631-32. An even more detailed explanation as to how administrative and operating costs were allocated follows: There are presently only 90 people statewide, who are limited by time and other constraints as to what they can do. As demands on the department and staff grow, a much bigger staff will be required. At present, the DHHL budget calls for the expenditure of $1.3 million; $1.1 million is through land revenues and the rest through Time Certificates of Deposit (TCDs). From this budget, $750,000 goes toward staff salaries for 66 percent of the staff. Even this figure will rise as this portion of the staff is civil service and subject to an 8-percent annual inflation rate. The other 34 percent of the staff is funded through the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) and the State Comprehensive Employment and Training Program (SCET) funds. If these temporary dollars are cut, the staff would have to be cut accordingly. Not only is there a demand on the money for staff, but there are also other administrative demands that need to be met through funds, especially in the area of record-keeping. Problems the department is facing in record-keeping include a lack of proper equipment to record information, lack of a filing system, the need to automate many portions of the system to speed up the processing of recordsnow there are only electric typewriters. Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm. Prop. No. 11, in 1 Proceedings, at 414. The constitutional convention delegates focused on providing sufficient sums to DHHL for its administrative and operating expenses in particular, to free up homestead lands for DHHL beneficiaries. Once homestead lands ceased serving as the source of administrative and operating expenses, however, the constitutional convention delegates could not agree as to what would constitute sufficient sums for the other three purposes listed under Article XII, Section 1, although a number of delegates weighed in. Delegate Sutton echoed the Committee's four stated purposes and referred to the DHHL's 1976 General Plan: I'd like to focus on the word sufficient on page 2, line 3 of Committee Proposal No. 11 . . . . Again, to the word sufficientwhat does this really mean? It means funding to develop house lots for applicants on the waiting list or implied in the general plan. It also means money to provide loans to lessees to construct their homes, since the lessee cannot mortgage or encumber the land. For the administration, there is need for support of a staff to adequately service the department's beneficiaries and to purchase equipment which will allow sufficient management of its resources and records. Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm. Prop. No. 11, in 1 Proceedings, at 413, 414. Delegate Crozier, like Delegate Sutton, referred to the 1976 DHHL General Plan as setting standards for determining DHHL funding. He stated, The proposal states: `The legislature shall make sufficient sums available. . . .' The standards which define `sufficient' are contained in the department's general plan, approved by the Hawaiian homes commission on October 31, 1975 and signed by Governor Ariyoshi on April 14, 1976. Id. at 415. The 1976 DHHL General Plan that the delegates referred to sets forth the following goals and objectives for the period 1975-1985: 1. Goal: Maximize HOUSING assistance for native Hawaiians. Objective: Program housing for 2,600 new families. 2. Goal: Allocate AGRICULTURAL LANDS to native Hawaiians. Objective: Allocate at least 40,000 additional acres for direct agricultural use by eligible Hawaiians; use all available techniques to maximize productivity of agricultural lands (Note: The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act sets 20,000 acres as the limit which can be allocated within any five-year period.) 3. Goal: Reduce the acreage of LANDS USED FOR INCOME purposes. Objective: Reduce by at least 20,000 acres the lands presently under general lease and temporary use permit and make these lands available for direct use by native Hawaiians. 4. Goal: Maximize INCOME through more effective land management. Objective: Use only a small fraction of Hawaiian Home Lands to generate income for operating and administrative expenses. Hawaiian Home Lands General Plan ii (1976). As to how DHHL would utilize sufficient sums made available to it, Delegate Sutton explained: By 1984, 6,000 homes will be needed to meet the requirements of the DHHL general plan, which is now in existencethe one started in 1974. The department must conform to county standards for site development in order to qualify for dedication of roads, etc. to the county for maintenance purposes. The department must conform to housing construction ordinances in order to qualify for federal monies under Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). The State must not only insure there are funds to prepare sites but also insure that there is a way for the DHHL administration to be fully funded to get the evermounting paperwork done. Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm. Prop. No. 11, in 1 Proceedings, at 414. A number of delegates spoke against the proposed amendment. One of their concerns was the uncertainty surrounding what sum would constitute a sufficient sum to fulfill all of the four proposed constitutional purposes: (1) for developing home, agriculture, farm, and ranch lots; (2) for home, agriculture, aquaculture, farm and ranch loans; (3) for rehabilitation projects; and (4) for administrative and operational costs. Delegate William Burgess repeatedly attempted to pin down a numerical figure as follows: No matter how just the cause or how strong the feeling and how meritorious or how beautiful the poetry, I believe that we are here as constitution-makers and not as legislators. This proposal is specific legislation and specifically requires the appropriation of moneys. We have not apparently investigated the costI have heard figures of $200 and $300 million to carry out the programs that are appropriated in this proposalI refer specifically to page 2. I believe that we are venturing into an area beyond what we are supposed to do as delegates to this Convention. I therefore speak against it. Second Reading, Committee of the Whole Report No. 11, Comm. Prop. No. 11, 2 Proceedings, at 272. Delegate DiBianco's expressed his doubt as follows: I don't know how much money is involved here, and it troubles me. I don't know whether this Convention realizes the extent to which it is mandating the State to guarantee funds. Id. Although the DHHL's 1976 General Plan referenced the sum of $250,000,000 to carry out its goals, see Hawaiian Home Lands General Plan 93, when the delegates finally settled on a numerical figure for sufficient sums, the General Plan did not frame their discussion. Delegates Burgess, Delegate De Soto and Sutton, through the following dialogue, ultimately arrived at $1.3 to 1.6 million as a sufficient sum, and that figure related only to administrative and operating expenses: Delegate Burgess: [W]hat would be the estimated cost of these programs which are mandated? . . . . Delegate De Soto: What we propose with respect to shall fund is the administrative and costs of running the Hawaiian homes program, which would amount to operating and administrating approximately $1.3 to $1.6 million, taking into consideration inflation, collective bargaining agreements that go into inflation with the pay. . . . . Delegate Burgess: I would askis the $1.3 to $1.6 million that was mentioned the total cost of the programs which are mandated to the legislature? Does that amount include the development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots, and the other aims that are cited on page 2 of the proposal? . . . . Delegate Burgess: Does the $1.3 to $1.6 million figure that was mentioned just a few minutes ago include the costs of the home developments, the loans and the other rehabilitation projects which are referred to on page 2?in other words, the development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots; the home, agriculture, aquaculture, ranch and farms loans; and all of those programs. Are all of those included in the total estimate of the $1.3 million to fund this program, or is the total cost to the State different from that? . . . . Delegate Sutton: The $1.3 to $1.6 million is for administrative costs at present. Their need is more. The way the State itself can fund all the rest of the projects and directly answering your question, delegate, is no, is not only $1.3 to $1.6 millionthe way the State can find the funds is through mutual agreement with different parts of the government here in Hawaii; and that is, for the poor people who qualify, that is for HHA or Hawaiian Homes Commission Act properties, that there are similar needs and requirements for those to get the landthat is, under $10,000 net assets. The State may fund these projects and come out with considerably more for the people at less of an expense, simply because the Hawaiian homes commission has land and does not need to condemn and purchase other land to fit the needy at that level. Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm. Prop. No. 11, in 1 Proceedings, at 421-22. Thus, by the end of the Committee on the Whole Debates, what was certain was that the $1.3 to $1.6 figure represented sufficient sums for administrative and operating expenses only. As to that purpose under Article XII, then, the 1978 Constitutional Convention history does provide judicially discoverable and manageable standards that do not involve initial policy determinations of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. At a minimum, funding at or above the $1.3 to $1.6 million envisioned in 1978 would be required. [8] Therefore, the determination of what constitutes sufficient sums for administrative and operating expenses is not barred by the political question doctrine. As such, we disagree with the State's argument that [a] court cannot determine how much money is needed to administer and operate DHHL, after all, until it determines how many lots, loans, and rehabilitation projects (and their scope) DHHL must provide. The consideration of such factors could provide the basis for increasing the required administrative funding above the 1978 baseline identified by the delegates, but could also involve the courts in addressing issues (the development of lots, loans, and rehabilitation projects) that involve political questions. See Part IV.C infra. However, we reject the State's suggestion that challenges associated with determining the upper limit of the required administrative funding render the calculation of the minimum required contribution nonjusticiable. It is clear that the constitutional delegates intended to require appropriation of sufficient sums to relieve DHHL of the burden of general leasing its lands to generate administrative and operating funds, and to that end, they identified the minimum funding necessary for such expenses. [9]