Aloha Mike, Julian, and Jan. I admire and support your efforts. That said, I have several specific suggestions based on the following background:

1. The trustees turned Princess Pauahi’s sacred trust into “a candy store for the state’s political establishment” during the 1990s. That quote comes from 60 Minutes, but the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and numerous other national publications made the same point.

2. An article in the Hawaii Bar Journal spotlighted that the abuse had occurred on the watch of officials who had the power and responsibility to do something about it: “Despite corruption, greed, lack of transparency, and serious breaches of trust by the powerful, arrogant, and often abusive trustees, no attorney general, court-appointed master, probate judge, justice of the supreme court, or trust counsel did anything about the abuse and culture of fear perpetuated by the trustees.”

3. Thousands of mainland professors, judges, and trust lawyers followed the controversy. I know this because of invited presentations I made at three dozen law schools and gatherings of professional groups, such as the National College of Probate Judges, National Association of State Attorneys General, American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, American Bar Association Nonprofit Organizations Section, American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility, American Law Institute Restatement of Trust Law Consulting Group, National Council on Foundations Roundtable, and National Center on Philanthropy and the Law. Participants at these events, and scholars in legal publications, invariably expressed shock at the way those trustees had been selected and how long the abuse continued.

4. Such experts found it difficult to believe that the justices selected the candy-story trustees while acting “as ordinary citizens,” and that the justices appeared to have violated fiduciary duties applicable to non-jurists (i.e., ordinary citizens) who voluntarily exercise trustee-selection powers. Many also noted that state officials with the power and responsibility to do something about the abuse, appeared to have engaged in willful blindness.

5. The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel Law Journal criticized “political backscratching in the Hawaii Supreme Court’s appointment of trustees.” The International Civil Society Law Journal marveled at the justices’ conflicts of interest and failure to exercise due care when selecting trustees. Trusts and Estates Review expressed amazement that a rigged selection system could continue for many years: “Unfortunately and almost unbelievably … the [justices] virtually never made an objective, considered selection.”

6. Although some of the offending individuals have died, and others may no longer qualify for membership, Hawaii’s political establishment lives on … and it poses just as big a threat to Princess Pauahi’s trust today as it did in the 1990s.

7. Hawaii’s political establishment is not limited to governmental officials, members of a specific political party, business leaders, or adherents of a shared ideology. Simply described, it consists of people who hold power and stand ready to engage in willful blindness as other members abuse their power in ways detrimental to nonmembers.

8. Change became possible only when members of the Kamehameha Schools ohana—primarily KS graduates—took a united stand against the abuse. To do so effectively, they had to put Princess Pauahi’s trust ahead of their own personal interests, agree on a unified message, maintain moral clarity, and stay focused on their shared goal. Had those graduates not been willing or able to do all that, there never would have been a Broken Trust essay, an attorney general investigation, or probate court decisions leading to the removal of trustees.

9. Although trustees selected by Supreme Court justices breached virtually every fiduciary duty applicable to trustees of a charitable trust—which caused significant financial damage to the interests of future generations of intended beneficiaries—the justices suffered no negative consequences and the ousted trustees were not required to pay damages for harm done to the trust, or even to repay trust funds they had improperly paid to themselves and other members of the political establishment. There also was no accountability for see-no-evil lawyers who had been paid with trust funds to watch out for the interests of the trust’s intended beneficiaries.

10. The replacement trustees also engaged in willful blindness. Rather than fulfill their duty to hold wrongdoers accountable for harm to the trust, they let the former trustees off the hook and rehired many of the lawyers who had managed not to see, or saw but apparently chose not to report, the turning of Princess Pauahi’s trust into “a candy store for the state’s political establishment.” The replacement trustees also refused to turn over key documents needed to hold various other wrongdoers accountable for harm to the trust. They said the public wanted
closure and healing. But to me, it looked more like establishment insiders watching out for establishment insiders.

11. Because of this background, I like the idea of putting future trustee selection in the hands of KS graduates. That wouldn’t guarantee anything, but I believe it would lessen the chances of ending up with trustee-selectors, or trustees, who do not feel morally obligated to protect Princess Pauahi’s trust, including the interests of future generations of intended beneficiaries.

12. I believe Hawaii’s political establishment will prevent KS graduates from controlling trustee selection unless you can form a unified and politically akamai coalition that the public correctly views as “the irresistible force of virtue.” This coalition should include not just the KS Alumni Association but your group and the trustees as well. Among the many compelling reasons to include the trustees in this coalition is that they have standing in court.

13. Other than Crystal, I don’t know the current trustees, at least not well, but I’m impressed by the credentials and reputations of all five … and that they are KS graduates.

14. I suggest you consider a selection process that gives sitting trustees (now and going forward) a trustee-selection power comparable to what their original predecessors reportedly had following Princess Pauahi’s death—that is, the trustees would decide who the probate court should appoint to fill a vacancy. As you know, the Supreme Court also served as the probate court during the monarchy.

15. The Kamehameha Schools Alumni Association and perhaps other groups should have a structured way of advising the trustees.

16. Finally, I suggest that you support the possibility of individual trustees serving up to three 5-year terms.