Beneficiary urges DHHL to fix blood-quantum review, cites 40-year wait and missed communications

Kimbrije Kanani Onapua Abe, a beneficiary applicant who said she has been on the Hawaiian Homes wait list for more than 40 years, told the Hawaiian Homes Commission on March 18 that she was notified this year that DHHL staff were re-examining her blood quantum as she pursues buying a home — a review she says contradicts decades of prior documentation and oral assurances from family members.

Abe said she applied with her grandmother and was told repeatedly she met the 50% blood-quantum threshold required for beneficiary status, but staff in the applications unit have recently asked for additional genealogy documents after she began a property purchase. She told commissioners the requests and delayed communication have left her and her husband feeling “hurt” and “betrayed.”

The testimony matters because beneficiaries commonly rely on earlier department determinations to plan housing moves. Abe said she requested follow-up calls and left multiple voicemail messages; when callers returned, she was told the applications office had limited or full mailboxes and that correspondence had been routed between Oahu and the neighbor island office. She asked the commission to “pick up the ball” and resolve what she described as a longstanding, systemic failure of notice and process.

Commissioners present acknowledged the emotional and procedural difficulty and said staff would review Abe’s certified supporting documents. Commissioner Makai Freitas, who was sitting in for Chair Kully Watson at the meeting, said the commission would work with staff and examine “valid legal documents” on file. Another commissioner noted that the commission has confronted similar cases and that policies and verification procedures have been changed over time, which can create mismatches between older applicants’ expectations and present-day document checks.

Commission staff mentioned that a letter had been generated and routed through the applications office; Abe said she never received it. She described a pattern where a local staff member prepares materials that must then be sent to the Oahu applications unit for final review and return, a round-trip she said contributed to delay. Abe said she will pursue the matter until the commission “makes it right.”

The commission did not take formal action during the public-comment slot; however, commissioners committed on the record to follow up with DHHL staff (including Juan and Jimmy Donovan, who were named during testimony) and to review the documentation Abe said she had submitted decades ago. The testimony also triggered other public commenters to call for clearer, written procedures for confirming receipt and for circling back to applicants when additional proof is needed.

Abe and several other testifiers urged the department to adopt routine confirmation letters and clearer policies stating which historic documents are sufficient when grandparents were born before 1920 — a threshold referenced in testimony as triggering specific genealogy documentation requirements. Several beneficiaries recommended that the department honor the policies in place when an applicant originally submitted their paperwork rather than applying newer rules retroactively.

The record shows commissioners pledged to follow up with application staff and to review Abe’s file; no vote or new policy was adopted at the March 18 meeting. Commissioners asked staff to report back with the results of document review and with an explanation of how the letter referenced in testimony was handled.