Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Island Burial Councils topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over stipends and quorum changes for Island Burial Councils divides beneficiaries and OHA (HB 2104)
Summary
HB 2104 would change quorum rules and remove a prohibition on compensation for Island Burial Council members; OHA and some testifiers said the changes would reduce cancellations and barriers to service, while several Molokai witnesses warned that stipends would 'monetize' sacred responsibilities and dilute cultural stewardship.
The committee considered HB 2104, a bill aimed at improving the functioning of Island Burial Councils (IBCs) by addressing chronic vacancy and quorum challenges and removing a statutory bar on compensation so OHA could consider stipends or other support.
An OHA representative told the committee that many island councils struggle to hold meetings and that cancellations are frequent: “a 25% cancellation rate is a good year across the Piaena,” the representative said, and noted islands such as Molokai and Kauai face particularly high cancellation rates and understaffing. OHA argued changing quorum definitions and allowing the board to consider compensation could reduce barriers to service and improve continuity.
Julian, who identified himself as an Oahu Island Burial Council member, described the workload and uncompensated burden of service: he said meetings sometimes run from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., that council work often involves site visits and long days, and that stipends could help cover costs for willing volunteers.
Testimony from Molokai sharply disagreed. Kielwailani Hanapih Hirata, a Molokai resident and current (sole) Molokai council member present, said the bill “misrepresents the very essence of the island burial councils” and warned that monetizing service risks attracting members motivated by pay rather than spiritual and cultural responsibility. She urged more community‑based consultation and said Molokai had not been adequately engaged in drafting the bill.
Other testifiers from beneficiary communities echoed concerns about altering quorum rules, fearing that lowering quorum requirements could allow major decisions about ancestors to be made without full lineage representation.
The committee voted to move HB 2104 forward with an HD1 and deferred the bill to further consideration by the Judiciary Committee, and the record shows at least two members registered reservations on the motion. The bill’s proponents and opponents agreed on the underlying problem — frequent cancellations and thin staffing — but differed sharply on solutions and safeguards.
Next steps will include further consultation and committee report language; OHA said any stipend program would require a publicly noticed process and board action before implementation.
