Na Keokani Kipona Marciel, Loea Lula HoʻomaluIn the Lāhui today, we're familiar with terms like "international law" and "the rule of law," but what about "parliamentary law"? What Is Parliamentary Law and How is It Relevant to the Lāhui?Hawaiian patriotic societies and political parties were commonplace in the Lāhui during the Hawaiian Kingdom era. In fact, the proposed foreign—albeit illegal—annexation of the Hawaiian Islands was prevented from ever succeeding due to the efforts of the three largest Hawaiian patriotic societies at the close of the 19th century. These deliberative assemblies conducted their affairs according to the common parliamentary law. In other words: the generally accepted customs and best practices of voluntary organizations designed to ensure effective meetings and democratic decisions.
Parliamentary law is a branch of common law governing the conduct of deliberative assemblies. Democratic procedure, i.e., parliamentary law, is derived from the legislative assemblies of the national and local governments under whose jurisdiction an organization is located. Although the procedure of voluntary organizations was originally modeled after the procedure of their respective legislative bodies, over time the non-legislative procedure has been adapted to the needs of ordinary societies in general. This body of meeting procedures has become known as common parliamentary law, also known as general parliamentary law.
The common parliamentary law applies to all deliberative assemblies, including legislative bodies, in cases where their own adopted rules are silent. The operative word, "law," means that parliamentary law is not a switch that can be turned on or off. Hence, it is not an optional tool for deliberative assemblies. Instead, a deliberative assembly may only deviate from the common parliamentary law by adopting a procedural manual (parliamentary authority), standing rules of order, or long-standing customs, which supersede particular rules of common parliamentary law. However, an organization can only adopt its own standing rules of order or long-standing customs to the extent that they do not conflict with any applicable procedural rules prescribed by law or statutes in the jurisdiction where the organization is located. What Is a Deliberative Assembly?A deliberative assembly is a group of people sharing a common interest who have a meeting of the minds to democratically adopt decisions expressing their general will. Types of deliberative assemblies include:
The formation of a permanently organized deliberative assembly entails the adoption of governing documents, enrollment of members, election of officers, holding of regular meetings, and appointment of committees as needed. The meetings of a deliberative assembly entail adequate prior notice to all members, the presence of a quorum, an agreed-upon agenda that follows a prescribed order of business, a presiding officer to conduct the meetings, and a secretary to keep a legal record of the proceedings. If the organization collects membership dues or otherwise handles money, then a treasurer should be elected to maintain the funds of the organization, report the current balance at regular meetings, and provide an annual financial report to be audited by the organization. What is a Parliamentary Authority?Deliberative assemblies may adopt a published procedural manual, formally known as a parliamentary authority. Such a manual is a codification of common parliamentary law which contains standardized rules of order for meetings. The way that a procedural manual is adopted by a permanent organization is by including an article in its bylaws that references the manual. Additionally, an organization may adopt standing rules of order that supersede or supplement its adopted procedural manual. What Gave Rise to Parliamentary Procedure Throughout the World?
Democratic procedure for group decisions is rooted in antiquity. The House of Commons in the United Kingdom—considered the mother of all parliamentary democracies—has formally conducted its business in democratic meetings for over seven centuries. The Speaker of the House of Commons serves as the impartial referee of its proceedings. Likewise, the Hawaiian Kingdom had a Speaker for its House of Representatives. When Was Parliamentary Law Established in the Hawaiian Islands?In 1840, the Hawaiian Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. In 1854, each house of the Hawaiian Kingdom legislature adopted a procedural manual to govern the proceedings of their respective meetings. In turn, this established a basis for development of the common parliamentary law followed by ordinary societies and mass meetings in the Hawaiian Kingdom. To What Extent Did Our Ancestors Know Parliamentary Law?The Petition Against Annexation of 1897 defeated a proposed treaty in the United States Senate that would have illegally annexed the Hawaiian Islands if it had been adopted in 1898. Beloved by the Lāhui today, the significance of the monster petition—which we proudly refer to as the Kūʻē Petition--constitutes an unsurpassed historical feat. It was but one example of many petitions organized by Hawaiian patriotic societies in response to the insurgency that began in 1887, followed by the ongoing belligerent occupation that began in 1893.
During that time, our Aloha ʻĀina ancestors commonly organized themselves into deliberative assemblies. They did this by adopting governing documents, enrolling members, electing officers, holding meetings, authorizing boards, appointing committees, adopting resolutions, conducting mass meetings, participating in delegate conventions, and organizing petition efforts. The Hawaiian language newspapers of that era provide an historical record today that is full of examples demonstrating the commonality of, and familiarity with, parliamentary law in the Lāhui.
To What Extent Today Are We Familiar with Parliamentary Law?During the Hawaiian Kingdom era, the Lāhui had no shortage of patriotic societies and political parties. Can the same be said about the Lāhui today? Of all the Aloha ʻĀina groups that we are familiar with today, how many can you identify with having any of the following items characteristic of a deliberative assembly?
What Do the Governing Documents Include?The governing documents of an organization are sometimes referred to instead as the documents of authority, or the documentary authority. An organized permanent society may adopt any of the following documents of authority as needed:
Bylaws are the only governing document on the list that a voluntary permanent organization is required to adopt as a deliberative assembly. When drafting bylaws, it is advisable for an organization to consult with a credentialed parliamentarian for assistance. Additionally, if an organization chooses to incorporate, then a corporate charter would be required as prescribed by applicable statutes. When drafting articles of incorporation, it is advisable for an organization to consult with an attorney for assistance. Bylaws Are for Organizations and Constitutions Are for GovernmentsThe practice of an organization adopting a constitution—with or without bylaws to go with it—is long since obsolete. The main reason is for simplification, since there are no provisions of an organizational constitution that cannot function the same way in the bylaws. Therefore, it is the recommended practice to combine the two into a single instrument called the bylaws. Furthermore, bylaws are to an organization as a constitution is to a government. That is another good reason why the term, "constitution," has been dropped from the governing documents of contemporary ordinary societies. This removes any potential for someone getting confused about the context in which the term, "constitution," is being used. Which Procedural Manual is Best?As suggested above, it is a best practice for voluntary organizations to adopt a procedural manual through a provision in the bylaws. The procedural manual that I generally recommend for voluntary organizations is Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed., 2018) by Ray Keesey. It offers the most radical simplification of procedure of all the parliamentary authorities ever published. Hence, it is the most concise, user-friendly, and practical choice available for the average meeting. For the Lāhui, I also recommend Nā Lula Hālāwai: A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian (2014), by William Puette and Keao NeSmith. 
Current Parliamentary AuthoritiesUnited Kingdom
United States
Older Parliamentary Authorities
Historic Parliamentary Authorities
Additional Parliamentary References
Parliamentary OrganizationsHawaiian Islands United States Hawaiian Patriotic Societies in the Lāhui: From Lost Art to Potential Renaissance
0 Comments
Na Keokani Kipona Marciel, Loea Lula Hoʻomalu
Historical BackgroundIn 1840, the Hawaiian Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. In 1887, this democracy was compromised by insurgents who hijacked the Hawaiian Kingdom government at gunpoint. In 1893, the same insurgents were unlawfully installed as a puppet regime by a foreign country. The Hawaiian Islands have remained under belligerent occupation ever since because no treaty of cession has ever been produced to transfer the sovereignty and territory of Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina to another country. Consequently: Authoritarianism is the type of governance that people living in Hawaiʻi have primarily become accustomed to since 1887, in the absence and pretense of democracy (totaling 132 years at the time of this writing). Personal BackgroundBorn and raised overseas, I did not grow up in occupied Hawaiʻi, and have not been conditioned over my lifetime to accept authoritarian governance as a social norm. On the contrary, I was brought up with democratic ideals. Furthermore, as a professionally credentialed parliamentarian, I am rigorously trained in democratic principles for the conduct of business in organizations. Struck by Authoritarian LightningIn 2016, I attended the annual convention of an historic association that I will refer to here as the Americanized Hawaiian Society. The president of the association at the time had a notorious reputation for governing the organization like a dictator. I experienced this firsthand when I raised a point of order about how the board illegally rescinded and deleted a resolution—recognizing the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the absence of a treaty of cession—adopted by the 2014 convention. Committing a cardinal sin as a presiding officer, the president got personal with me from the moment I asked for recognition from the floor. The president rejected my point of order (using incorrect and inappropriate parliamentary form), which I then appealed to the delegate assembly for a decision. Pointing down at me condescendingly from the chair and exclaiming, "All those in favor of HIS point of order," the president took the vote (without first allowing for debate as required for a debatable appeal). I lost the decision, and it was clear that the membership was quite content with the president's leadership style. They dared not question or oppose the president. For me, it was a learning experience to witness how the membership of an historic Hawaiian organization consented to authoritarianism. In fact, the president was reelected to a second two-year term at this convention. Struck Twice by Authoritarian LightingIn 2019, I was struck by authoritarianism for the second time. This time, as the secretary of an historic Aloha ʻĀina association whose revival I had selflessly spearheaded and engineered for four years. The president had a tendency to want to govern like an executive officer rather than a presiding officer, and to disregard the adopted rules when desired. As parliamentary referee, I served as a check and balance whenever that would happen, by advising the board if something was not in order. Over the years, the president increasingly developed a personal grudge against me and would regularly go out of the way to defame me (character assassination). The president's aggression escalated by cutting off all communication with me between meetings in connection with the interrelated duties of the president and secretary (akin to the pitcher refusing to throw to the catcher in baseball). Using a contrived pretext, the president underhandedly conspired with the second vice president to force me out of the office that I was elected and reelected to at successive conventions. I never fathomed that it was possible for one to outdo the dictatorial president I encountered in 2016, but the president in this case convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. I felt treated like the proverbial goose (democracy), killed to get the golden eggs (authoritarianism). Members Ultimately Determine if Governance is Democratic or AuthoritarianThe reason I share the above two experiences (with dictators) is to show how I arrived at the following theory: Membership preparation for the meetings of an organization is directly related to the degree of democratic governance, and inversely related to the degree of authoritarian governance, that characterizes the organization. The less familiar members are with the governing documents of the organization, the less familiar members are with basic meeting procedures, and the less prepared members are for meetings (and conventions), the more potential they create for authoritarian governance. In other words, the more they create a vacuum for a dictator to step in. They tacitly consent to authoritarian governance of the organization. Consciously or unconsciously, they may even prefer authoritarian governance to democratic governance. Alternatively, it could be that members choose to forgo the time and effort entailed in adhering to their rights and duties. Hence, they yield their decision-making responsibility to one or more officers, of which a presiding officer with a dictatorial tendency would gladly oblige, forming a silent conspiracy. Therefore, I contend that: The silent conspiracy within some organizations to adopt authoritarian governance is not uncommon in a country like the Hawaiian Islands, in which the population has been socialized by authoritarianism resulting from insurgency and ongoing belligerent occupation since 1887 (totaling 132 years at the time of this writing). Democratic Organizational Procedure in Contemporary Lāhui HawaiʻiNa Keokani Kipona Marciel, Loea Lula Hoʻomalu
The Hawaiian patriotic societies of the 19th century succeeded in defeating annexation. The relative absence of such deliberative assemblies in the Lāhui today constitutes the status quo. Will the status quo be sufficient to deoccupy Ko Hawai‘i Pae ‘Āina? For a group to be a deliberative assembly, it must adhere to the generally accepted practices of democratic organizational procedure. In other words, parliamentary law. Democratic meeting procedures (rules of order) are the difference between a group and an organization; or between an affiliation of groups and an association of organizations. To be organized permanently as a deliberative assembly (i.e., a democratic organization), a group must adopt governing documents, enroll members, elect officers, hold regular meetings, authorize a board of directors, and appoint committees where necessary. Each meeting is conducted by a presiding officer following an agreed-upon order of business, with the secretary present to keep a legal record of the proceedings. Above all, the organization must expedite the orderly transaction of decisions during properly called meetings with a quorum present, while simultaneously protecting the rights of all members in the process. This provides for the general will of the membership to be expressed as official acts of the organization. Resolutions adopted by a deliberative assembly constitute mandates that can be used for diplomatic action. This is a higher form of synergy compared to testimony provided at a public hearing, or discussion held by a panel of guest speakers—hallmarks of the status quo in the contemporary Lāhui. Furthermore, the mandate (synergy) of a resolution can be amplified if adopted by a convention of delegates elected by the local chapters of an association. Deliberative assemblies may have become a lost art in our modern Lāhui, but therein lies the potential for a renaissance of the Hawaiian patriotic societies that our ancestors utilized to defeat annexation. What other way would it be possible for us to produce the sequel, which would be the deoccupation of Ko Hawai‘i Pae ‘Āina? If labor unions and political parties could succeed without adhering to parliamentary law, they wouldn't be organized as deliberative assemblies. Why should we as the Lāhui be any less organized than a labor union or a political party, in order to bring about the justice that we deserve?
Kānāwai Hoʻomalu: Is Parliamentary Law a Blind Spot in the Modern Lāhui?By Keokani Kipona Marciel, Professional Registered ParliamentarianUnder general parliamentary law, a change to a previous decision of a deliberative organization can be adopted with previous notice by a majority vote, or without previous notice by a two-thirds vote or a majority of the entire membership. Amendment of bylaws are an exception because they usually require previous notice and a two-thirds vote at a regular meeting (or a convention of delegates for amendment of association bylaws). When previous notice is required to change a previous decision, the amendment is not allowed to exceed the extent of change proposed in the notice. For example, the bylaws of an organization prescribe annual dues in the amount of $20 per person. A member gives previous notice to increase the dues to $30. During consideration of that motion during the next regular meeting, it would be in order to decrease the proposed amount to $25, because it is between the existing amount and the amount proposed in the notice. However, it would not be in order to change the amount to $35, because it exceeds the amount of change originally proposed. Nor would it be in order to decrease the dues to $15, which is below the range between the current amount and the amount proposed in the notice. Likewise, it would not be in order to rescind the bylaw provision entirely, because that exceeds the extent of change proposed in the notice. Rescinding the entire article, for example, would be greater than the amount of change from amending one word in a section of that article. Parliamentary References
Ka Papa Hana Hoʻomalu | Parliamentary Procedure 101Nā Hālāwai Kōmike By Keokani Kipona Marciel, Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP)Check Your Organization's Procedural ManualDepending on the procedural manual (parliamentary authority) adopted by the organization, if the committee chair fails to call a meeting, it can be called in one of the following three ways, unless the governing documents prescribe otherwise:
What is the Common Thread?Note that if a committee meeting is called by a majority of its members, and if this is at least two people, this satisfies the requirements of common procedural manuals (AIPSC, Demeter, Mason, RONR). Therefore, if the governing documents, procedural manual (e.g., Cannon, Keesey, Lochrie, Riddick), precedents, and custom of the organization are all silent on the matter, a committee meeting called by a majority of its members would be valid under common parliamentary law. However, the organization would not be bound to follow that rule. Parliamentary References
Ka Papa Hana Hoʻomalu | Parliamentary Procedure 101Hōʻoia - To Ratify By Keokani Kipona Marciel, Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP) Can actions taken by an organization in violation of its bylaws be ratified? Parliamentary law is clear on this matter, as codified by the following parliamentary authorities.
ExamplesIf the bylaws only provide for admission of new members during regular meetings, such action cannot be taken during a special meeting, then subsequently ratified at the next regular meeting. Why? Provisions in the bylaws are like the fence around a yard, or the borders of a country. If the bylaws only provide for admission of members at regular meetings, to do so at any other type of meeting would be out of bounds. Another reason might be that it would result in a violation of the rights of members who are able to fit regular meetings into their schedule, but not necessarily special meetings occurring on dates between regular meetings. If the membership desires the ability to admit new members during special meetings also, the bylaws could be amended to permit such action. If the bylaws require elections to be by ballot, such action cannot be taken by a different voting method (e.g., voice vote), then subsequently ratified by a ballot vote. Otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of the ballot vote to begin with. The virtue of a ballot vote is that it is a secret vote. People are more likely to express their true choice on a question when casting their vote anonymously. In other words, when they do not have to disclose their choice to the assembly, as would be the case in a voice vote, rising vote, show of hands, or roll call vote. Ballot voting is beneficial during an election, where relationships could be strained if the candidates could see who voted for them or did not vote for them. Those who do not win the election may be discouraged from being a candidate in the future, due to embarrassment from knowing which individuals did not vote for them. The secret ballot also helps prevent a person from voting against their true preference due to peer pressure resulting from having to reveal how they voted. The principle of secret voting by ballot can be as advantageous for a controversial question as it can be for an election. If the bylaws require an election to be by ballot, but there is only one candidate for an office, the secrecy and logistics of balloting become unnecessary. However, a voice vote cannot be taken in lieu of a ballot vote unless this exception is provided for in the bylaws, which is the recommended practice. If the bylaws of an association can only be amended by a convention of delegates, the board cannot amend the bylaws between conventions, then have the action ratified at the next convention. Otherwise, this would violate the right of the majority to rule. Specifically, the majority of convention delegates who adopted the bylaw provisions amended illegally by the board between conventions. Additionally, it would violate the rights of absent members. Specifically, the rights of convention delegates who are necessarily absent from board meetings between conventions. In such a case, if the membership wishes to allow the bylaws to be amended between conventions, the convention of delegates could amend the association bylaws to allow for special conventions in case of emergency between the regular conventions. Alternatively, the bylaws could be amended to delegate authority to the board for amending the bylaws between conventions if necessary. Ka Papa Hana Hoʻomalu | Parliamentary Procedure 101In Contemporary Lāhui Hawaiʻi By Keokani Kipona Marciel, Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP)
Democratic Organizational Procedure in the 19th Century Hawaiian KingdomFrom the unification of the Hawaiian Islands at the turn of the 19th century until the illegal overthrow near the end of the 19th century, governance of the Hawaiian Kingdom was modeled largely after Great Britain. In 1840, the Hawaiian Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy with separation of powers into three branches of government, establishing itself as a conventional nation-state. In 1854, each of the two houses of the Hawaiian Kingdom legislature formally adopted procedural manuals to govern their proceedings. As in other democracies, legislative procedure formed the basis for the common parliamentary law of the Country. In other words, the generally accepted rules of order for meetings of voluntary organizations. These general principles of meeting procedures provide for democratic governance in ordinary societies. The historical record clearly shows that democratic organizational procedure was widely embraced by Hawaiian patriotic societies and political parties of the 19th century. For example, the men’s and women’s Hawaiian Patriotic League each adopted provisions in their founding constitutions prescribing parliamentary procedure for both volunteer associations.
Democratic Organizational Procedure in 21st Century Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀinaIn contrast to the Hawaiian Kingdom era, an aversion to parliamentary procedure has developed within the Hawaiian national body of the 21st century. Yet, the historical record speaks for itself: annexation was prevented by a mass petition organized by a joint effort of the three largest Hawaiian patriotic societies at the time. These three societies followed the common practices of formal procedure every step of the way. The magnitude of this historical feat remains unsurpassed.
A 21st Century Case StudyThe Experiment In 2015, an effort began to restore one of the major Hawaiian patriotic societies of the Hawaiian Kingdom era. Under the supervision of a credentialed parliamentarian, organizational meetings were held, bylaws were adopted, members were admitted, dues were collected, officers were elected, committees were appointed, regular meetings were established, branch charters were issued, and two annual delegate conventions were held. Also adopted were a code of ethics, strategic plan, standing rules (procedural and administrative), and numerous resolutions for diplomatic action. In effect, it was an experiment to see how well the Lāhui of today can tolerate the organizational procedure of its 19th century ancestors. Ultimately, the socialized aversion to formal procedure prevailed, clearing the way for authoritarianism and the railroading of decisions. In 2019, the board of directors of this society, in violation of parliamentary law, revolted against the rules and orders adopted by the association. The current bylaws of the association provide for their amendment only by the delegate assembly of the annual convention, following written notice to the entire association at least 60 days in advance. This was willfully disregarded by some of the board members, who covertly conspired to illegally amend the bylaws. Violation of the Rights of Absent Members A special meeting was abruptly called without giving notice of the proposed bylaw amendment. This violated the rights of absent members who have a right to know the purpose of a special meeting in advance. Previous notice allows all members to determine if the subject of the special meeting is important enough to make arrangements in their individual schedules to attend. Not only did the illegal bylaw amendment violate the bylaws, as well as the rights of absent board members, it also violated the rights of the delegates of the annual conventions who adopted the bylaws. Between conventions, delegates are members absent during board meetings, so their rights as absent members were violated. The Action is Null and Void Under Common Law When a motion was made to adopt the proposed bylaw amendment during the board meeting, the correct response by the chair would have been to rule the motion out of order because of the aforementioned conflict with the bylaws. Instead, the presiding officer stated the motion, which was to revise the purpose in the bylaws, replacing it with one privately drafted by the conspirators. After discussion, the presiding officer took a roll call vote and the bylaw amendment was adopted by those present. However, since the action is in conflict with the bylaws, it is null and void under parliamentary law, even if adopted unanimously by the assembly of board members. Parliamentary law (democratic meeting procedures established over time by organizations in general) is a branch of common law. Violation of the Right of the Majority to Rule Additionally, the bylaws are a codification of the most important rules of the association, adopted by a majority—and amended by a super-majority (two-thirds)—of the registered delegates present and voting at successive annual conventions. Therefore, to violate the bylaws is to violate the rights of the majority of delegates that adopted the bylaws, including the super-majority that amended the bylaws, at the annual conventions. In particular, the board illegally revised the purpose in the bylaws, which had already been amended by the delegate assembly at the 2017 and 2019 conventions. This violated the right of those majorities to rule, to have their decision stand as an official act of the association, which is binding upon the membership. The right of the majority to rule is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, i.e., democratic organizational procedure. Violation of the Rights of Individual Members Furthermore, the illegal revision of the purpose in the bylaws, by the board of directors between annual conventions, violated the rights of the individual members who had given written notice, of proposed amendments to the purpose, to be considered at the upcoming annual convention. It violated their right to make motions. Specifically, to have their proposed bylaw amendments considered before those subsequently introduced by the board. In other words, the board cut to the front of the line, and those who had already been waiting in line were thrown under the bus. Board Decisions Cannot Conflict with Delegate Decisions Moreover, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the board cannot adopt decisions in conflict with decisions adopted by the regular convention of delegates. In this case, the board cannot adopt a revision of the purpose, in the bylaws, that was previously adopted and amended by convention delegates, because the bylaws do not delegate this power to the board. The ultimate authority of a volunteer organization resides in the membership, not in the board of directors elected by the membership. For an association of organizations, the voting membership consists of the registered delegates at successive conventions, who are elected by the entire membership consisting of the members of the chartered organizations collectively.
Can the Illegal Board Action be Ratified?ʻAʻole. The only actions that the board can legally take are those delegated to it by the membership through the bylaws. In this case, the bylaws do not delegate any power to the board to amend the association bylaws between annual conventions. Consequently, any amendment of the bylaws by the board between annual conventions is null and void under parliamentary law because it conflicts with the previous adoption and amendment of the bylaws by the superior body, which is the delegate assembly.
Furthermore, bylaws cannot be suspended under parliamentary law unless a clause provides for its own suspension, which is not the case here. Nor does the clause in question constitute a rule or order (which could be suspended if permitted by the adopted parliamentary authority, or by an adopted rule superseding it).
Moreover, an action taken by the board cannot be ratified by the membership if its governing documents do not authorize the delegation of such action to the board.
The only way for the illegal bylaw amendment to be made legal is to start over and follow the procedure prescribed in the bylaws. First, to provide previous written notice of the proposed bylaws amendments to the entire association at least 30 days before the next annual convention. Second, for the amendment to be adopted by two-thirds of the registered delegates assembled at the business meeting of the convention (with a quorum present). If it is desired for the board to have the delegated power to amend the bylaws between annual conventions of the branch delegates, then this would require an amendment to the bylaws at an annual convention. There have so far been two annual conventions of the association, at which this could have been proposed but never was. Alternatively, the bylaws could be amended to allow special conventions to be called for emergency purposes between the regular conventions. As an ongoing conflict with the bylaws, it is never too late for a point of order to be raised against the illegal bylaw amendment during a subsequent board meeting or annual convention. A ruling on the point of order by the presiding officer can be appealed to the assembly for a decision, which, in turn, could not be appealed. However, if unsuccessful, the point of order could be renewed at subsequent meetings due to the illegal bylaw amendment being an ongoing conflict with the bylaws.
ConclusionDual Purpose of Meeting Procedures Parliamentary practice is an application of democratic principles, hence, they are synonymous. Accordingly, the case study described in this article suggests that noncompliance with parliamentary law and procedure can result in less democratic meetings and decisions by an organization, including violation of the rights of members. Rules of order for meetings of an organization exist to expedite business (group decisions made in the name of the organization) while simultaneously protecting the rights of every part of the membership: majority, minority, individual members, absent members, and all of them as a whole. If people are unable to see these dual roles of meeting procedures, then they may not see the value of meeting procedures. Blinded by a Socialized Aversion to Democratic Organizational Procedure If people are already prejudiced against meeting procedures to begin with, then they are more likely to have a closed mind to meeting procedures, which, in turn, prevents them from seeing their dual function. Consequently, they may see meeting procedures as obstructive rather than conducive to effective meetings. Then, it can become a vicious cycle, with confirmation bias reinforcing the socialized perception at a group level. This inhibits their motivation to learn meeting procedures in the first place. The result is that democratic organizational procedure (parliamentary law) is never truly given a chance to demonstrate its effectiveness in expediting meetings and protecting member rights simultaneously.
Discussion
Parliamentary law and procedure took centuries to develop. It stands to reason that this process would not have been necessary if democratic meetings were naturally occurring in human social systems. Misalignment In general, the contemporary Lāhui embraces the historical legacy of 19th century Hawaiian patriotic societies, while simultaneously avoiding the common law of meeting procedures that they followed (i.e., general parliamentary law). Therefore, the desire to restore one of these historic societies today is misaligned with the prejudice against parliamentary procedure that is part of the social scripting of the current generation of poʻe aloha ʻāina (Hawaiian patriots). This misalignment decreases the likelihood that an historic Hawaiian patriotic society can be restored to its former level of acceptance without adhering to a similar standard of procedure which got it there. In turn, this lack of formal procedure may contribute to the longevity of the prolonged belligerent occupation of Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina. The alternative is to accept that the procedure followed by the 19th century Hawaiian patriotic societies is "part of the package" if the desire is to fully restore one of them today. Transplanted Operating System Parliamentary law and procedure was the operating system used by the 19th century Hawaiian patriotic societies and political parties. Today, social media is the prevailing operating system used by the Lāhui. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether an historic Hawaiian patriotic society of the 19th century can be restored to its former presence by relying primarily on social media in lieu of meeting procedures, i.e., democratic organizational procedure. Social media has existed for two decades. Parliamentary procedure began developing more than seven centuries ago and is rooted in antiquity. Since written exchanges through electronic mail and social media do not allow for simultaneous communication between everyone participating in a discussion, such asynchronous communication does not qualify as a deliberative assembly. Therefore, without a deliberative character, such group exchange cannot arrive at decisions democratically, nor as efficiently. While modern communication technology facilitates the exchange of information, it can only host a meeting of the minds when it provides for face-to-face communication. In other words, a deliberative character can be achieved through live video-conferencing, but not by asynchronous dialogue conducted through e-mail, text messaging, and social media.
Is there a Plan B? Naturally, the goal of restoring an historic Hawaiian patriotic society is to formalize a significant portion of the Lāhui into an organized group (i.e., a grassroots decision-making body) through democratic procedure. However, as the case study in this article demonstrates, it only takes a few misaligned or unethical perpetrators to undermine the effort. This leads to the question of whether there is an alternative, or Plan B, if the formal organizational approach hits a wall? In my opinion, I now believe that the Hawaiʻi de-occupation movement can and should succeed with or without the formation of deliberative assemblies in the Lāhui that follow best practices for democratic organizational procedure. I see two alternatives for achieving this objective:
Logical Fallacies Returning to the topic of reviving Hawaiian patriotic societies, various logical fallacies are employed to discourage or oppose the use of parliamentary procedure in deliberative assemblies within the Lāhui today.
Manuals of Meeting Procedures Recommended for Lāhui Hawaiʻi
Ke Kānāwai Hoʻomalu Maʻamau (Nā Papa Hana Hālāwai) |
| —Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina. (4 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 8, Helu 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina |
All proceedings of meetings of the League and of the Executive Council shall be governed by the usual decorum and rules of Parliamentary Usage.
| —Hawaiian Patriotic League. (4 March 1893). Constitution (Article 8, Section 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands |
ʻO nā hālāwai a pau a ka Hui a me ke Kōmite Hoʻoponopono, e alakaʻi ʻia nō ia e nā rula o nā anaina maikaʻi a me nā rula maʻa mau o nā ʻAhaʻōlelo.
| —Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina a Hoʻomau Kūʻokoʻa a nā Lede. (27 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 7, Helu 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina |
All proceedings of meetings of the Association and of the Managing Committee shall be governed by the usual quorum and rules of similar associations.
| —Ladies Hawaiian Patriotic Association. (27 March 1893). Constitution (Article 7, Section 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands |
The "usual decorum and rules of Parliamentary Usage," and, "the usual quorum and rules of similar associations," as prescribed by the original Hui Aloha ʻĀina—Hawaiian Patriotic League—in its founding documents in 1893, was a reference to what is known today as common parliamentary law. This is a branch of common law that applies to meeting procedures of voluntary organizations. Rules of order enable a group to make more decisions in less time during meetings while also protecting the rights of the membership, including the majority, minority, individual members, absent members, and all of them together. Decorum during debate is a form of kapu aloha that helps us have vigorous discussion on controversial questions without burning bridges between members. These are democratic principles in action, well within the grasp of the average person open to learning them, empowering ordinary groups to take them into their own hands for pono governance.
A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian
By Keokani Kipona Marciel, MS
Founder, Hui Aloha ʻĀina o Las Vegas
People in the Hawaiian movement today are increasingly identifying themselves as “patriots.” The term for “patriot” in the Hawaiian language is aloha ʻāina. The popularity of this term traces back to Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina (Hawaiian Patriotic League), founded by one of the most storied patriots in Hawaiian history, Joseph Nāwahī, less than two months after the U.S.-backed overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1893.
Within two months of its debut, Hui Aloha ʻĀina (shortened version of its full name) had 37 District Branches on 5 islands, and a Central Body in Honolulu with at least 31 elected officers. In 1897, with a membership of about 18,500, Hui Aloha ʻĀina amassed more than 21,000 signatures on a petition opposed to annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States. Upon the arrival of this “Kūʻē Petition” in Washington D.C., on December 6th, 1897, 58 out of the 90 U.S. Senators were in favor of ratifying the annexation treaty, introduced by the puppet regime of insurgents that usurped the Hawaiian Kingdom government.
By February 27th, 1898, the number of U.S. Senators in support of the annexation treaty had dropped to 46, which was short of the 60 votes needed for a two-thirds supermajority, as required by the U.S. Constitution to ratify a treaty. Knowing that they did not have enough votes, the U.S. Senate did not even take a vote on the proposed annexation treaty. It is because of this heroic effort of Hui Aloha ʻĀina that the United States, to this day, does not have an annexation treaty to substantiate its claim to Hawaiian sovereignty.
Consistent with the notorious suppression of Hawaiian culture and history by foreigners, it wasn’t until 1996 that the anti-annexation petition of 1897 surfaced in the U.S. National Archives. Since then, Hui Aloha ʻĀina and the Kūʻē Petitions have become household names beloved by our Lāhui, contributing to a resurgence of Hawaiian national identity being experienced today.
Recent years have also seen the emergence of Hawaiian history that has been locked away in Hawaiian language newspapers. Rediscovered on June 23rd, 2014, the Constitution of the Hawaiian Patriotic League was printed in both Hawaiian and English, in Leo o ka Lāhui, on March 22nd, 1893. Hidden from us for 121 years, this historical document is barely beginning to filter its way through our Lāhui today. The 1893 constitution of Hui Aloha ʻĀina is so relevant to Hawaiian patriots today, that many of us would like to be organized under that constitution again. Its second article reads:
Within two months of its debut, Hui Aloha ʻĀina (shortened version of its full name) had 37 District Branches on 5 islands, and a Central Body in Honolulu with at least 31 elected officers. In 1897, with a membership of about 18,500, Hui Aloha ʻĀina amassed more than 21,000 signatures on a petition opposed to annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States. Upon the arrival of this “Kūʻē Petition” in Washington D.C., on December 6th, 1897, 58 out of the 90 U.S. Senators were in favor of ratifying the annexation treaty, introduced by the puppet regime of insurgents that usurped the Hawaiian Kingdom government.
By February 27th, 1898, the number of U.S. Senators in support of the annexation treaty had dropped to 46, which was short of the 60 votes needed for a two-thirds supermajority, as required by the U.S. Constitution to ratify a treaty. Knowing that they did not have enough votes, the U.S. Senate did not even take a vote on the proposed annexation treaty. It is because of this heroic effort of Hui Aloha ʻĀina that the United States, to this day, does not have an annexation treaty to substantiate its claim to Hawaiian sovereignty.
Consistent with the notorious suppression of Hawaiian culture and history by foreigners, it wasn’t until 1996 that the anti-annexation petition of 1897 surfaced in the U.S. National Archives. Since then, Hui Aloha ʻĀina and the Kūʻē Petitions have become household names beloved by our Lāhui, contributing to a resurgence of Hawaiian national identity being experienced today.
Recent years have also seen the emergence of Hawaiian history that has been locked away in Hawaiian language newspapers. Rediscovered on June 23rd, 2014, the Constitution of the Hawaiian Patriotic League was printed in both Hawaiian and English, in Leo o ka Lāhui, on March 22nd, 1893. Hidden from us for 121 years, this historical document is barely beginning to filter its way through our Lāhui today. The 1893 constitution of Hui Aloha ʻĀina is so relevant to Hawaiian patriots today, that many of us would like to be organized under that constitution again. Its second article reads:
The object of this Association is to preserve and maintain, by all legal and peaceful means and measures, the Independent Autonomy of the Islands of Hawaii nei; and, if the preservation of our Independence be rendered impossible, our object shall then be to exert all peaceful and legal efforts to secure for the Hawaiian People and Citizens the continuance of their Civil Rights. |
This epiphany has catalyzed the formation of Hui Aloha ʻĀina o Las Vegas—Hawaiian Patriotic League of Las Vegas. The first organizational meeting of this local hui was held on January 9th, 2016, and a committee has been formed to draft its bylaws. Announced simultaneously to the Lāhui on social media, Hawaiian patriots back home are already inspired by this aloha ʻāina initiative from Las Vegas:
The pieces are all here. Let's put this Hui back together and get off this sinking pirate ship. —William Chang, Hāna, Maui |
Let's not reinvent the wheel people...I would jump on this. I wanna know who organized this Hui? Anybody wanna take the lead in Kapolei? Nanakuli? Kealoha Kahunaʻāina Iona —Shannon Denning, Mākaha, Oʻahu |
Love of country is the essence of patriotism. Hawaiians have just as much right to love of country as any other people in the world. Indentification as a Hawaiian patriot is a postive expression of love toward the country of the Hawaiian Islands. Rediscovering this identity allows Hawaiian people to dissociate from inaccurate labels such as “activist,” “nationalist,” “protester,” or “sovereignty group,” which have plagued our Lāhui for decades.
The term aloha ʻāina, or “Hawaiian patriot,” is preferrable to the term “Hawaiian national,” because the latter implies someone who is seeking nationhood. Ever since the Hawaiian Kingdom formally entered the Family of Nations on November 28th, 1843, the continuity of its sovereignty and independence as a State has been presumed under international law.
In 1993, the United States formally acknowledged that it does not have a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty by way of treaty, plebiscite, or referendum. In fact, the only official claim that the United States has ever made to Hawaiian sovereignty is by its joint resolution of 1898, known as the “Newlands Resolution.” In 1988, however, the U.S. Department of State, through its Office of Legal Counsel, failed to verify the constitutionality of annexation by joint resolution.
Hui Aloha ʻĀina is a feat of grassroots organization that is unsurpassed in Hawaiian history. This association was disbanded in 1900, when it merged with Hui Kalaiʻāina to become Kūʻokoa Home Rula (Independent Home Rule Party). However, its legacy is so beloved, and its constitution so compelling, that there is growing interest in reviving this important institution today.
If our Lāhui today had the grassroots infrastucture that Hui Aloha ʻĀina provided us from 1893 to 1900, we could have already had an ʻaha by now, free from co-optation and judicial interference by the occupier. Consider that we sent a petition with more than 21,000 signatures to Washington D.C. in 1897, which defeated the annexation treaty. The petition succeeded without being initiated by an American law (Act 195), without funding from OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs), without a “Native Hawaiian” roll commission (Kanaʻiolowalu) appointed by an American governor (Neil Abercrombie), without a committee (Naʻi Aupuni) appointed by OHA, without outsourcing to an American company (Elections-America), and without rulemaking by the DOI (U.S. Department of Interior).
We can return to our grassroots today.
The term aloha ʻāina, or “Hawaiian patriot,” is preferrable to the term “Hawaiian national,” because the latter implies someone who is seeking nationhood. Ever since the Hawaiian Kingdom formally entered the Family of Nations on November 28th, 1843, the continuity of its sovereignty and independence as a State has been presumed under international law.
In 1993, the United States formally acknowledged that it does not have a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty by way of treaty, plebiscite, or referendum. In fact, the only official claim that the United States has ever made to Hawaiian sovereignty is by its joint resolution of 1898, known as the “Newlands Resolution.” In 1988, however, the U.S. Department of State, through its Office of Legal Counsel, failed to verify the constitutionality of annexation by joint resolution.
Hui Aloha ʻĀina is a feat of grassroots organization that is unsurpassed in Hawaiian history. This association was disbanded in 1900, when it merged with Hui Kalaiʻāina to become Kūʻokoa Home Rula (Independent Home Rule Party). However, its legacy is so beloved, and its constitution so compelling, that there is growing interest in reviving this important institution today.
If our Lāhui today had the grassroots infrastucture that Hui Aloha ʻĀina provided us from 1893 to 1900, we could have already had an ʻaha by now, free from co-optation and judicial interference by the occupier. Consider that we sent a petition with more than 21,000 signatures to Washington D.C. in 1897, which defeated the annexation treaty. The petition succeeded without being initiated by an American law (Act 195), without funding from OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs), without a “Native Hawaiian” roll commission (Kanaʻiolowalu) appointed by an American governor (Neil Abercrombie), without a committee (Naʻi Aupuni) appointed by OHA, without outsourcing to an American company (Elections-America), and without rulemaking by the DOI (U.S. Department of Interior).
We can return to our grassroots today.
KA PAIO HANOHANO
THE HONORABLE STRUGGLE
NO KA MEA KĀKAU
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
He Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina au, mau a mau, he mamo haʻaheo a kuʻu tūtū wahine nui ʻelua, Loke Kaʻilikea, no Kaupō, Maui, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
Keokani Kipona Marciel is a great-great grandson of Loke Kaʻilikea (1857-1914), of Kaupō, Maui, who signed the historic Petition Against Annexation in 1897, which defeated the proposed treaty of illegal annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by a foreign country in 1898.
Keokani is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian accredited by the National Association of Parliamentarians. He currently serves as the Parliamentarian for the National Education Association of Southern Nevada.
Keokani is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian accredited by the National Association of Parliamentarians. He currently serves as the Parliamentarian for the National Education Association of Southern Nevada.
Scholarship
Support My Work
Nā Papaʻa - Archives
December 2020
May 2020
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
December 2018
April 2018
October 2017
January 2016
Nā Mahele - Categories
All
Americanized Hawaiians
Belligerent Occupation
Denationalization
Deoccupaton
Hawaiian Kingdom
Hawaiian Patriotic Societies
Ko Hawaii Pae Aina
La Hoihoi Ea
Lahui Hawaii Aloha Aina
La Kuokoa
Mauna Kea
No Treaty Of Cession
Olelo Hawaii
Organizational Procedure
Renationalization
RSS Feed