Keokani Kipona Kapahua-Kaʻilikea
  • Heahea
    • Palapalaʻāina Kahua
    • Nā Nīnau Pinepine
    • Hoʻokaʻaʻike
  • No Aʻu
    • Pāheona
    • Nā Puke Punahele
    • Nā Līpine Punahele
    • Nā Kumu Hoʻohālike
    • ʻOihana
  • ʻOhana
    • Moʻolelo ʻAi
    • Kaʻilikea-Marciel
    • No Kuʻu Mākua
  • Nā Hana Punahele
    • Lāʻau Ola >
      • Papa Hana ʻAi
      • ʻAoʻao ʻAi
      • Kumu Waiwai Kūloko >
        • Palapalaʻāina
      • Kānela Wikiō
      • NutritionFacts.org
    • Kolepa Pōpō Pālānai >
      • Kānela Wikiō
    • Pia Hana Lima >
      • Nā ʻAno
      • ʻAoʻao Pia
      • Kānela Wikiō
    • Nā Palapalaʻāina
    • Nā Kānela Wikiō
    • ʻAoʻao Meetup
  • ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Mua ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Nā Wikiō ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Puke Wehewehe ʻŌlelo
    • Wehewehe Wikiwiki
    • ʻAoʻao ʻŌlelo
  • Aloha ʻĀina
    • Ka Paio Hanohano
    • Hana ʻImi Naʻauao >
      • Hoʻolilo ʻana Kelikoli
      • Kānāwai Hoʻomalu
      • Kumukānāwai Aupuni
      • Lōkahi Aupuni Hawaiʻi >
        • He Hui Manaʻo Lōkahi
      • Meaʻai Maoli
      • Mōʻaukala Lāhui
    • Nā Mele Aloha ʻĀina
    • Noho Hewa
  • Hāʻawi Wale
    • Cash App
    • PayPal
    • Venmo

KA PAIO HANOHANO
The Honorable Struggle

Democratic Organizational Procedure in Contemporary Lāhui Hawaiʻi

7/11/2019

0 Comments

 
By Keokani Kipona Marciel, Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP)

​ʻO nā hana o nā hālāwai a pau o ka Hui a me ka ʻAha Hoʻokō 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. (4 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 8, Helu 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina

Democratic Organizational Procedure in the 19th Century Hawaiian Kingdom

From 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.

​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

Democratic Organizational Procedure in 21st Century Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina

In 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.

​​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

A 21st Century Case Study

The 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.

​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

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.
​Boards cannot suspend, amend, repeal or otherwise change any act of a higher body (convention, assembly, etc.) except by express bylaw; ...
—Demeter, G. (1969). Demeter's manual of parliamentary law and procedure: For the legal conduct of business in all deliberative assemblies (blue book ed., § 20, I, p. 270). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
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).
​Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order ...
—Robert, H. M., III, Honemann, D. H., Balch, T. J., Seabold, D. E., & Gerber, S. (2011). Robert's rules of order newly revised (11th ed., § 25, p. 263, ll. 1-6). Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
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.
​An assembly can ratify only such actions of its officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies as it would have had the right to authorize in advance. It cannot make valid a voice-vote election when the bylaws require elections to be by ballot; nor can it ratify anything done in violation of procedural rules prescribed by national, state, or local law, or in violation of its own bylaws, except that provision for a quorum in the bylaws does not prevent it from ratifying action taken at a meeting when no quorum was present.
—Robert, H. M., III, Honemann, D. H., Balch, T. J., Seabold, D. E., & Gerber, S. (2011). Robert's rules of order newly revised (11th ed., § 10, p. 125, ll. 6-14). Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
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.

​Bylaws are rules adopted and maintained by an association to define and direct its internal structure and management. Bylaws may be thought of as terms of an agreement between members and their association. Members, once they have joined an organization, are legally bound by its bylaws.
—American Institute of Parliamentarians. (2012). Standard code of parliamentary procedure (§ 26, p. 237). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Conclusion

Dual 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.

​Members are obliged not to oppose decisions already made except through proper parliamentary mechanisms, such as moving to rescind or reconsider them. If the member cannot in good faith abide by a decision, that member must decide between living with it or leaving the organization.
—Lochrie, J. (2003). Meeting procedures: Parliamentary law and rules of order for the 21st century (§ 1, p. 4). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.

Discussion

  • ​Can democratic organizational procedure occur spontaneously?

  • Without adhering to generally accepted practices for meeting procedures, how can an organization expect to hold democratic meetings, or to do so consistently?
​
  • Without a basic knowledge of parliamentary principles, how can an organization expedite business during meetings while also protecting the various rights of its membership?

​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.

There can be no action of a deliberative body except when it is in session, whether it is a society, or a board, or a committee. Members, of course, may consult together, but even if the agreement is unanimous the action must be ratified in a formal meeting.
—Robert, H. M. (2001). Parliamentary law (§ XLIII, p. 534). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers. (Original work published 1923)​
The will of a body (such as the membership, an assembly of delegates, a board, or a committee) can generally be expressed only through meetings.
—American Institute of Parliamentarians. (2012). Standard code of parliamentary procedure (§ 1, p. 3). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
​Organizations may take official action only in meetings properly called, and with a quorum of members present, unless applicable law allows for action by unanimous written consent.
​—Keesey, R. E. (2018). Modern parliamentary procedure (2nd ed., § 1, p. 15). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
​As is the case with postal mail or exchanges of facsimiles, in which members are unable to communicate simultaneously with all other members, Internet or e-mail discussions cannot be easily substituted for traditional meetings and are not meetings in the true sense. Nevertheless, several forms of Internet use, such as e-mail and chat rooms, are useful for rapid exchange of information and ideas. Where the law permits, and the procedures are developed within the organization’s documents, decisions may be validated through electronic means.
—American Institute of Parliamentarians. (2012). Standard code of parliamentary procedure (§ 12, p. 109). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

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:
​
  1. Hawaiian language revitalization - ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi is the national language of a Country that has not been extinguished without a bilateral treaty of cession. To the extent that the Lāhui regains the national language fluency of its ancestors, de-occupation of Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina will naturally follow. The more the world sees the Lāhui speaking its national language, the more the world will take the de-occupation movement seriously. The current Hawaiian language revitalization movement, if turned up to full strength, would be a Hawaiian fluency revolution. To restore the Hawaiian language is to restore the national language of the Hawaiian Kingdom. At any rate, Hawaiian language revitalization is a driving force for the growing Hawaiian nationality renaissance. Metaphorically, the genie (Hawaiian national language) is out of the bottle (belligerent occupation) in a positive way.
  2. The struggle against TMT construction on Mauna Kea - The unlawful initiative (without a treaty of cession) to build the proposed Thirty Meter Telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea could perhaps prove to be the most powerful force to galvanize the Lāhui in the modern era. As is true with Hawaiian language revitalization, the TMT conflict is a major issue upon which both the Lāhui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina (Hawaiian national body) and much of the Americanized Hawaiian movement (status quo Hawaiians) can agree and unite. It is an historic window of opportunity that could potentially surpass the order of magnitude of the successful military de-occupation of Kahoʻolawe in the 1970s.

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.
​
  • It is a false dilemma to believe that parliamentary procedure is all or nothing because one of its fundamental principles is that procedures should not be more formal or strict than necessary for a given meeting.
 
  • Therefore, it is a strawman fallacy to believe that meeting procedures obstruct rather than facilitate the orderly transaction of business by an organization.
 
  • Furthermore, it is a red herring to use parliamentary procedure as a scapegoat for dissatisfaction with a meeting in which members or officers predominantly lack the basic skills for democratic meetings.

​Other arguments could be marshaled in favor of approaching a problem-solving or decision-making situation without resorting to parliamentary rules. Such groups probably do, however, use a crude form of parliamentary procedure, and, of course, effectiveness is not assured by abandoning traditional parliamentary procedure. It is possible that this point of view may mask a failure to study the basic rules of procedure and a resulting ignorance of the flexibility possible within good parliamentary practice.
​—Keesey, R. E. (2018). Modern parliamentary procedure (2nd ed., § 1, p. 17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
​In the interest of orderly procedure, and of self-education in the rules of order in a great democratic nation which abounds in organizations and societies, a parliamentary law book which is authoritative and easy to comprehend and apply at meetings and conventions should be in every club member's home.
—Demeter, G. (1969). Demeter's manual of parliamentary law and procedure: For the legal conduct of business in all deliberative assemblies (blue book ed., p. 3). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Manuals of Meeting Procedures Recommended for Lāhui Hawaiʻi

Picture
  • Puette, W. J., NeSmith, R. K. (2014). Nā Lula Hālāwai: A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian. Honolulu, HI: Hawaiʻi State Association of Parliamentarians.
​
  • Keesey, R. E. (2018). Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  • It is recommended to get the procedural manuals spiral-bound so that they remain open when laid on the table in front of you during meetings. Also, so they can be folded in half to take up less room in your workspace. Take the manuals to your local printer to have them spiral-bound.

New Theory Sheds Light on Authoritarian Governance
in Hawaiian Organizations Today

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    KA PAIO HANOHANO
    THE HONORABLE STRUGGLE


    NO KA MEA KĀKAU
    ABOUT THE AUTHOR

    Picture
    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. Inspired by that legacy, Keokani is a founding member of Pilina Aloha ʻĀina Kauʻāina (International Hawaiian Patriotic Union).

    Keokani is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian accredited by the National Association of Parliamentarians, and is a member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians. He currently serves as the Parliamentarian for the National Education Association of Southern Nevada.

    Hana ʻImi Naʻauao
    Scholarship
    Hāʻawi Wale
    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

Heahea | No Aʻu | ʻOhana | Nā Hana Punahele | ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi | Aloha ʻĀina​ | Hāʻawi Wale

Kulia i ka Nuʻu!

​Kuleana kope 2016-2021 Keokani Kipona Kapahua-Kaʻilikea
  • Heahea
    • Palapalaʻāina Kahua
    • Nā Nīnau Pinepine
    • Hoʻokaʻaʻike
  • No Aʻu
    • Pāheona
    • Nā Puke Punahele
    • Nā Līpine Punahele
    • Nā Kumu Hoʻohālike
    • ʻOihana
  • ʻOhana
    • Moʻolelo ʻAi
    • Kaʻilikea-Marciel
    • No Kuʻu Mākua
  • Nā Hana Punahele
    • Lāʻau Ola >
      • Papa Hana ʻAi
      • ʻAoʻao ʻAi
      • Kumu Waiwai Kūloko >
        • Palapalaʻāina
      • Kānela Wikiō
      • NutritionFacts.org
    • Kolepa Pōpō Pālānai >
      • Kānela Wikiō
    • Pia Hana Lima >
      • Nā ʻAno
      • ʻAoʻao Pia
      • Kānela Wikiō
    • Nā Palapalaʻāina
    • Nā Kānela Wikiō
    • ʻAoʻao Meetup
  • ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Mua ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Nā Wikiō ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Puke Wehewehe ʻŌlelo
    • Wehewehe Wikiwiki
    • ʻAoʻao ʻŌlelo
  • Aloha ʻĀina
    • Ka Paio Hanohano
    • Hana ʻImi Naʻauao >
      • Hoʻolilo ʻana Kelikoli
      • Kānāwai Hoʻomalu
      • Kumukānāwai Aupuni
      • Lōkahi Aupuni Hawaiʻi >
        • He Hui Manaʻo Lōkahi
      • Meaʻai Maoli
      • Mōʻaukala Lāhui
    • Nā Mele Aloha ʻĀina
    • Noho Hewa
  • Hāʻawi Wale
    • Cash App
    • PayPal
    • Venmo