The ceded land trust consists of roughly 1.2 million acres of lands, submerged lands and harbors that were ceded by the federal government to the state under section 5(f) of the 1959 Hawai'i Admissions Act as a public trust. There are five purposes of the trust proceeds, one of which is bettering the conditions of native Hawaiians as defined by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. In 1978, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created as a state agency under Article XII to administer the ceded lands revenues dedicated to this obligation. The governor, the Legislature and the courts all agree the state's OHA has not received a proper share of the revenue. The only questions left are the terms and purpose of the settlement.

I applaud Gov. Linda Lingle and OHA for their leadership in taking up this longstanding issue, but process and inclusion matter, and what is important to Hawaiians must matter. The Legislature should not hastily approve this settlement for the sake of settling, or political or monetary expediency, or simply because it has been an issue for 30 years.

The opportunity here is much bigger. Hawaiians and our great state deserve a different future over our difficult past. It will come from a different approach. We cannot start the dialogue when the ink on a settlement agreement has dried; we must resolve to reach an agreement that accounts for what the beneficiaries of the ceded land trust value most. Without consultation, we cannot know if this agreement contains their priorities at all. Expediency is not the center of the bull's-eye, and settlement terms that flash a number and call out "This is your last chance, take it or leave it" is not how we achieve the very different future we see for ourselves as Hawaiians or as a state.

There are more than 200 years of native history of this kind of deal-making, here and in every state in the country. Under circumstances that are only defined by the measurements and consumption models of unrestrained capitalism, we have not fared well, nor has the stewardship of our island home as a result. Both hang in the balance of what we do differently now. We must not make decisions with insufficient time for due diligence. We must not accept being the last to know and having no opportunity to establish what our collective beneficiary priorities are in order to guide the priorities of an agreement at the beginning. We must not accept that fear of lost dollars and cents is the place where our deliberations begin. If we do, we rob our state of the Hawaiian ingenuity and energy toward developing long-lasting solutions to our state's most complex challenges.

I don't subscribe to these circumstances, and I don't subscribe to the notion that $13 million-plus land is the only answer to a 30-year question based on them. We haven't asked the right questions of the very beneficiaries we say this settlement supports, especially our homestead communities. We haven't asked, "What are your priorities in your communities, given the condition of your island homeland and the future you are reaching for? Will $13 million in cash and land at Kaka'ako, Hilo Bay and Kalaeloa meet them?" What is important to Hawaiians must matter in this settlement and in the administration of this trust, lest it be just another expedient deal, and not the fulfillment of priorities we know for ourselves must be achieved. Process and inclusion matter.

Going forward there are three actions the state should consider:

1) Agree to the completion of a ceded lands inventory. Regardless of whether lands are idle or generating income, this is a prudent data point for the trust and state to have and publish. Reasonable people would not agree to sell the contents of the family home without taking an inventory.

2) Coordinate well-planned consultation sessions over the next nine months, versus the past six weeks, to provide beneficiaries with comprehensive data by which to fully evaluate the agreement, and submit a report to the Legislature in 2009.

3) Specifically reach out and identify the priorities of beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act on this settlement and in general. Beneficiary organizations are long standing and well known to the state and OHA, easily and readily available for consultation. Designate a representative from the Hawaiian Homes Commission to participate in any negotiations.

Settlement agreements of this nature, involving a public trust containing the collective assets and resources of the Hawaiian people, must pursue equitable value based on a set of priorities, and a reconciliation that respects the knowledge of those most impacted. Our trust will survive the time necessary for due diligence, and a thoughtful evaluation by the Legislature and the beneficiaries of the trust.

Robin Puanani Danner is the CEO of a Native Hawaiian community development nonprofit, is a former bank executive, and lives on Kaua'i. She wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.