Requesting The Establishment Of A Working Group To Study The Feasibility Of Creating A Hawaii Cultural Trust To Preserve And Promote Hawaii's Cultural Resources.
H.R. 135 is a House Resolution that requests the creation of a working group to study whether Hawaii should establish a Hawaii Cultural Trust. The resolution frames the trust as a way to preserve and promote the state’s cultural resources, including Native Hawaiian traditions, historical landmarks, arts organizations, and cultural institutions. It cites the value of cultural preservation to education, tourism, economic growth, and community well-being, and points to other states’ cultural trusts as possible models.
The proposed working group would be co-chaired by the House and Senate committee chairs with jurisdiction over culture and the arts and would include representatives from the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Hawaii Tourism Authority, and the Hawaiʻi State LGBTQ+ Commission. It would also invite participation from the Hawaiʻi Council for the Humanities, Native Hawaiian cultural organizations, nonprofit arts groups, and academic experts. The group is directed to study funding sources, tax incentives, governance structures, administrative and legal issues, and to recommend any legislation needed to create the trust, with a report due before the 2026 session.
Because this is a resolution requesting a study rather than creating a program or appropriating funds, its immediate legal effect is limited. It does not itself establish the Hawaii Cultural Trust, change tax law, or create new statutory duties; instead, it sets up a process that could lead to future legislation. Its practical impact would be to convene stakeholders and generate recommendations that could shape later policy on cultural funding and preservation.
The general sentiment reflected in the resolution is supportive and forward-looking. The bill’s findings emphasize broad benefits from cultural investment and suggest interest in building a more sustainable funding model for arts and heritage organizations. No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded opposition or debate to indicate broader legislative sentiment beyond the resolution’s favorable framing.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the feasibility of creating a new trust, how it would be funded, whether tax incentives should be used, and what governance model would best balance public oversight with private and philanthropic support. Questions may also arise about which cultural groups and institutions would benefit, how Native Hawaiian cultural priorities would be represented, and whether the proposed structure would duplicate or overlap with existing agencies and programs.
H.R. 135 would not directly amend Hawaii statutes or create a new trust; instead, it establishes a legislative study process aimed at developing future policy. The resolution would convene a multi-agency, multi-stakeholder working group to evaluate legal, administrative, funding, and governance options for a Hawaii Cultural Trust and to draft recommendations, potentially including proposed legislation. Any actual changes to state law, tax incentives, or cultural funding mechanisms would require subsequent legislation based on the working group’s findings.
The resolution appears broadly favorable and collaborative in tone, with an emphasis on preserving Hawaii’s cultural heritage and strengthening long-term support for arts and cultural institutions. The inclusion of state agencies, cultural organizations, Native Hawaiian interests, tourism officials, and the LGBTQ+ Commission suggests an effort to build consensus and ensure broad representation. No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no evidence of formal opposition in the available record.
The likely areas of contention are policy design and implementation rather than the general goal of cultural preservation. Stakeholders may disagree over whether a cultural trust is the best mechanism, what funding sources should be used, whether tax incentives are appropriate, and how the trust should be governed. There may also be differing views on representation within the working group, the role of public versus private funding, and how to ensure the trust meaningfully supports Native Hawaiian cultural resources without duplicating existing institutions or creating new administrative burdens.