It can’t be easy for any of the trustees or officers of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to remain neutral on the issue of forming a Native Hawaiian nation.

That’s been a central element in OHA’s agenda for years.

In addition, the majority position of OHA has been to favor one particular approach to sovereignty: seeking U.S. federal recognition for Native Hawaiians as a political entity.

But OHA’s beneficiaries — who split on whether federal recognition or full independence should be the goal — were promised neutrality as the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission finishes its work.

In the run-up to a planned convention this fall for forming a government, the enrollees will be the ones to pick delegates and vote on any organic documents that emerge.

Clearly, the agency’s capacity to perform in that role was damaged last week with its showdown over a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

The whole episode was a classic case of mismanagement that largely can be traced to the executive office.

The central query itself was rational enough: What, in the State Department’s legal opinion, is the status of Hawaii as a sovereign entity?

Does the Hawaiian Kingdom continue to exist under international law?

Is there any criminal liability in pursuing a government entity?

Some would rightly say that these matters have been under the radar at past OHA meetings, given the very real constituency for the independence viewpoint in Hawaiian communities.

But protocol matters, and Kamana’opono Crabbe, OHA’s chief executive officer, did not follow it in sending the letter without fully discussing its contents with the trustees, who seemed wholly surprised when it happened.

Crabbe has his defenders, many of whom turned out in his defense at OHA’s regular board meeting Thursday on Maui. What they are overlooking, however, is that this wasn’t the only crucial question raised in the letter, dated May 5.

In the closing paragraph of the 3 1/2-page letter, Crabbe wrote that while he awaits the opinion, he will ask trustees to vote for a delay in the nationhood organizational schedule. That expression of high uncertainty is not what should be telegraphed in advance of a vote.

OHA has invested a lot of energy, and money, in the pursuit of nationhood, and is trying to position itself as a facilitator of nation-building talks to occur later this year.

Some have argued that this timetable is too aggressive. They could be right.

Regardless, setting the timetable is a matter for the OHA Board of Trustees, the ones elected by and accountable to the beneficiaries of the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund.

Crabbe, by contrast, is answerable to the board. That is how OHA is set up.

And there are some trustees who would reasonably argue that a time clock is ticking if all possible sovereignty options — including federal recognition — are to remain on the table.

President Barack Obama has only two more full years in his second term, and having a Hawaii-born president in office considerably improves the political climate for recognition. That is definitely an argument for pressing ahead with electing delegates and beginning the discussions sooner rather than later.

There was far less time pressure for Crabbe to send his letter. He should have put it fully before the board instead of acting unilaterally to send his query to the State Department.

Trustees reacted angrily, with good reason, and the majority voted to rescind Crabbe’s letter.

In many organizations, the chief of staff taking the board by such severe surprise would be cause for dismissal.

That seems unlikely to happen here, because of the sensitivity of the issue. On Monday the board and Crabbe are due to have a closed-door "ho’oponopono" reconciliation session.

What needs to emerge from that meeting is a clearer directive on how the board and its CEO will work together on fulfilling the agency’s role in the months ahead — and if that’s even possible with this CEO.

The community needs a facilitator, one that speaks with a unified voice.