House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning.

Convening our Friday, January 31, 2025 8:30am agenda here in the Committee on Public Safety. Happy Aloha Friday, everyone. I hope you all stay dry and safe over the last evening. Members, we have an agenda, not too full, but then we do have a 10am agenda.

I want to go over just some ground rules as I look for my ground rules. For those of you who may be with us on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and your. And after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with technical staff only.

Please use the chat only for technical issues. Do we have anyone on Zoom at the moment? Okay. If you are disconnected unexpectedly because of the weather and problems we've been having over the last few days, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting if disconnected when while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits.

Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice, Members, will be posted.

Also, for those of you on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. And I know that this group will refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. We can agree to disagree and we can do it with Aloha. Any grounds. Any profanity or uncivil behavior may be grounds to be removed from the hearing.

But I hope we do not have to cross that line. Members, first up, House Bill 1062 relating to the Air National Guard. This really is a housekeeping measure to sort of align titles and all that sort. So first up, we have testimony in support. Major General Stephen Logan or his representative.

Morning Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto and Committee Members. Colonel Nagatani representing Major General Logan. We stand on the testimony that we submitted. I'm here to answer any questions.

Okay. We have testimony also in support. Are you Major General Joseph Harris? Yes. The Hoya Air National Guard. Okay. And testimony and support from Terry Hedy. Okay, Members, any questions? I have a question.

Just because it was raised by our HMSO drafter, there's language in here that says allows the Hawaii Air National Guard to hold the rank authorized by the Department of Air Force, which is currently the Major General. But there doesn't appear to be HR language in the bill itself.

Does it need to be there, that language about that provision?

I do not believe so. The Major General Harris is currently in The Chief of Staff position. I don't believe the Bill will require that.

Okay. I think this might just be a technical-

Okay.

Issue, but we might want to take a look at that later.

Okay.

Members, any other questions? Any other testifiers? Oh, I should have asked. Any other testifiers? And I know that there weren't any testifiers by Zoom. Did anyone come in? All right. Thank you, sir.

All right, thanks.

Next up, relating to Hawaii National Guard, House Bill 674, authorizing the payment of allowances for TRICARE, TRICARE Dental Program and Vision Coverage to all officers, warrant officers and enlisted personnel of the Hawaii National Guard, ordered to active duty for more than 30 days. Members, we have testimony and support.

Again, representative from Department of Defense, Major General Stephen Logan, Adjutant General, or his representative.

Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair. Esteemed Members of the Committee, I'm Brigadier General Ross, Director of Joint Staff for the Hawaii National Guard and representing Major General Logan in the Department of Defense. We stand on our testimony as written. Any questions?

We'll ask questions for later. Individual Terry Headey in support. Anyone else in the room to testify? Anyone in Zoom to testify? None. Members, questions? No questions for me. All right, that's easy.

Thank you, Chair.

Let's move on. House Bill 652 relating to veterans rights and benefits.

This regulates persons receiving compensation for providing advice or assistance regarding veterans benefits. First up, we have Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Hawaii. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto and Members of the Committee. My name is Jamie Shadel from the Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of Hawaii. We're also going to stand on our written testimony this morning in strong support. What you're going to see today is a lot of testimony and strong opposition.

And working in this building, in and out of this building for the past two decades, I've learned that it's either a really bad bill or entities probably are going to lose a lot of money.

They're also going to fail to tell you that their practices are illegal under federal law and that there are no other options for veterans. There are options.

There's statistics in our testimony that showed that our organization, through Federal fiscal year 2024, serves over 2,000 of our veterans in Hawaii, and that amounted to about $60 million in veterans benefits. Pending any questions, we'll stand on our testimony this morning. Chair, thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony in opposition from the National Association for Veterans Rights, Ashley Berry, via Zoom.

Yes, thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Ashley Berry, Senior Vice President of Communications for the National Association for Veteran Rights. Veteran Suicide.

There's nothing on the video. Our TV's not on. Our TV is not on. Sorry, Ms. Berry, can you just hold on? There is no video. We're going to take a short recess to fix this technical error. Ms. Berry, just stay on, please.

Thank you. Agenda for Committee on Public safety.

Thank you, Ms. Berry, for holding tight. Go ahead.

Yes, I was just saying that. First of all, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. Veteran suicide remains a national crisis, often linked to delays and obstacles in accessing earned benefits. And as a former television journalist and Senior Executive at the U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs, I've seen firsthand how a complex claim system leads to homelessness, financial hardship, tragic outcomes for veterans. House Bill 652, while well intended, I would say, further restricts access to assistance, limiting veterans ability to choose qualified professionals who can really help navigate this bureaucratic process. The numbers are alarming.

Hawaii has over 107,000 veterans, but only 30 VSO representatives, leaving more than 3,500 veterans per one representative. And over 43% of claims are pending for more than four months. So these delays are not mere inconveniences. They can really be life threatening. The VA is overwhelmed. We know this.

Limiting expert guidance outside the VA's Accredited Accreditation System creates more barriers, leaving veterans without critical support and really increasing the risk of suicide. We cannot afford that risk. I've seen it firsthand, and it's just tragic. So I appreciate your time and urge the Committee to consider solutions that really, truly serve our veterans and give them a choice.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Barry. Please stay on for potential questions. We have testimony, written testimony only in opposition from the Veterans Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. We also have testimony in opposition from the Veteran Benefits Guide, Mr. Josh Smith. And we have testimony and opposition from an individual, Ms. Terry Headey. Members. Excuse me.

Any other testifiers in the audience? Any other testifiers via Zoom? I believe there might be someone there. Go ahead. Please identify yourself.

Yes. Ray Colas. Chairwoman Kapela, Members of the Committee, my name is Ray Colas and I am here on behalf of Veteran Benefits Guide to testify in opposition to House Bill 652 as currently written.

Now, Veteran Benefits Guide provides veterans with private, legal and fully federally compliant service outside of the Veteran affairs, helping to ensure that veterans receive the benefits that they have earned. Now, Veteran Benefits Guide strongly supports Representative Hashem's commitment to protecting our veterans. But unfortunately, the bill prohibits our services, services we provide as an honorable for profit company.

And it is our concern that we are. It's not our concern that we're going to lose money, as was stated by one of the prior testifiers, but that the veterans will lose a much needed service. The services that we provide.

We support many of the protections that this bill puts in place, but we cannot agree to a prohibition on our services. We have reached out to Representative Hashem to express these concerns and look forward to our continued conversations, but do oppose the bill as currently written. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Colas. Again, any other testifiers in the room? Seeing non Members. Questions? Representative Iwamoto?

Yes, I guess this is. Sorry, this is. It's kind of confusing when the people who drafted this or put this bill forward are not in the room, but. oh, so you worked on this bill. Okay. Please, sir, come forward.

Coming forward is the representative from Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Okay, thank you so much. So there are a lot of nonprofit organizations that are actually considered legal entities, and I'm not sure if VFW is such an organization. Are you a nonprofit organization?

We're a federally chartered veteran service organization and a nonprofit under 501C.19.

Oh, okay. So you are a legal entity as well. But there are a lot of nonprofit organizations who've been receiving funding to provide outreach and to let veterans know of services that are available to them. And so they would be considered legal entities under this definition of person.

And so obviously, I mean, so there are individual people who are getting paid as outreach workers to do this work. So because they're getting paid because there's a nonprofit receiving money to make sure your fellow veterans are know about services, would they be restricted under this bill?

We're supportive of considering there was a suggested amendment and testimony in support of another measure in the Senate that the previous testifier submitted testimony in support of.

If the nonprofit organization follows VA accreditation guidelines and doesn't receive compensation, we're willing to accept an amendment to the bill to allow a nonprofit not receiving compensation from the veteran to offer services on their behalf.

Certainly there's more than a veteran services veteran service organization that can provide that service as long as they follow federal law and not necessarily Veterans Benefit Guide. I'm not familiar with them, but from my basic research of them, they generally fall under federal compliance.

I'm not sure how their model works, but they were supportive of our Senate, one of our Senate vehicles, but we prefer this one because it has a clear connection to existing federal law. But an exception for an entity like them that doesn't receive compensation. We'd be open into that.

Thank you.

Mr. It's Shadel. Okay. In your testimony, there's veteran service organizations and there's accredited Veterans Service Officers. Under what authorities are veteran services officers accredited?

They're accredited by the Veterans Department of Veterans Affairs by the Federal Government.

Okay. So any veteran service organizations, organized under other laws, state laws, they can hire accredited veteran service officers. And those are the officers who are required to comply with these laws that you cite in your testimony?

Absolutely. And they have to comply with HIPAA. They have to have their get documents notarized so that they can do these services on behalf of the veteran. It's a legal relationship that the veteran service officer has with the veteran because they're handling sensitive information.

Now, is your veteran service organization also accredited by the Department of Veterans Affairs?

The actual officers are accredited. So we put forward the names of individuals that are volunteering to do this service, this job, and then they go to training that's accredited by the Department of Veterans Affairs. And then they have to pass testing. And then they. I believe there's a bonding requirement too.

And then, and only then do they get accredited by the VA.

So accredited veteran service officers get bonded.

Believe they do have to get bonded. I'm not sure. I'm not 100. I have to get back to you on that.

Okay. And then just in the, you know, in this landscape, are there other states that regulate these veterans, these veteran service organizations that seek compensation in this manner?

To the best of my knowledge, there are six states that have passed legislation and 44 states Attorneys General have submitted a statement in support of legislation having enforceable standards at the state level because there's no criminal violations on the federal level. Criminal or civil violations.

And what are those six states that have also passed regulations?

The first one is New Jersey. I can get you back with that list of states.

Okay. And then when you say that submitted. The 44 AGs have submitted statements in support of having enforceable safeguards at the state level or the federal level.

State level.

State level. They submitted statements of support to who?

I can provide you with the letter.

Okay. And then you cite in your testimony the Guard V.A. Act. What is that?

That was a proposal that was before the last Congress that didn't move at all. It was to re put the civil and criminal violations back into the federal law.

And these are civil and criminal regulations for all veteran service organizations.

Anybody providing individuals benefit services. For lack of a better description. The laws are on the books. They're just unenforceable. It's clear as black and white of what an individual has to do to provide this service to a veteran.

Okay, but the federal laws that you're citing to us say individuals, which is a different term of art, I would imagine, than persons. And that's the challenge we're having because you can have individuals, individual human beings. Right. And then the broad language of this Bill would regulate persons, which we know is a broader entity. Right. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you.

You're welcome. I'm not an attorney, so I. But I am familiar with your. What you're. What you're. We can figure out the correct term.

Okay.

And then there were also some amendments that the AG's office had provided to the Senate in the Senate Companion that were also supportive of.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Shadel.

Chairwoman Kapela, will I have an opportunity to answer some of your questions?

Yes. We're going to call the next testifiers or I have some more questions for other Members. Members, any other questions? Okay, you can have a seat. Or do you have a question of this testifier?

No, I have a question for the officers. Thank you, Chair. Seated. I was wondering, as people in your position, and you might not be familiar with the Bill because you're here to testify for another Bill, but hearing the discussion, I just wanted to get your take in your broad level.

Do you see a problem with abuse and veterans being taken advantage of in these types of services?

I'm sorry, sir. If you want to comment, please, please come up and comment and respond. But. And just identify yourself.

Good morning. My name is John P. Alamodin, Director for the State Office of Veteran Services, State of Hawaii, Department of Defense. Representative, per your question. Yes. You know, veterans, as others who are engaged in agencies or entities for support. There can always be potential for exploitation. What we're aware of, in terms of.

Specific to the veterans we serve, if there are particular claims, for example, that require legal support, and if these claims then result in potential disability compensation because of a particular VA rating, we are aware that of some legal representation may state in terms of a percentage of what is received should a judgment in terms of a claim is successful.

So we are aware of those instances occurring and so potentially can be exploitive to the veteran if he or she is not knowing how to proceed in that manner.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Follow up question from Rep. Iwamoto.

Sorry, sir. Sir, thank you so much. Are there any pro bono, legal services? Because I imagine the reason why they went to an attorney to seek assistance is because they knew they had a claim, something wasn't right. And so the only person they could seek was somebody who had, you know, a law office to support.

But so that's how they do their fee, you know, and obviously there are attorneys who lose a lot of cases and then so they count on winning one.

But as somebody who's worked for Volunteer Legal Services, Hawaii, are there specific nonprofit or pro bono services available to veterans who have a claim and who, you know, who can get free services? So there isn't that exploitive model that you're referring to.

Vice Chair Iwamoto? Yes, there are two particular legal counsels that I am aware of that do it pro bono. So, yes, there are. Per your questions.

Mr. Colas, I do have questions for you. So if you can turn your camera on in your testimony, you make a distinction or you say that Veterans Benefits Guide would welcome the opportunity to become accredited with the VA but cannot. Are you talking about your organization becoming accredited and under what authority is that accreditation occur?

Yes. So I want to clarify that accreditation is meant for currently. As current federal law is written, you're required to be accredited if you're going to represent the veteran before the veteran affairs or provide legal services. I want to make clear that we do not provide those services.

The services we provide takes place before a veteran needs to be presented before the VA or need any legal services. So I want to create that separate distinction so that we're no longer confused as to who needs to be accredited and who does not.

So going to the comment, you just made, the statement that we would welcome accreditation. That is, if federal law were to change to allow those who provide services similar to ours would also be inclusive within the accreditation requirement, which does not exist today.

Okay. On that note, so I imagine that that is determined by federal law.

That's correct.

And is there any federal laws moving that would open up that opportunity for accreditation for organizations like yours?

That is something that is currently being worked on.

Is there a bill in Congress currently or has been introduced?

Because this is a new Congress. It is being worked on. It hasn't been introduced yet.

Okay. Has any bills been introduced in the past? And I'm sorry, I keep pressing.

There has been?

Ya.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay. Are you aware of any states that have the kind of regulation being proposed in this Bill?

So we are aware that there are several states that want to put protection surrounding veterans who are receiving services from for profit organizations, all of which we support. The nuance within the Bill before you is a prohibition on our services as opposed to separating the good from the bad.

And that is the only reason why we are opposed.

Okay. The previous testifier or two testifiers ago stated that there were six states that had laws on the books similar to this and mentioned New Jersey. Are you aware of what the other five states might be?

I don't believe that there are five states. From the research that we have conducted and with the. With our involvement in the issues. We are aware of New Jersey. We are aware of Maine and Massachusetts and. I'm sorry, Maine and New York.

And I also want to add, in all three of those states there is a pending lawsuit.

Okay. All right, Members, any other questions? All right, seeing none, we can go on. Thank you for the great conversation and information from our testifiers. We are going to now move to House Bill 1058 relating to veteran services.

This would establish the Veterans Cemetery Board within the Office of Veterans Services of the Department of Defense, to provide veterans cemeteries in the state with guidance, education, technical assistance, and other support to ensure compliance with standards set by the National Cemetery Administration of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

First up, we have representative for Major General Stephen Logan, Department of Defense, in support. And I believe that would be Mr. Alamodin, Director of the Hawaii Office of Veterans Services.

Again, aloha Chair Bellatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, and Members of the Committee. I, again, am John P. Alamodin, Director, Office of Veterans Services, State of Hawaii, Department of Defense. The Office of Veterans Services, OVS, provided written testimony and stand in support of House Bill 1058, subject to any questions.

All right, um, we'll take questions. I'm sure there will be some, so just hang on. We have Terry Heedy, in support. Any other testifiers in the room? Any testifiers via Zoom? Okay, Members, any questions? Nope. No questions from me, actually.

All right, seeing no questions, we'll move on to House Bill 503, relating to Hawaii First Responders Memorial, appropriates funds to the Department of Accounting and General Services to hire a consultant to evaluate potential locations and designs for the Hawaii First Responders Memorial. Members testimony. First up, in support, from Department of Accounting and General Services, Keith Regan, or his representative.

Aloha, Gordon Wood, for the Department of Accounting and General Services. The Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. I'm available for any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. We have testimony, in support, from Jayson Pablo, County of County of Kauai Fire Department. Written testimony only. Testimony, in support, from City and County of Honolulu Managing Director, Michael Formby. Testimony, in support, from Council Member Radiant Cordero. Testimony, in support, from UPW Hawaii. Testimony, in support, from individual Eddie Fujioka. Members. Any questions?

I have a quick question for Mr. Wood.

Yes, ma'am?

Who are the Members of the Working Group?

Ah, okay. I was afraid you were going to ask that question, as I was sitting here. And I can't answer the question right now, because there's almost two dozen people on the Working Group.

Okay.

Representatives from all of the first responder organizations from all the counties, as well as a private first responder organization.

And then we also have two new Members who are representing families of fallen first responders.

And then is there a timeline that—I mean, I know you folks have only had literally two meetings, maybe a third one in January?

Uh, no. We have had only two meetings and then sort of a tour of other memorials in the Capital District area. Mhm.

Okay. What is the timeline for construction, if you have any timeline?

Okay, we don't have a timeline yet. The Working Group is, is, basically still in an organizational mode at this point, and we need to identify what kind of memorial they want to have erected, where it should be, and come up with a budget for it.

And all of these other steps that need to go before we can come up with a schedule for when construction might start.

And then the consultant will also help with those kinds of—like plotting out the milestones?

At this point, we're looking for a consultant to help with site selection—if you will—identifying and evaluating different sites. It may be the same consultant, going forward, or we may hire a different consultant, depending on the requirements.

Okay. And then is there any ballpark range of the money that's being requested? Because it's blank in the Bill.

It, it is. And I know we suggested a figure to Representative Ichiyama, but I forget what that is, and I will get back to the Committee on that.

Okay. If you could provide that information to me. We're not going to do decision making on this until the end of our 10:00 AM agenda, so if you can get that information to me and then we can put that into the budget, that would be helpful.

I will certainly try to do that. Yes.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Members, any other questions? Go ahead.

Mr. Wood, do you—would this—Committee consider doing a living memorial? I think about all the other memorials that are in this—in our downtown area—and so many of them are so passive.

But when I think about first responders, I think about people who are active, and I think about children on playgrounds developing the coordination and the muscle dexterity to become first responders one day. It would, I just don't know if it would be...if it's ever been done before.

But an amazing playground that children can use and develop these, these skill sets could be an amazing memorial concept.

I think that's an exciting idea and something that the Working Group should certainly discuss. If you'd like to join us in one of the Working Group meetings, I can certainly send you an invitation.

Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Wood. Again, just for the testifiers here, my plan is to do decision making at the end of the 10:00 AM agenda, so there's no need for you to stay.

So there is no need for you to stay. We just have one more bill on the on the agenda, but you are welcome to stay to listen to the rest of this hearing. Next up is House Bill 1502, relating to insurance. It would establish requirements for property and casualty insurers and policies for pre and post-disaster protections. Members first up, we have testimony from Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Insurance Division. Just comments.

Insurance Division. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We have testimony in opposition from Mike Onofrei, Hawaii Insurance Council. Testimony comments, NAMIC. Let me read that out. National Association for Mutual Insurance Companies. We have testimony from the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, in support. We have testimony in support from individuals, Cindy Luckey, Sherry Peterson via Zoom. Ms. Peterson, go ahead.

Good morning, and thank you Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, and and a special thank you to Representative Elle Cochran and others for introducing this very important bill. I'm here to support this bill by way of introduction. I'm Sherry Peterson. I have been working with disaster survivors since about three weeks after the disaster occurred, and United Policies has been here since the early days after the disaster.

Presently, I am working with United Policyholders, and in that capacity, I've been providing education, resources, and support to policyholders individually and collectively, and in that capacity have learned of many of the challenges they face in pursuing their claims and also draw upon the experience of United Policyholders, who's been a nonprofit for over 30 years.

Additionally, these suggestions have--were--or this bill is the product of research as to what other states have done in response to Policyholders' issues and concerns after a disaster, and this bill is specifically to take effect in a declared disaster. I just wanted to--I want to--I'm available for questions on my testimony and I wanted to just highlight a few areas.

One is section 431:10Eb, the notice of cancellation and non-renewal. We would address or would request additional language be added that if the reason for the non-renewal or cancellation is remedied within the notice period, that the policy should then be renewed and the notice of cancellation be rescinded.

On 431.10E-E, adjustment of premium, that the auto--the automatic adjustment is intended to reflect the fact that there is no longer a dwelling on the property and that there are no longer any contents. However, insurance companies have been billing insureds and renewing the policies as if the dwelling still exists and as if the content still exist.

And so, insured should not have to be paying premiums on property that was covered under the insurance policy, but that no longer exists. Also, regarding the total loss of contents, I just want to highlight that the insurance companies were paid policy premiums based on their calculation of the contents. So premiums were paid for the amount of contents.

A number of--the majority of insurance or insured policyholders that I have come in contact are underinsured. The insurance company's argument that if you allow for 100% of the contents to be paid, it would result in increased cost is unsupported by any evidence. Their claim that it would be--would result in fraud is also unsupported by any evidence.

I also would like to highlight that something that I'm witnessing on an ongoing basis--in fact, we have a workshop this weekend on this issue--is that requiring survivors who have gone through this tremendous trauma to go back and list everything that was in their home while they're trying to rebuild their property, while they're trying to recovery from this catastrophic event causes them more trauma because the body is trying to--and the brain is trying to protect them by telling them to forget what happened.

And at the, at this time, the insurance company is going, 'no, no, you have to go back in.' And there are insurance companies that are requiring survivors to list the name of every CD that they owned and the title of every book that they owned. I don't know about you, but I would not be able to do that.

Ms. Peterson, I'm going to ask you to sum up.

Yes. Okay. And so--and then finally, I just want to make a point about the ALE. We're asking that you add that the insurance company be required to advance four months of the ALE cost at the beginning of the disaster, and we are in support of the extension of ALE, having seen the effects of having only one year of ALE in this disaster.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Peterson. We have testimony in support from Catherine Wiesner. Ms. Peterson, I'm sorry--is that a delay? Do we have Ms. Wiesner? Okay. Mr. Jake Francis, in support, and then Ms. Krizhna Bayudan via Zoom. I believe I see her on Zoom. Go ahead.

Good morning. Aloha, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, and members of the committee. My name is Krizhna Bayudan, and I am a lifelong Lahaina resident. My family lost our home in the fire and despite doing everything possible to rebuild, our home is nowhere near ready.

Our additional living expenses ALE coverage runs out this March 2025 and without an extension, we will have nowhere to go. We needed a bill like this to pass a year ago, and I ask you to explore making this bill retroactive so Lahaina fire survivors aren't left behind.

But even if that's not possible, this measure is still crucial to protect future families facing disasters in Hawaii. A one-year ALE policy is simply not enough after a disaster of this scale. Even under normal conditions, rebuilding in Maui County takes longer than a year.

In Lahaina, the process has been even slower due to infrastructure delays and supply shortages, factors completely beyond homeowners' control. Yet insurance still cuts off assistance after 12 months, leaving families stranded before their homes are even finished. And a lot of people are in the same boat as my family.

Many fire survivors secured leases between January to April of 2024 because that's when FEMA began shutting down its temporary hotel housing program, and now those families are facing the same looming deadline which is running out of ALE with no clear path forward.

And like many others, we want to stay in Lahaina--it's where we live, it's our home--but skyrocketing rents and lost income make that nearly impossible. FEMA's rental assistance requires a lease, but finding housing here is a challenge and the renewal process to continue receiving aid is exhausting and unreliable. The state's Ka Lai Ola Program only has 450 units while there were 4,500--or 4,500 households displaced.

There's only 450 units at Ka Lai Ola. So there is no guarantee we will--my family will get the help in time. And for eight months, we lived under the Red Cross Program, moving between temporary housing, unsure of what was next, and we obviously don't want to go through that housing instability again.

The rebuild process, we've started, but it's been delayed through, you know, none of our control, and ALE is set to expire before we can go home. Lahaina fire survivors should not face homelessness while waiting to rebuild. Please pass this measure to ensure families in the future have the time they need to recover. Mahalo for your time and support.

Thank you. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Seeing none. Members, questions? I have questions for Insurance Commission.

Sure. Thank you very much, Chair.

So this bill is very broad, and it, you know, I recognize the testimony that suggests that, you know, we might not be identifying the right sections and all of that, and it's--so this is really a work in progress. But emerging from the testimony is this real concern about additional living expense coverage.

And members, I'm sorry, did you guys have any other questions? No. Emerging from the testimony is this additional living expense coverage, especially in times of disaster, and unfortunately, here in Hawaii, we haven't had an experience with a major disaster for a while until Lahaina. So the policies that people are wanting were not in place.

I guess, given the fact that the world globally is just seeing more and more of these kinds of disasters, what does the insurance market look like for this kind of policy that has--and is there even a product like that?

There are stuff on the market already that are open-ended. That has tightened up quite a bit based on what's happened in other markets. The Marco Polo Fires, we assisted consumers there and we saw a pretty wide range of loss of use. Some was just 5,000, some was incurred from that to open-ended.

But based on what's happened in other markets, companies have started tightening up. Some of their contracts are a little less generous now. It's cyclical. If changes can be made that help mitigate these risks, some of these things work through the system. You'll see interest rates have an effect on some of the reinsurance markets and cap bonds.

So all that affects us. Unfortunately, we're part of that market. So there are products available. They are probably less available than they were; prior that were very generous on loss of use.

Okay, going in a different direction, when Lahaina happened--and I recall having conversations with the insurance commissioner at that time--you know, I think after the experience of the California wildfires, California's government came in, and through emergency orders--and then there was a slew of legislation that sought to maybe address some of these things.

Are you aware of that? And I think in--and this is not in your testimony, but unfortunately, you're the only one here, so you get to answer it--in the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' testimony, they point to California laws. So are you aware of what some of those laws are that California has enacted post-disasters that they've experienced, like the Palisades Fire?

Yeah. There's been a lot of--larger markets do tend to kind of throw--other markets kind of follow along. California has, has made it--they had some restrictions on, on renewal, non-renewals. They had restrictions on amount of rate that could be, could be filed for and what you could use to calculate that rate.

You couldn't really be forward looking. You'd have to look back. And so that--and it's been positive and negative. It squeezed the market. Companies can't really bring in a premium that's commensurate with what they've got or the anticipated losses, and you know, the Palisades Fire is kind of one of those things that you may want to--it would have been, ideally, had that priced in prior to it happening versus later.

So that squeezes the solvency question for companies. So it is kind of a balance. You know, you want, you want to have a competitive and attractive market but also you want to have policies that pay out and cover what consumers need, and it can be--it's extremely disrupting to have a loss like this and it is very frustrating, as they testified, that it's, you know, to try and sort some of these things out. And some of the lower limits, just, the company just writes a check and that's it. It's done.

Some of the higher limits you do need to show that you've replaced the item or and then it's a--then you'll get a balance. You'll get paid on the actual cash value. When the item's replaced you get a balance paid. So there's--and that can be a long process, especially with the rebuilding times that are going on, and as far as--yeah.

So you've just got to kind of look at all the stakeholders and what, what can we do to keep our market attractive but what can we also do to make sure that we have, you know, policies that pay out when something happens and cover what's needed.

Members, one last question and I'll turn it over to you. I know that insurance commissioners across the nation, I know that there's trade industry groups. Is there, in your experience, any group regulators looking at this and working on these issues of what a policy could look like, you know, in this event?

Yeah. Insurance is left up to the states, which is helpful just because every market can be a little different. Gulf Coast states have some very aggressive hardening programs in place to try and--for storms, for hurricanes. Other state, Western states generally have a wildfire--wildfire issues.

So as far as a catch-all, there is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, they do write model laws, and a lot of these things will come out of that. Generally, they'll look at what's trending, what's happening, what can be done. Most of the stakeholders are there. The regulators, the commissioners are there, industries there, there's consumer advocates that are there, and they try to hash out something that'll kind of satisfy what's going on, but have a balance for everyone.

Okay. If you become aware of any, like, working groups at those kinds of organizations--it was the National Association of..?

Insurance Commissioners.

Insurance Commissioners. It would be helpful to pass that information along to us and to see what Hawaii is doing in understanding what other jurisdictions are doing and what model laws are developing.

Again, I know California came up with a whole suite of laws after Pacific Palisades, and that may or may not have been the right approach. I don't know. We don't know, right? So that's the kind of information that I think would be good to be brought. And I know that the former insurance commissioner, I believe today may be his last day--

That's correct. That's why you're stuck with me. Sorry.

No, we know Mr. Ito deserves a well--he really deserves all the fun he will have now, no longer being employed by the State of Hawaii, but I know he was formerly very involved in NAIC, and I think, you know, seeing the proposals in this bill points to the fact that we need to understand better what other states are doing.

And there is a National Council of Insurance Legislators too that might be an option, if you want to look at that.

Okay, thank you. Members, any other questions? Representative Iwamoto.

So, I think Governor Green made some statements to the media, and I think he got these figures from the Insurance Department from his Executive Branch. Um, he spoke about, in the period of the last 20 years, that Hawaii property owners paid around $38 billion in premiums. Does that sound about right?

I, I can't speak to that.

But are you saying you did--your department did not provide him with these numbers?

Well, we would have--yeah, we would collect the premium tax. We'd have a very good idea of what's coming in, premiums across the entire state and what lines.

Okay, perfect. So you could--that is quantifiable. Do you guys also collect data on the claims paid out during the last 20 years?

We could probably get that. And we do have--that's part of the rates and part of the solvency regulation.

Okay. So just to do the math, that's $30 billion in premiums, only $14 billion in paid out claims in the last 20 years. That leaves a total--people might think of it as profit--but of $24 billion. And a lot of insurance is about investing capital that's collected.

So the invest--the return on investment rate is around 20, 10%. So in the period of 10 years that would be flipping it to another $24 billion and then another--because it's a 20-year period. So that would be another 24 billion at a minimum. Now we're already in the $72 billion range of profit.

When you hear them say, or reinsurers say, we can't afford it, premiums are going to have to go up, and they cite all the losses that these reinsurance company, corporations--often they're multinational--that they're paying out around the world, but you never hear about all the billions and billions of billions of dollars in hundreds of billions of dollars in premiums they're collecting and decades of paying out nothing.

You know, you only hear about their, their woes, but no one's tracking the gains that they're making. Do you guys require them to open up their books, their reinsurance companies? Do you go really high up the ladder?

On the lines that are regulated, like the property and casualty, you have to justify the rates, have to have an actuarial basis for it. We have actuaries that we use to contract with to look at that as well, and that is all part of it. What's your cost? What's been your loss experience? What's your investment returns?

A lot of the property casualties, these are very short. They're one-year policies, six-month policy for most autos, and it's money that usually flows in, flows back out for claims. There's a lot of money on the books that's invested and a lot of that's earmarked for reserves.

Like if I, if I were to walk out of here and get hit by a bus, whoever's adjusting for the bus is going to put in a reserve and say, 'I think Mr. Thompson's claim is going to be 80,000 so I'll earmark that.' And that sits on the books for maybe a couple of years till I settle.

So there's, so the companies do have a little float. They'll make--they'll maybe have an underwriting loss. They may have a--but they may make up the money on the investments that were waiting, were earmarked for other things during that time. So it is kind of something that you generally don't file right away. You would look at how you're trending and then come in and file for a rate to go up or maybe stay the same or go down, depending on--

But you do go, you do go beyond the retail insurance carrier and you do look at the reinsurance--

That would be part of the cost they would be using to justify, like it's costing us this much to offset. So they'll have--we'll look at what do they have on the books, and then if you don't have that on the books, what have you, what have you done to put that risk onto somebody else? And that would be your reinsurance. And then how much is that costing you?

And so you do look into the books of the reinsurance corporations that are multinational?

If it's a filed rate, that should all be part of the review.

Okay, I'm going to--yes. I think this is good conversation. I also think that this is probably conversation for the CPC Committee, which we are on. So these are the kinds of questions that you should continue to pursue as bills move forward. Rep. Shimizu, you have a question?

Yeah, excuse me. Thank you, Chair. I'll make this brief. So for the additional requirements that is in this bill, do you have any idea what, how that would affect the premium cost?

I don't. I will say that it does--it does vary among companies, the types of coverage they'll have. So some will have a percent of the dwelling amount, and that's the one that's somewhat controversial. I think in the past, with large fires in California, they realized that just a set dollar amount tended to usually not be enough.

So some companies tied that to their dwelling amount as a percent, which may be maybe over-insuring, depending on the situation. So as far as cost goes, it would, it would be spread among a lot of different companies that would depend on what their specific policies cover. Some policies are pretty rich.

Some of the policies we looked at after the Maui fires, some of these companies were encumbered for probably a million and a half, you know, a whole, on the whole claim. Some maybe had a limit of--their limits were low and they just popped checks and they were gone, you know, within a week, so--

Okay, so basically you don't know?

I don't know--yeah--exactly a specific number or percent. You could probably come up with a percent over the whole industry.

Follow-up question?

Yes, go ahead.

So if this bill were enacted and the requirements were put in place, would this affect all consumers across the board or would an individual be able to not have certain coverages and it would be customized for what the individual would like to be covered for?

Yeah, as it currently sits, there are options with more generous policies versus more slim policies, maybe fire and contents. So you would have options, but if it was mandated, then that would be baked into the--every company would probably have to offer something similar to that that'd be baked into their rates.

So in other words, a consumer who may not want to pay for that is--doesn't have that option to delete that coverage?

If it was in the statute, yeah. The company would have to--that would have to be part of our review of the policy and the rate.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

All right. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. Members, again, we're going to defer decision-making of all of these measures to the end of the agenda, our 10:00 a.m. agenda. We are in recess.

Good morning. Convening our Committee on Public Safety hearing for Friday, January 31, 2025 10:00am here at the State Capitol in Conference Room 411. Members, we're going to jump right in to this hearing. We have a number of bills on the agenda and a number of bills for decision making at the end of agenda.

First up, Hospital 1002. This Bill extends the term of the Oversight Coordinator of the Hawaii Correctional System of Oversight Commission, clarifies that the Oversight Coordinator has the general authority to inspect agencies and correctional facilities without notice. First up, we have testimony from Mr. Mark Patterson, Chair of the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, or Ms. Johnson, or his representative.

My name is Martha Torney and I'm one of the commissioners with the Correctional System Oversight Commission. And we're very glad that you're hearing this Bill. And we also appreciate the support we've gotten from the House for the last couple of years. And Representative Hashem, that goes out to you too. What this Bill does is two things.

Number one, it extends the term of the Oversight Coordinator from two years to four years. And secondly, it ensures that the Oversight Coordinator is given over unfettered access to the correctional facilities.

Currently, the two year term requires the Commission to hold interviews to advertise for the position, hold interviews, come up with three names to send to the Governor. And Governor makes a choice. It takes a while for a person to get up to speed with this job.

And to change someone every two years would be very, very difficult for us. We really appreciate that Governor Green chose to reappoint Kristen Johnson, our Oversight Coordinator, who is just outstanding in that role. So that's our number one issue.

Secondly, we do want to ensure that the Oversight Coordinator has unfettered access to the correctional facilities under the current Administration. And Mr. Johnson, that has been granted. It has not been a problem. But we cannot assure that will happen with future administrations.

The way the law reads right now, it implies that they only have unfettered access in pursuit of a complaint that has been filed by an inmate. We want to make sure they have unfettered access for any reason for that purpose. So those are the things that are bills. Thank you very much for listening to our testimony.

Thank you, Members. Up next is amended testimony from Director Tommy Johnson of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Director Johnson and Members, that testimony is at your table.

Good morning, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto. Members of the Committee, I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. Martha actually stole all my thunder because she almost went for freedom from my testimony. But in we have no problem with the two to four year issue.

And Martha is right in that while I may give them unfettered access, if we don't clarify it in the statute, future directors may not. And I think they need unfettered access to find issues, work with the Department to resolve them.

And I think this sends a clear message and makes it clear that the Oversight Commission and the Department of Public Safety were partners in trying to address the long standing issue with the Department. Thank you.

Thank you. I love that term. We are partners in doing this work because I also think we are partners across the table on this side. Up next, Members, we have testimony and support from the Office of the Public Defender. We have testimony in support from the ACLU of Hawaii.

Aloha Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto and Committee Members. Carrie Ann Shirota, Policy Director on behalf of ACLU Hawaii. We strongly support this measure. And I just want to highlight that there are essential principles to have an effective oversight body.

And this has been repeated in literature by Michelle Deitch, who is a Professor, she's considered a national and international expert in oversight.

And I want to highlight three of the five principles that these oversight commissions or bodies must be independent of the correctional agency and able to do their work without interference or pressure from the agency or any other body.

Number two, monitors must have unfettered and confidential access to facilities, incarcerated persons, staff documents and materials and they should have the ability to visit at any time of the day without prior notice.

Jails, prisons, out of state prisons. The other principle is that they must take a holistic approach to evaluating the treatment of incarcerated people, relying on observations, interviews, surveys and other methods of gathering information from prisoners, as well as on statistics, performance based measure outcomes. And this is a collaborative process between the Department, Legislature, community.

But we need to highlight why do we need an oversight body. We need it for transparency and accountability. Because people who are incarcerated do not lose all of their constitutional rights just because they are detained in our jails or in a prisons despite it doesn't matter if they're here or if we're sending them out of state.

And if you look at the record for the last 20 plus years, and even currently, these are the most closed institutions, we need unfettered access. So the Oversight Commission needs this to bring attention to issues such as an uptake in suicides, the number of incidents of violence, assaults, murders, rapes.

This has been occurring and we need to work together to uncover it, bring it to light and to focus on transforming our system from one of punishment to rehabilitation. So please pass this measure because ultimately this is a Bill in favor of transparency and accountability. Mahalo.

We have testimony in support from Community Alliance and Prisons.

Good morning, Committee. Oops, I got to lower it to my height. We are in strong support of this measure. The Commission has done amazing work. What happens inside our correctional facilities has been kind of a secret for many, many years until we actually got an oversight Commission. And we got that because the community pushed for it.

They pushed for more transparency and accountability so that their loved ones, they could know what was going on with their loved ones who were incarcerated. So we definitely support the Commission. You should go to their website. It is awesome. This woman started in July 2022. She created the website for the Commission. She is.

Every meeting they have, there are reports up there. There are minutes of every meeting, video recordings of the meetings. I mean, she has done more for transparency than anybody else in this state. So we definitely support extending her term for four years because, you know, in two years, hard to really get something done.

So it's really important that she has unfettered access. And we kind of like the idea. I looked at all the government terms and you know, the Public Utilities Commission has six year terms and they have that because they want to be independent. They're regulars, they're regulators. They're not like any other Department in the state.

So I would love to see the Commission have six year terms so that it's totally apolitical between elections. So thank you so much.

Thank you. We have testimony from individuals, I believe. All in support. First from Carla Allison, Marilyn Eaton, Veronica Moore. Members are in the room. Any other testifiers? I'll call you back. In Zoom, any other testifiers? Seeing none, I believe the representative from the office of the Public Defender is here. So please come on up. Welcome.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Sonny Ganaden, Deputy Public Defender. We are in support of this measure. Many of you have a memory of this conversation over the last several years about how it took several reports to get to this point.

We would like to continue the depoliticization of the conversation about incarceration in this state. We believe that oversight is necessary and ongoing for this Department, differentiated from other departments. Of course, the DOE doesn't have an oversight Commission. That's what you folks do. But because of the issues facing incarceration regarding human rights, we think that this is necessary.

One of the biggest things I think that's in support is the ways that Ms. Johnson has worked with the Legislature and the Judiciary in allowing individuals access to facilities. So please don't take mine or the department's or advocate's word for it, please.

I just hope that you try and go yourself to see where your own constituents are housed, both pretrial and after sentencing. Just see it for yourself, see the conditions and make your own assessments. After Judge Kim did that on the Big Island 20, there was a pretrial incarceration rate that was reduced by 20%.

We would like the continued depoliticization of this conversation. And we stand in support.

Thank you. Any other testifiers? Seeing none. Members. Questions? I have several questions and I can start and then everyone can fulfill in afterwards if you want to. I guess Ms. Torney, and I guess I would start by saying, you know, because I'm fairly new to this subject matter where I've actually had to do a much deeper dive.

I was here for the enactment of this, obviously. But going and having a deeper dive into the statutes is making. I have to be more aware of what's going on in the statute. And so I just want to say that the model that we have adopted for our oversight Commission is really unique in the country. Correct.

And broad. Very broad.

And very broad. And that oversight commissions and oversight models throughout the nation vary. And so really, we are building the airplane as we are flying it. Okay.

Can you give us a little bit of an understanding of the timeline of hiring of the Commission being stood up from 2019 with Act 179 and then the hiring of the first identification of the commissioners and then the hiring of the first coordinator.

Okay. We were all appointed in the fall of 2019, and we held our first meeting in January of 2020, and we have subsequently held a meeting every single month after that. We were funded initially, but Governor Ige did not release the funds. So we went through the process of advertising for the position, got applicants.

We had not gone into the inter process yet, and we had to rescind that list that we had received. It wasn't until two years later that, again, we were funded through a Bill, not as part of the budget through a Bill. And this time the Governor did release the funds, so we were able to go through.

When was that Bill introduced and passed for the funding?

The funding was. It would be in the 2021 session, and so it'd be effective of July of 2021.

And then when you said the Governor released it. Governor?

Governor Ige released the funds. Yes. They weren't released immediately, so we could not start immediately.

Okay. And then you don't know what the Bill number was for that?

I don't remember, but we can find out for you. I can get that to you.

Okay, go on, continue.

And so then the money was released a little bit at the end of the fall. And so we put out our advertisements. We got applicants. We vetted all commissioners. All five commissioners participated. They all got copies of the applicants. Many of them were clearly unqualified. So we had to do our initial vetting by ranking them.

And then we chose, I think, the top eight applicants. And we had applicants from around the country. We were very, very lucky that we got them from around the country. And from that list, we came up with three names. And Kristen Johnson was one of those names. We forwarded the name to the Governor.

The Governor made a decision to hire Ms. Johnson, who's sitting right here, and she. It took a couple of months for her to come online because you know, that state process, unfortunately.

What date and year was that at that point?

She came online in July of 2022. So two and a half years after we began. We did our best, the five of us who were sitting there. And so she's been with us two and a half years. And as Kat mentioned, just go to our website. We have accomplished so much more since she's been here.

Does this mean we've accomplished everything in our mandate? Absolutely not. We still do not have the staff to help take care of everything in the mandate. Part of our mandate is to assist the Department of Public Safety in effectuating their reentry statute. And we have talked to the Department about.

But we haven't gotten into really active discussion about how we're going to be accomplishing that. But there are many, many things that we're working on.

Has the Commission. And I do not doubt in any way that Ms. Johnson has done a wonderful job. I've interacted with her reports and everything. But looking forward. Right. We're writing this law for not just the next two years, four years, eight years. It's actually law in perpetuity until a future Legislature changes it. So knowing that Ms. Johnson's term is coming to an end on July 2024. I assume.

She's just been reappointed.

Okay. When did that reappointment happen?

The reappointment took. Fate. Took place July 1st of 2024.

July 1st, 2024.

Oh, I'm sorry. No, Kristen's correcting me. December 2024. I'm sorry. So she's now serving another two year term.

Okay.

Which would expire December 31st of 2026.

Okay. So the idea is that it's going to be. Now, what process did you folks go through in. And I just want to understand, right, no judgment. What process did you go through for any kind of evaluation by the Commission to make a recommendation? I assume you made a recommendation to Governor to reappoint her.

What process did you folks engage in?

For this type of position that is Governor appointed, you don't have to follow the same civil service rules. So we did not have a scoring sheet or anything. What we did was send out all the applicants, their resumes to the different Members.

No, no, no, no. Not for the hiring.

Yes.

But for the reappointment. What was the process for reappointment occurring?

That's. We had to go through the whole hiring process again. We had to replicate it. That's what takes so much time.

Okay, so you replicated. When did that start?

So we started that in. Yeah, around September, October. And we advertised nationally. And again, we got many applicants, many totally unsuitable. So some in the vetting process, we were able to a lot. Right in the beginning. You could see AI was writing the response to us.

And then we interviewed a total of six people and forwarded three names to the Governor. We did not list a preference because we did not feel that that was our responsibility, even though we strongly preferred to have Kristen continue with us.

So the Governor was free to make whatever choice he wanted, and luckily he chose to reappoint her.

Okay.

Okay. In the. So you. You're saying that the Oversight Coordinator is not governed by any.

They're an exempt employee. So they have all the rights of a civil servant, but they're exempt.

And then as drafted, the law is requiring you to go through this entire. Replicating the hiring process all over again.

Yes.

It does not. The law does not provide the Commission with any kind of internal process to maybe make some recommendations and then a reappointment process. Which could be avoided.

Which could avoid this process.

Yes.

I inquired of the AG were we allowed to write a letter to the Governor requesting just a reappointment? And the answer was no. The law required we go through the whole process again. I would prefer that we're allowed to write a letter to the Governor requesting a reappointment of the same person.

If the Governor turns that down, then we go through the whole hiring process again.

Okay. In other commissions in the state where there are lay people who are working with a coordinator or say an Executive Director, have you looked to what other state agencies do to provide kind of recommendations for the continuation of the coordinator or Executive Director?

I don't know whether other states have term limits for their coordinator. Kristen can answer that.

Aloha. My name is Kristen Johnson. I'm the current Oversight Coordinator of the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Before I answer this, I just want to backtrack slightly to a comment that was made about making the plane as it's flying. I just want to specify that correctional oversight is not new to this nation.

It's actually been around since before the Constitution was written. The oldest oversight agency was made in.

Pennsylvania Prison Society in 1787.

1787.

And they're still doing it.

That's our oldest prison oversight agency to date. Currently there's at least 15 throughout the nation. Two are actually very similar to our jurisdiction where it's a combined jails and prisons. And then there's just a ton of Jail Oversight specific agencies across the nation. We don't know exactly how many. We're trying to figure that out.

I work very, very closely with the Jail in Prison Innovation Lab. They are the ones. Dr. Michelle Deitch, who actually helped write the test or write the bill for this Oversight Commission.

And so when looking at how Oversight Commissions choose their Executive Directors across the nation, the standard is actually once you hire somebody to ensure that they cannot be removed without cause.

The reason for that is to ensure that they're not bowing into potential political pressure from the Governor, from the Legislature, whoever it may be, that really ensures that there's true Independence. But other than that, there are some who have four year terms. I've never seen one personally who has two years. I've seen four or more.

And the other thing about a potential six year term, I do want to clarify. When we initially put out for this bill two years ago, we asked for a six year term.

The reason why we did that was to be in alignment with the other independent oversight agency in this state, which is the legislative or I'm sorry, not the Legislature, the Ombudsman's Office. The Ombudsman's Office in this state has a six year term. So we wanted to be in alignment with that. The Senate previously respectfully disagreed.

And so this year we came back with four year terms just to make sure that there wasn't any disagreements, amended.

Their bill to four years from six years.

Right. So that's why we. You know. But I do want to clarify the two different things. That the best standard that was written by Dr. Michelle Deitch is to ensure that the Oversight Coordinator or Executive Director cannot be removed without cause. And I think the best standard is either four or more year terms.

But I will say that in the statute there's actually no mention of that, of you, of the. Not you, the coordinator was whether or not they can be removed. There's no provisions at all about any kind of removal rehiring.

That's true. That's true.

The only language in the statute is actually about the members of the commissions being removed from office for cause upon notice. That's the only kind of removal process.

Okay. Because this was brought up in testimony by Ms. Brady about the PUC commissioners having six year terms. You can sit down, Ms. Johnson. Even though it's not in this bill, I actually think that this is a puka in the law because there's actually no language in here for transition of the commissioners.

Yes.

So you are going to be here forever Ms.Torney.

There's other laws in the state and a Commissioner can only be on a commission or a board for eight years maximum.

Okay. Where is that language?

I would have to ask the AG for that language, but that's pretty much so appropriate across the board.

Okay. And is all of the commissioners operating that. So what is that language for the Commissioner? The limit, the term limits of Commissioners?

I don't remember. I would have to go look it up for you. But it is a different law that affects all boards and commissions and that an eight year max is what they're assigned to. I don't know whether representative Iwamoto. Was that true for the school board too? Oh, that was elected. That's different. Yeah.

It used to be elected. I don't know whether it's true today. For those appointed, I'm willing to look that up for you.

Okay because I actually think that it's equally important to think about the commissioners and their transition and ensuring that we have a solid group of individuals who, you know, who can continue to work in coordination with. Working with a coordinator who may have a longer term.

Yes.

And it's also important to have commissioners potentially staggered.

Yes.

Which now doesn't happen because at any moment right now we could lose all the commissioners all at once and that whole entire knowledge base would be lost.

When we were appointed, we were appointed for different end terms. And so mine ended. I was appointed in 2019 at the very beginning. So I started really January 1st and my appointment, my first four year, my first appointment expired three years later and I was then reappointed. My term currently ends at six and a half years.

It ends on 2026, June 30th. And I will step down at that at that time. Because we should be staggered. The law is not clear on that. I believe in our appointment letters it made it clear that the intention was to be recording in progress, but it.

They're not staggered and I'm afraid of everybody walking off the same time. That's why I'm going to leave at the end of my current appointment.

Okay. Is there a listing of the Members, the commissioners, and when their terms of appointment are done. Do we know?

We can get that. Yes, we can get that for you. And we really should get the initial letters so you can see what we were appointed to initially.

You know, the bill is simple. It just extends it by four. But it doesn't solve some of the problems, the very problems that you just identified in the process, because you'd have to by the end of.

If this bill passes with four years term or if it were to stay, say it were to stay, then you would have to. If we did nothing, then you would have to go through the exact same process again. And you may. Or with that Commission at that time. And Ms. Johnson, we don't know.

I mean, that's a long time for now, right?

Yeah.

People move on. You have to go through the entire process.

Yes.

Whether or not that particular individual is there. Okay. All right, Members, any other questions? I've kind of exhausted my questions.

Have a question. Go ahead. For Kristen. Sorry. Oh, I have a question. Kristen. Thank you. I just wanted to know, you came from other jurisdictions, right. My understanding is you came highly qualified from other jurisdictions. And so can you just kind of explain how they did it?

Well, first of all, what were their jurisdictions and then how they did it in their jurisdictions as far as the time frame?

Sure, sure. So I started my career with the Michigan Legislative Corrections Ombudsman. And in that jurisdiction, if I'm remembering correctly, once the Ombudsman is chosen and they're chosen by the Legislature, they are in that position until removed for cause. Then I move to the New York City Board of Correction.

Now, the Board of Correction is more similarly set up like our Commission. They have a board and then they have the staff above, so they have the board, the Executive Director, et cetera. The board members are chosen and have term limits by the New York City Council.

The Executive Director is chosen by the board, but once the Executive Director is chosen, it's more like, you know, permanent employee. Again, they wouldn't be removed without cause. And lastly, was a Police Oversight Commission where very similar setup. You have the board who's chosen, but then the Executive Director role. Same idea.

Permanent employee unless removed by the board due to cause.

Okay, so you're saying it was just indefinite and you were just a permanent employee?

Yeah, in the previous offices that I've been in. Okay, thank you.

Hold on. You were the Executive Director? No, no.

Okay, no.

What did you serve in as the New York City Board of?

Yeah, so in my previous roles, I started as an analyst overseeing the prisons, and I was assigned six prisons, looking at 42,000 people in custody. When I moved to the Board of Correction, I was assigned three different jails. Rikers island is always viewed as one jail system, but it's multiple jails throughout.

So I had three different jails assigned to me. That's where I worked as a standard specialist. And then moving to the Police Oversight Agency, that was a brand new agency that was started and I ran and led the investigations unit.

So I really got that office off the ground, got it moving, which led me to this position now.

So the last position was the one that is equivalent to the Oversight Coordinator, is that correct?

Yeah.

Or kind of what we have here in Hawaii as the Oversight Coordinator. Is that what that last position?

I wasn't in those specific positions, but yeah, the last two roles that I've served in both of those agencies were similarly slated as the current agency I'm in now.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Follow up. So New York City Board of Corrections had a board, an Executive Director, and then staff.

Right.

And Board was chosen by City Council, Executive Director was chosen by the board, and then the Executive Director was a permanent employee who could not be let go except with cause.

Then you went to, what was the police oversight agency?

That was the Office of Police Oversight and Public Accountability. And that was with the City of Grand Rapids in Michigan. That was a brand new agency that was created by the community. And so I was the second employee to be hired in that role and. All right, sorry. In the full agency.

So it was really like starting it from the ground up. All the investigations regarding police misconduct.

And that office was structured how?

So that office was structured similarly to our Commission, where you had the board Members up top chosen by the City of Grand Rapids, the City Council, and then you had the Executive Director, who is Brandon Davis. He could not be removed without cause. And then under Brandon, the Executive Director, you had his staff who were permanent employees.

And did that Executive Director have a set term?

No, no, just the board Members had the set terms.

Okay. Are you aware of how they went about evaluating the Executive Director in the New York Office of Police, Michigan Office of Police Oversight and Accountability?

As far as, like, ensuring that they're doing the job or?

Yes, like annual reviews?

Yeah.

You know.

Yeah. My understanding is that there is an annual review, not just with the board, but then also with the City Manager. The City of Grand Rapids is a City Manager structure, and so the City Manager has complete control over all of the city departments instead of the Mayor.

And so my understanding is that he had to, you know, have annual reviews with not just his board, but also the City Manager, to be able to show, you know, the work completed.

Was there an annual review process for the Executive Director for the New York City Board of Corrections?

That I'm not sure, but I could look into that.

And have you ever been in a place where you've seen a transition occur of the Executive Director, you know, the counterpart to the board?

Yes, the New York City Board of Correction. During my time there, they had three directors change out. That was from the directors actually stepping down. It was a challenging role and a very challenging system.

New York City is very challenging. Yes. And those were like. So those are changes because of them choosing to step down?

As far as I'm aware. Yeah, that's what we were told.

And then what was the timing of that? I mean, I'm sure there are probably politics involved, but do you know what the timing of those changes were?

I know that it was very fast. I don't think any of the directors stayed for more than two years. So they were pretty fast transitions, which really, I will say, shook up the office pretty badly. It was very difficult transitions.

Every time a new Director came in with a different vision, different policies, different standards made it very difficult.

But in each of those situations, or for the New York City Board of Corrections, again, they could not be removed, but for cause. And then they each time the transition occurred, they were moving on on their own.

Yeah, that was my understanding. Yeah. And all of them had their next role lined up. So I have no reason to believe that they were removed for cause.

Okay, okay. All right. That's helpful to understand. I just want to make a comment.

For your information, if you go to prisonoversight.org. Michelle Deitch and others created this dashboard that links you to all the states. It has a map of the United States. You want to see how Pennsylvania does it, click on it. It will let you know what the law is and stuff like that.

So I was looking at that website yesterday, and I do think that what makes Hawaii unique is that more states are more like Ombudsmans, which is a different model than what the Commission is. And then we have this hybrid thing. So we really are in this kind of hybrid thing.

And then I think there's pukas in our law that we need to take some time to fix. Because again, if this Oversight Commission is supposed to be ongoing, which I don't believe this is going to go away.

We have to make sure we get all of the laws smooth out so we can anticipate changes, orderly changes, thoughtful changes. Yes, over time.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Let's move on. Moving on to House Bill 677, relating to identification. This is the ongoing conversation about requiring DCCR, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to assist inmates in obtaining inmates' Civil Identification Cards and other identifications. First up, we have testimony, in support, from Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Good morning, Chair Bellotti, Vice Chair Iwamoto. I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We do support this measure. We have no problems with it all. We are already assisting inmates at the Halawa Correctional Facility with, um, ID cards. We have the funding in our budget to purchase the other machines.

We're waiting for the City and County. They were changing their specifications on their machines, so we have to purchase the exact same machines that they have. And so, we will be purchasing machines for five other facilities. We will purchase for HCCC, which will take your HCCC and Kulani. Then you have Halawa.

And then we will purchase from Maui Women's and HCCC. We will not purchase Hueava, because Hueava will be going down to work furlough and OCCC will have the machine there for them.

But in the interim, we will be moving the Halawa machine to the Women's Correctional Facility because of the satellite machine, so we can start helping the ladies get ID cards as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Director. Testimony, in support, from the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Ms. Johnson.

Aloha. Christin Johnson, the Oversight Coordinator with the Oversight Commission. We are in strong support of this Bill. We do want to recognize the Department's ongoing collaboration with the DMV and all of the hard work that they've done. One of our favorite parts about this Bill is that it kind of specifies that things can begin before a year.

And so, the Department has mentioned that re-entry starts on day one. We thoroughly agree with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Testimony, in support, from Department of Human Services. I mean—sorry—Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. McKenna Woodward, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We will be standing on our written testimony today. Mahalo for your consideration of this important measure.

Thank you. Testimony, in support—comments from Department of Human Services. Testimony, in support, from Waikiki Health. Testimony, in support, from Hawaii Disability Rights Center. Testimony, in support, from Community Alliance on Prisons.

Aloha again, Committee. Kat Brady, testifying on behalf of Community Alliance on Prisons, in strong support of this measure. You know, we did pass the law in 2017 for ID, and yet people are still leaving without ID.

Um, this is sort of an overview from the National Council of State Legislatures. 21 states have laws aimed at helping previous offenders get ID. 17 states provide permanent Identification Cards. 9 states provide State ID cards. 3 states tried, but one state made it—actually Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma—Alabama passed a law, but Mississippi and Oklahoma did not pass a law. But they did other things.

And some of the cool things they did was some of them actually started working on driver's licenses for people. And that would be really important. The Big Island, not a very constant bus service, so people would be driving long distances to find jobs, to go to work. So, we thought that was a really good, cool thing.

And then I was looking, and I found something from the U.S. Department of Transportation that actually is a toolkit. And I gave this to the Department, because we got to get it right. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. I tabbed that in your testimony. Just so you know. We have testimony from the Office of the Public Defenders. Thank you. Testimony and support from ACLU - Hawaii.

Aloha. Carrie Ann Shirota, Policy Director, ACLU of Hawaii. We strongly support this measure. As you know, it already has been in existence. We do want to acknowledge the leadership of Director Johnson for purchasing what we need to get done.

But I just want to emphasize the fact that obtaining identification is like the bare minimum of what you need to have successful reintegration. And just for a second, if I can put on another hat.

Some years ago, I was the program Director for Maui Economic Opportunities Reintegration Program, which the comprehensive reentry law was literally drafted by Kat Brady and others, modeled after that program, which provided comprehensive case management, holistic support, in terms of housing, health care, treatment, family reunification, cultural programs.

Given the disparities in our system, and we know so many Hawaiians are locked up, and that comprehensive model is absolutely necessary. But again, think about it. We can't even get into the capital without an ID. You can't go to the bank. Everything is premised upon having an ID.

And so ultimately, what I'd love to see, passing this law, but having benchmarks every six months or quarterly, seeing how much progress we've made, because we need to strive for everyone having IDs before they're leaving and seeing where we are at. That is a measure and a tool too for accountability.

And that will benefit individuals, their Ohana, and our entire community. Because if someone doesn't have an ID to get a job, guess what likely could be happening? You might have to revert to old ways. And so, if we look at this as a workforce development measure, housing, accessing everything, it is needed.

And let's set some benchmarks to see progress for full implementation. Mahalo.

Thank you. We have testimony from Carla Allison, in support, and individual testimony from another individual, Veronica Moore, in support. Members? Any—I'm sorry, not Members—any other testifiers in the room?

Angela Melody Young. ROAR Cares, in strong support. So, I have an art class. I have students from Kapalama Elementary School, and we also do the neighborhood security walk. And so, we care about public safety because my fourth grader...

Ms. Young, can you testify...

Yes. Okay.

...to the contents of this measure, which is about...

The identification.

About prisoners.

Yes, I was just elaborating. We care about public safety and the effects of it because my fourth grader is in our neighborhood security walk. So, we walk around the block to do public safety initiatives. So, without identification, people cannot go to bars, rent an apartment, book a hotel room, or buy a car.

Each year, more than 600,000 people are released from state and federal prisons. And many times, these people, upon their reintegration with society, do not have this opportunity, or means, to obtain important identification documents. And individuals, upon reintegration with society, often face burdensome barriers when obtaining housing and employment, due to difficulties with identification.

So, to address this issue, states have adopted a variety of laws to help prior offenders and this, so this snapshot provides a basic overview of state policies. For example, there are states that have chosen to provide identification cards upon release through legislation with...

Ms. Young, I'm going to give you...

...about 30 more seconds because we have to keep moving on. But if you could wrap your...

Working with their...

...thing up, and then also you can provide your testimony in writing to our Committee clerks at the end of this, if you would like to. If you would like to.

Yeah.

Yes. Okay.

Go ahead.

30 more seconds please.

So, as I was highlighting other states' work, they have provided legislation that works administratively with the county's Department of Motor Vehicles. So, if this state wants to copy other states that have had successful legislations, I think it's a good idea to legislate it, into this Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, any other testifiers, Members? Questions? No questions. Moving on to House Bill 481 relating to offender re entry. And this is about certificates for suitability for employment. First up, we have testimony comments from Director Johnson.

Thank you, Chair Bellotti, Vice Chair Iwamodo. I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of Corrections Rehabilitation. I'll summarize my comments. In short, correctional jurisdictions normally don't issue this type of document employment suitability to someone exiting.

What we generally do is verify what programs they completed, that they paid their restitution, that their sentence has expired, and then we can provide copies of their transcripts.

The other concern we have is that a lot of the folks in our custody and care go through sex offender treatment and or substance abuse treatment without their express written consent. We can't release any information regarding their participation or non participation in those programs, whether they completed it or not, whether it's ordered or not.

So I would think we need to explore a different way. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Director. Testimony in support of Hawaii Correctional system oversight Commission. Ms. Johnson.

Aloha. Kristen Johnson with the Oversight Commission. The Commission is in support of this bill. One of the things that the Commission wanted to point out is that it could be extremely beneficial for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to collaborate with state and federal agencies. Most, I shouldn't say most.

I think there are many state and federal agencies that don't consider people who are previously incarcerated. But I think that really needs to change. People with, you know, previous experience like that are very motivated. They're willing to work they're ready to work.

And they also have very interesting and different lived experience that could be very beneficial to this job field. So we are in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Johnson from Hawaii State Substance Abuse Coalition in support. I'm just smiling because there was a Mr. Johnson, a Ms. Johnson, and now there's another Mr. Johnson. All right. Testimony and support from Michael Rice, individual. Testimony and support from Andrew Crossland, individual. Any other testifiers? Office of Public Defender.

You know, this is part of a broader push to reintegrate individuals back into society after they've done their time. It's kind of a golden ring, something to get. And it's differentiated from the classes that people usually have to complete in order to fulfill with the requirements of the Hawaii Paroling Authority.

Those classes might be, say, RDAP1 or RDAP2, some sort of behavioral health class, some sort of class regarding mental health or violence, something having to do with addiction. This is directed towards the public. This is directed towards people who could be potential employees, employers, to let them know that this individual is worthy of employment.

You know, this is part of the broader conversation about human beings leaving Hawaii because they can't find employment. The conversation that we have about needing qualified individuals to do the basic work that these people can do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gannadin. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom Seeing None. Members, questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. It's for Oversight Director Kristin.

Hello.

Are there other jurisdictions who offer this kind of employment readiness?

Yeah, One of actually the best examples, and I'm a little biased, but in Michigan, they have an entire vocational village where they literally have classrooms on one side and different vocational practices that come in on the other side. They really help people get prepared. They have a resume, everything built, ready to go before they exit.

And then they also actually communicate with different agencies, whether it be city, county, or state, within the location that the individual is going back to to try to secure a job before they're even released from prison. So that's a great example of just that. Partnership.

Okay, got it. So if I may, chair. So normally when somebody is released, either on probation or maybe they sleep at the facility, but they go out and get a job and they go to work. I mean, there's multiple ways that somebody would be exiting and working.

But so there's a kind of coming out process, I guess, to the employer doing the application. You're like, zero, here, And I have the certificate. I mean, so is that to kind of.

Is it a way to kind of come out as a, you know, like to when you're applying for a job, but then it's also framed in this positive way. But I am ready for employment. Yeah, I think kind of balance that.

Yeah, I think it's just another way to highlight that, you know, yes, I was incarcerated, but look at all these things that I did while I was incarcerated. I made use of my time. And so it's just really highlighting. The way I read this Bill is that.

It's just really highlighting that if they took a program or if they did whatever they were required to do, it highlights that, you know, to say, I am responsible. I went to my classes, I did what the state expected me to do, and now here I am asking for employment.

I'm a little concerned, though, for those who are still in the process of receiving services and they might not have that certificate. And so if you're an employer, you're like, okay, what everyone else who's gone through, they have the certificate. Where's yours? Could that be used against somebody if the employer knows about this?

Potentially, I don't know for sure. I think the challenge is that. And although again, the Department is, you know, trying to increase the amount of programs that they have, there are wait lists, so there could be an individual waiting to get in a program. It doesn't mean they're not trying.

It doesn't mean they're not putting in that effort. But I could see that potentially, you know, if one person has it, one person doesn't. I could see that as a potential barrier.

I have a question.

Go ahead, Representative.

Thank you for Kristen. So in that jurisdiction in Michigan, was it actually called a certificate or was it. Was. Or was it just like a General.

It was more like a resume, like a really professional. Yeah.

Okay. And then also a follow up to that. And I echo Representative Iwamoto's concerns because upon reading the bill, I guess from my perspective, I could see this as being a burdensome thing. Not necessarily. It's meant to be positive. It's meant to help with that reintegration process.

But it could be extremely burdensome because, you know, I guess when they're trying to move forward, here's like this extra step and are employers in the private sector, public sector, going to require this and would it be difficult to maybe obtain if you're still continuing services or.

So we don't want to create a situation where it becomes more burdensome than positive. So do you also echo that sentiment where it could have that negative effect.

That makes sense to Me, I think potentially to get around that is. And Director Johnson could probably communicate this a little more. But if case managers aren't already, you know, really helping people uplift their resumes and get those resumes ready and prepared to be able to take anything that they're doing in the facility.

Facility and make it into, you know, a real skill that they can highlight to potential employers. Maybe that's the better route to go is just really ensure. Thank you. The resume building.

Thanks so much. Yeah, just. Chair, I just want to echo that this Bill is extremely vague and it actually defaults to the administrative function. And so I think that the sentiment's great, just maybe more fleshed out, more detailed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none. zero, go ahead.

Representative Shimizu, question for Director Johnson. The bill, state certificate. And I think as previous questions alluded to, that might. That definition might entail different things currently. And I think it was mentioned like a resume just stating the facts of what programs were completed.

Would the Department be able to provide those types of documentation so that the inmate that is being discharged has that on record so that he can present that factually just as is what he's accomplished?

We already provide a transcript to them of the courses they completed without indicating on a transcript what was ordered. Right. So they may have completed eight out of 10, but what the person will see is they completed eight.

Okay. So that documentation is already in place.

It's already in place. And the letter also verifying that they. A separate letter verifying that they have completed their sentence to the state. Their term is done. Our concern is that employment suitability certificate is. Employment suitability is normally determined after you apply for a job. After conditional offers. Employment is made when you pass suitability.

But we also note that this is out. This measure is outside of the governor's Executive budget. And so therefore it would be a cost item as well. But we do provide the transcript and we do provide verification completion of sentence. And we think those two things is maybe what they're trying to say in this Bill.

We're just not sure.

Okay. Thank you so much.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions. Moving on to House Bill 251, relating to social work. This would require the Department in collaboration with the Department of Human Services to develop and establish a social work training program to assist nonviolent incarcerated individuals in the area of social work. First up, we have testimony in opposition from Director Johnson from Department of Corrections.

Thank you, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto. I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We respectfully oppose this measure and recommend alternatives initiatives as in giving funding to the universities. Neither the DCR nor the DHS have the authority to license social workers. That would be under DCCA.

And there's also some concern with the statute, compliance with statute 467E-7 as it relates to licensing requirements for social workers, including education, examination, experience required, and Section 667E-13 as it relates to prohibited acts and penalties. We requested this, if this measure moves forward, that the effective date be extended to provide time to coordinate with partner agencies for funding and look for alternatives.

Thank you, Director. Testimony in support. Ms. Johnson, Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission.

Hello. The Commission does stand on its written testimony. The one thing I just wanted to add that we should have included is that it could be beneficial for the Department to work with either a university or the other agency that Mr. Johnson had mentioned about getting, you know, somebody accredited to be a social worker. So we just wanted to add that in. Thank you.

Thank you. Testimony, comments, DCCA, Professional Vocational Licensing.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Rochelle Araki, the Executive Officer of the Social Worker Licensing Program. The Department stands on its written testimony providing comments on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Comments from Department of Human Services.

Testimony in support from Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, Mr. Johnson. Testimony from Michael Older in support. Individual testimony and support, Office of the Public Defender.

Public Defender. There are some minor administrative issues with the implementation of this Bill, none of which we think should bar its passage. You know, many of the people who were formerly incarcerated, what they want to do is they want to help people who have been in similar situations, especially women. What they need is a clear path and profession to do so.

Thank you. Testimony in opposition from Ms. Veronica Moore. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom Members? Questions? Go ahead.

I have a question for. Oh, sorry. Hi. You're with the DCCA and you license social workers. Okay. Can I ask you a question? So are there certain. Are there certain. There's a licensure of a social worker? Are you not allowed to get licensed in the State of Hawaii for certain crimes or being listed on certain lists?

If you have your child taken away by Child and Family Services, is there things that will preclude you from working as a social worker?

Thank you for the question, Representative Iwamoto. So each application is, regardless of what's happened in the past, gets reviewed. It really depends on what the conviction was. And just because you have a conviction doesn't necessarily exclude you from practicing. So. Yes. There's not a no to because you have a conviction, you can't get a license. Yes.

I have a question for Director Johnson. Thank you. As I read this Bill, I assumed that there may already be programs working with, uh, or other organizations that are doing training in social work. Is that the case right now?