House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. It is Wednesday, March 12, 2025 8:50am in Conference Room 411. We're here for a Joint Hearing with the Community Committee of Human Services and Homelessness and the Committee on Public Safety. My name is Lisa Martin. I'm here with Chair Della Bellatti and our Members with quorum. Okay.

We have a single measure today, SB 951 SD 2, relating to child protection. This requires mandatory reports of child abuse or neglect to include military status and a. And communication between DHS and the DOD. Up first to testify on zoom is DHS. Are they here?

Not present. Okay. Hopefully we'll come back to them. In support, U.S. Department of Defense on zoom. Present or not?

Okay. The Department of Defense, Kelli May Douglas.

Good morning, Chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee, Kelli May Douglas with the U.S. Department of Defense here in support of SB 951, SD 2. I will stand on our written testimony submitted. But thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much for that. Is Kathleen Cheryl Sharon Tona here?

Yes. Good morning. Kathleen Chiarantona, also from the U.S. Department of Defense here in support of Kelli May Douglas as a subject matter expert to answer questions if necessary. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And then we also had written support from the Department of Business and Economic Development and Tourism, from Hawaii Military Affairs Council and from a handful of individuals. Do we. Did DHS show up on Zoom yet? No. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this matter? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

No questions.

Okay.

Excuse me. Any questions? Sorry. Okay. Please go ahead.

Okay. I'm going to ask the question to no one because.

Well, you have to ask it to our testifiers. We have people on Zoom.

Okay. Since DHS is not here and that's who I wanted to ask the question. I'll ask it to military, since you're the only person there. My question is, I think this is a great idea. And just to educate myself, I'm wondering, how does DHS, because you're the Department, how do you get involved in this scenario?

I'm just trying to. Without a long answer, just having assurance that there's a process and some steps that happens. And maybe you're not able to answer that, but I needed to ask the question.

Yes, sir. Kathleen Chiarantona from the U.S. Department of Defense. So we have a robust, what we call coordinated community response in the military that involves all entities that play a role in responding to allegations of both domestic abuse and child abuse and neglect. Today we're talking about child abuse and neglect.

When we receive a report of abuse, we are able to get military entities involved to first and foremost ensure that we are doing everything we can to provide safety options for the child or children and any other individuals involved who may be at risk for abuse.

And so we are able to, when we get a report of abuse, amass all of the individuals that may have authority over a service member who may be involved, whether they are the offending parent or non offending parent, to work together collectively with DHS to keep the child safe primarily. Over.

Thank you very much. Are you from DHS? Please come up and thank you for being here and sorry that we have a different room.

Cari Moye, DHS, on behalf of Director Ryan Yamani, we stand on our testimony.

Okay.

Yep.

I have a question, if you wouldn't mind.

I'll do my best. Okay.

So we, there's an issue on when we make this effective. DHS in their testimony said they want more time to work on the MOUs and to do stuff. Staff training. When would you like it to start?

I believe in our testimony it says about 2050. Right now we're working on an MOU.

So this isn't a testimony. I am unsure, Chair Marten, but I will find out. I'm assuming it's going to be fast. Right now we're just still collaborating with.

2050.

You're already working on the ML and.

That's the holdup right now.

Okay. Okay. So are things going well in that process?

We are, we, we just. The problem is just scheduling a meeting for all of us to be at the table at the same time.

Okay.

And so once we get that then.

Okay, then maybe we'll give a motivating date. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Members, are there any other questions?

Yeah, thank you. Chair, Department of Health, please.

Human Services.

Excuse me, Human Services. Thank you for being here. Appreciate that.

I had a question and maybe this is not the right place to answer it and if not, I'd like to see some kind of information on, you know, step by step process of what happens when this incident happens and the reporting that's done to assure that the child is taken care of and you know, there's no gaps in the process.

Would you be able to comment on that?

Probably not. But I can tell you what we are doing. That's why we're working very hard on the memorandum to minimize those gaps. And I think once we all get to the table at the same time, we'll be more focused on having a more respectable response.

Follow up question, Chair. So I know you're answering for someone, but when I hear that answer, I'm wondering, are there gaps now that need to be filled? And that's why we need more process of collaboration and reviewing of processes.

Yes. Because I believe that we're dealing with the military, so it's very delicate. So beyond that. This is the second time I've been in front of you, Representative Shimizu. And I just trying to do my best.

Yeah, sure.

So I wouldn't be able to fully answer that, but from what I've known, what I've read, I think the fact that this is the military, the confidentiality issues, I think that's. That's why we have to get the nuts and bolts right the first time.

I see. Right on. Right on. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Members. Are there any other comments or questions or can we take the vote? Okay. Chair's recommendation is to pass with just technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. And then also changing the effective date to 7/1/25.

And also changing the language in 350-2D to read with the same date so that there's no issues on inconsistency with Act 147. Members, are there any questions or concerns, comments? If seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please. Or do we do it when we do it first? Yes. Yeah. Do yours first.

Voting on 951 SD2. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much.

Committee on Public Safety. Same recommendation with amendments. Any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 951 SD 2. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Okay, Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. Thank you, Members.

Thank you all for being here today. We are adjourned.

Thank you.

Good morning. Convening our hearing on the Committee on Public Safety Today is March 12, 2025 9:30 am in Conference Room 411 here at the State Capitol Members. Just as a matter of housekeeping, we have a busy day today with a 9:30am agenda, a 10:00 am agenda and a 10:45 am agenda.

My practice is not to have any, any timelines on the testifiers. However, we do have testimony that's been submitted in in writing. So we also encourage just highlighting important points in your testimony. For those of us who are on Zoom, please, if there's any problems, we may have to pause the hearing.

And just please stay in contact with our technicians who are running the Zoom Room. Please refrain from using any trademark materials for backgrounds as that will throw us off of YouTube and then others will not be able to see and participate via that channels. Any questions or comments.

Otherwise, we're going to jump right in with Senate Bill 1377, Senate Draft 2, relating to veterans cemeteries, which establishes the Veteran Cemeteries Board within the Office of Veteran Services of the Department of Defense to provide veteran cemeteries in the state with guidance, education, and technical assistance.

First up, we have testimony from State of Hawaii, Department of Defense.

Aloha, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, Committee Members. John Alamodin, Director of Office of Veteran Services. I stand on my testimony support for Senate Bill 1377, but we're answering any questions as needed.

Okay, thank you. Testimony in support from Michael Goliou. Any other testifiers? Any other testifiers in Zoom? Members, questions?

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Alamodin. Thank you for being here today. And I'm sorry, I apologize, I just, I always assumed that all veterans cemeteries were part of the U.S. Department of Defense, administered by the Federal Government. I didn't realize that these are state lands.

Yes.

So, why would somebody choose to be in a veterans cemetery operated by the state instead of being Punchbowl or being a federal veteran cemetery?

Yes. Thank you for your question, Vice Chair. So, with the National Cemetery, the Pacific Punch Bowl, for in ground burials, there are currently no availabilities for veteran burials. However, for veterans already interned, for spouses or other eligible family members, there can be burials.

Other than that, in the Cemetery of the Pacific, they can be cremated and then interned in the columbariums, either veteran or spouse. So, for those who have—born and raised in Hawaii—sometimes, perhaps, they may want to be buried on the island they may have grown up on.

So, certainly, we have cemeteries thusly on Big Island, East Hawaii, as well as West Hawaii, Maui, Moloka, Ilanai, Kauai, and of course, on Oahu.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Can you stay there, sir? Can you stay there, sir? Any other questions? Go ahead. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question is, without this Bill, what happens now and who, who manages the cemeteries?

Thank you for your question. So, currently, by counties. There are different departments that oversight the maintenance of cemeteries. So, for example, in Hawaii County is the Department of Parks and Recreation. On Maui County, however, it's Department of Transportation. And then, on Kauai County, Department of Parks and Recreation.

And on Oahu with Kaneohe, we, and within the Department of Defense, maintain the veterans cemetery in Kaneohe. So, despite being in different counties, all veterans cemeteries must adhere to the guidelines under and requirements under National Cemetery Administration.

And so, the reason why that's important is if a particular cemetery, as an example, is not in compliance with certain maintenance standards, then reimbursements per burial potentially could be suspended until the particular cemetery remedies said issues.

So, for example, in 2016, after the Veterans Administration Inspector General did site visits for all cemeteries in Hawaii, they found three cemeteries not in compliance. So, in Hawaii County, East Hawaii 1 and 2, and then Maui, Makawao. And so, they're placed under a remedial plan.

And now fast forwarding, one out of the three is still not compliant, and that's East Hawaii 2 in Hilo. So, as a result, for burials, each burial thusly is not reimbursed by the VA. And so, in absence of the Board, they'll continue as is.

However, what the Board is intended to do is really to provide a state oversight component. When the Inspector General reported to then Governor Ige regarding the issues around the cemeteries not in compliance, there was an actually an offering by Governor Ige, at the time, to have some kind of state oversight.

Now, what that looked like was pretty broad. Does it mean the state then acquires every cemetery in each county, or does it mean the state provides funding and so on and so forth? So, that oversight piece was never really defined, per se.

However, the question again came up fast forwarding now to Governor Green's term where the, under Secretary of the National Cemetery Administration, had asked the question again, would the state or could the state and use the term highly recommended to have some form of state oversight? And so, when we vetted potential costs, it really became initially cost prohibitive.

For example, our Department of Engineering costed how much would it take to acquire just Hawaii island alone? So, that would encompass three cemeteries, East Hawaii 1, 2, and West Hawaii. So, just an Initial outlay would have been just shy of $4 million. So, equipment, staffing and so forth. And that's just the initial outlay.

So, what was thought then is perhaps what could be other alternatives.

So, I did have an opportunity to meet with the Undersecretary of the NCA back in August and vetted with other states on different boards and commissions that are currently in place in various states and thought then, perhaps then, this could be an initial step toward state oversight.

So, essentially assisting counties to be better versed in what is required through the National Cemetery Administration, perhaps identify opportunities for either training, funding, you know, things of that nature. So, without the Board, they'll continue as is.

With the Board, the goal is to help the cemeteries, one, be better prepared, perhaps address concurrent issues currently going, and also, to prepare them for the next site visit, which is in 2026.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Follow up, any other questions? Just one quick. Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, I had a follow up. So, if, what happens if there is a state oversight board? Would they have the authority then to take over a cemetery like you think kind of mentioned, laid out how much, $4 million to take over the operations, I guess of all the ones on Hawaii island?

So, are you—the counties are the ones who are first offering the service and then they're putting more stuff onto the state to carry out. Do we get any kind of impact aid, because this is considered overflow from the? You mentioned a per burial reimbursement. What—how much is that? Is it like in the tens of thousands?

Per burial is just shy of $900 per burial.

Wait, that's not—so, it's

One-time cost.

It's a one-time cost. Meanwhile, the maintenance of the land, the labor to make sure it's within compliance to federal standards, is a lot more costly.

Yes.

And that's—and there's no impact aid?

Correct, yeah. So, it lies then under the responsibilities of the counties. Yeah. I will say that when I met with the county leaders and those on the ground doing the work, the feeling is they want to take—they want to keep the responsibility.

They just need more support, you know, whether it be financial resource, staffing, training, things of that nature. So, this board was presented to them in its developmental form, which helped then shape the Bill that's being discussed today.

Yeah. Okay, so this is the—because there is a Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, impact aid that like we're supposed to see more of in the public school system, right? But there must be other—because it feels like, am I wrong? Is the U.S. Department of Defense one of the only departments whose budgets will increase under the current Administration?

And if so, it feels like there's opportunities to bring in more impact aid or veteran services, for instance, that if the counties are taking that on, and are you imagining then the state becomes a pass through to the county, or does the DoD—if there is US DoD Veterans Service Impact Aid, would it go directly through the state or directly to the county?

The way it's set up now, Vice Chair, through the Veterans Administration. Reimbursements actually come to the state for disbursement to the counties. So, that—currently, that is the fiscal process of receiving the reimbursements and then, they're dispersed to the county. So, the counties are required to provide an annual report of the number of burials.

And based on those burials, then there is disbursement.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much.

I'll, I'll ask the last question. So, thank you. Actually, this is the most discussion we've had on this, but I think it's really important. And thank you for being—doing all the groundwork to look at the possibilities and find a way that's almost revenue neutral.

But I do want to pick up on one of the questions that the Vice Chair was speaking at. And in your testimony, you say that the NCA, which is the National Cemetery Administration, may consider not awarding any new grants until cemeteries meet compliance goals.

So, is there a grant program under normal times where states and counties might be able to qualify for funds, and that's why this is an important measure?

It's important that, Chair Bellatti, that the grants I'm referring to in that part of the testimony would include, for example, improvement grants for respective cemeteries, perhaps the ability to expand.

So, for example, for East Hawaii 2, which there are currently active veteran burials in ground, as well as column burial for cremated remains, they anticipate that in the next five years, they will need to expand the columbariums for cremated remains.

And so, if a cemetery is not compliant, then that cemetery would not be eligible for CIP grants, as an example. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Again, thank you for all the groundwork you've done on this. I think this is really important.

Thank you.

All right, Members, moving on to Senate Bill 88, this is relating to the Hawaii National Guard again authorizing 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.

First up, we have testimony from Office of the Director of the Joint Staff, Hawaii National Guard.

Morning, Chair. B. Vice Chair, Mono. Members of the Committee, I'm Brigadier General Ross, Director of Joint Staff, stand on my testimony as written here to answer any questions that you may have.

Wonderful. Thank. Why don't you just say that? Because we're going to go quickly through this. Testimony from individual Michael Gola, you in support. Testimony from Haley Tu'umalo. In support. And testimony from Frank Schultz. In support. Mr. Schultz also provided testimony and support in the previous bill. Any other testifiers in the room? Any testifiers in zoom. Members?

Members, any questions? No questions. You're off the hook. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, moving on to Senate Bill 1382 relating to the National Guard specifies intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to a National Guard Member in the performance of a duty is class is a class C felony. We first have testimony from Brigadier Ross. Brigadier General Ross.

Morning. Good. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brigadier General Ross, Director of Joint Staff and I stand on my testimony as written. I'm here for any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Captain Thomas Chang from the Criminal Investigation Division of the Honolulu Police Department. In support, testimony from Michael Gulu. In support. Testimony from Frank Schultz. In support. And testimony from Nicholas Zur. In opposition. Any other testifiers in the room? Zoom seeing? None. Members, any questions? Go ahead.

Thank you. Can you. I'm trying to. I'm thinking of some situations where the National Guard was. Were called to interact with the civilian population. I mean, last one I can think of was maybe Mauna Kea. Did they go to Mauna Kea?

Maui was our most recent engagement with. Correct. One of the support missions that we had was in support of the Maui Police Department and protecting some of the areas and into the impact zone. In some of those instances we were engaged with individuals who were of what we consider to be a non compliant capacity.

And in doing so they engaged our service members negatively, which in some instances they overran our traffic checkpoints and thus Maui Police Department were engaged. However, there were certain instances where there were physical altercations against our service members and that's what drove the need for this type of operational change in the way that we're engaging.

And this bill is so important to provide that oversight protection which is similar to any other person who's doing their job in support of the the state in a response capacity.

And are your service members armed in that moment?

No, they are not armed.

Okay, so is that part of. I mean, and whereas the police who you're working next to, they are armed.

Correct.

So interesting. Okay.

Thank you for the question.

But were there other, other than Maui? And basically you're keeping people from perceived as looters.

Maybe that's one type of individual that we may encounter, but there are also other types of individuals who may want to do harm or create certain scenarios where we are in a civil disturbance capacity, rioters, looters, and as such, where we as the National Guard may be that first line of civil defense.

Members. Any other questions? We have testimony from an individual on Zoom Late, or is it from the city in Kanye Honolulu. Would you like to present testimony? Sorry, sir. You can sit down if you.

Great. Thank you so much. Chair.

Sorry, Sorry. Can I go? Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. Captain Chang. I'm Captain Thomas Chang. Yeah, I'm Captain Thomas Chang from the Criminal Investigation Division of the Honolulu Police Department. Sorry. Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, HPD strongly supports Senate Bill 1382.

We believe the National Guard members, especially when they're out performing their duties in emergency situations, helping out the members of the community, we should have protective measures like what they do for what they. Like what they have for first responders. So we strongly support this Bill. I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Go ahead.

Representative, follow up question for National Guard. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any laws currently in place that would. Because your, your Guard members are still people, right? And if they're attacked by other people, there, there could still be ways to address that. I mean, it's not like they're completely. Without recourse as an individual.

Yes, there are ways that individuals can take measures for violence against themselves. However, as was just mentioned earlier, as first responders are protected under Class C, we're in that capacity responding as first responders to as well. So we deserve, and we need that type of protection.

I'm actually surprised. It's almost like deputizing a sheriff or citizens to help you control order or whatever. They would be. They would be considered protected under some of this too, right? Ask a question, please, if you can answer. I mean, but wouldn't they.

I'm just surprised that they're not already considered an extension of the police force that invited you or that you were working alongside.

Yeah, it would be, I would say, the ability for us to do our job in a response first responder capacity and, and given the class C felony level, is what would be most appropriate to give us that protection. So, yes, there is nothing that gives us that level of protection at this point in time.

That's why this Bill is so important.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, moving on to Senate Bill 1379, Senate Draft 2 relating to emergency emergency preparedness. This is the bill to establish Community Readiness Centers, programs that we heard earlier, to be implemented and administered by Hawaii Emergency Management Agency with funding Members. We have testimony and support from a Hawaii Emergency Management Agency Administrator Barros or his representative.

Yeah, I'm instead of Administrator James Barros. My name is Ethan Oki for Hawaii Emergency Management. We thank you, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. We stand on our testimony supporting this bill and available for any question or concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Testimony in opposition from County of Hawaii Civil Defense, Talmadge Mino. Comments from Tax foundation of Hawaii. Testimony from Mr. Mikulina in strong support. And this is a coalition of folks, I believe.

That's right. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Jeff Mikalina with Climate Hawaii. We're part of the Hawaii Executive Collaborative. You can see from our testimony we support this measure and there's a fairly diverse array of voices that are behind this and see this as a kind of a high impact, high value initiative.

One of the things we lack in Hawaii is kind of that framework for developing these resilience hubs. There's been some efforts around the state over on Hawaii island over here, some individuals, like Dottie over in Hau'Ula, building a resilience hub.

But this would provide a framework and hopefully resources so we can have some consistency and some focus on essentially creating lifeboats for when that disaster happens in Hawaii, particularly hurricanes or other strong storm events. So we can hope. We hope we can move this forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McIlina. Hawaii Food and Policy in strong support. Catholic Charities of Hawaii in support. Aloha.

I'm Betty Lunglassing with Kathy Cherry Sawai. Thank you. Kathy Cherry stands on our written testimony and support. We think this is really something we need to look at for our future in the islands. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Larson, Ms. Nora Hull in support. Jen Baldad Valdado in support. Carolyn Azelski in support. And Mr. Frank Schultz in support. Any other testifiers in the room? Go ahead.

Good day, Chair Bellotti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, Members of the Committee, my name is Hartley Adriana Kohanna testifying in favor of SB 1379 to allocate funds towards readiness and resilience centers. Hurricane Lane, Tropical Storm Olivia, the Maui wildfires, natural disasters are growing in frequency.

As an island, we are exposed to the elements at risk of high winds and Flash flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, drought. Climate change means increased weather extremes as we see areas of the planet get wetter, drier, hotter, colder.

Research shows increased eco anxiety amongst our communities who don't know when the next natural disaster might strike, with long lasting mental health effects on the children and families of survivors of natural disasters. Community Readiness Centers will prepare communities for what is to come, providing action plans, resources, supplies and refuge in the event of natural emergencies.

We've seen this already functioning quite well in Australia, which is a country who have simplified their warning systems so that people know what to do and where to go. This preparedness can reduce anxiety and the risk of injury or death in the case of natural disaster.

This bill anticipates what we know is coming and I ask you to support SB 1379.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kohanna. If you can provide your testimony in writing to our Clerk, we'll make sure that it gets part of the record. Thank you. Seeing no other testifiers Members, questions. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. It's for the Department of Defense. Thank you. So you know, the County of Hawaii testified in opposition what you know, and given the list of emergencies or natural disasters that happen, they do affect different counties differently.

Why, why shouldn't it be left to the county to invest, to do everything that you guys seek to do on a state level? Why shouldn't, why shouldn't we rely on the counties to do this?

I think this is just another strategy to as a state kind of, you know, support the counties as best as they can. As far as Hawaii County, I don't want to speak for Director Talmadge Magno, but like they're very ready or prepared because they have so many.

So they're in partnership with vibrant Hawaii that really is engaged with the community. So in their lane. Maybe that's what he's speaking from. Whereas our responsibility is across the state. So we're trying to magnify the messaging of preparedness and always trying to if be proactive in that sense.

So the Community Readiness center is kind of like our take for the counties to do the what maybe Hawaii island is already doing.

Okay, can I follow up? So another way to ask that question is that this isn't meant to supplant already existing programs that the counties are doing. This is meant to actually enhance. And so if there's language that we could develop to make sure that that's clear.

Yep.

Then that would be something that could be moved forward.

And that's, that's basically what we're going to do because of the already existing infrastructure. Yeah.

And the Community Readiness center programs that you've been working on across the state. I mean, I understand that some of it's been in Waimanalo, so it's actually been in places that's not Hawaii island because there's not that kind of network that Hawaii island has.

Correct.

Okay.

Correct. And then across the state, as well as Maui, Molokai, Lanai. Right. As well as Kauai. Yeah.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right. zero, go ahead. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair, I have a question for, for you. Thank you for being here. I guess my, my concern regarding this bill is the cost. As I understand the bill, it's to provide a physical space and a permanent structure. And obviously there's going to be multiple quantities of this throughout the state.

And this question was asked in a previous House hearing, but I didn't get an answer. Do we even know what is the estimated cost of each shelter?

So right now we're in the process of getting that number to you folks. We're working with an architect as well as some community, I guess, SMEs, subject matter experts to kind of give us a rough figure to provide you folks some idea of what we are hoping to do.

Follow up question, Chair, go ahead. Thank you. So are there any plans in place or as you move forward on this, what's going to be involved in planning this? Because this sounds like a very big endeavor that is going to have a lot of moving parts and so on and so forth.

Can you comment on that, please? So this program is partnered with our Hawaii Emergency Management HRP program where we go into the communities to establish these readiness communities and then a part of that identifying a location that would best fit them, not individually, but as a.

As like a moku or district so that they would have a centralized place now where that how that would be. It wouldn't be necessarily a cookie cutter kind of building and structure, but more so something that complements that community and their concerns.

So whether that's building or retrofitting or redesigning, it's kind of dependent on what the HR program for that district will do or decide, because this is more so community driven to best amplify what their needs are for that community.

So that that community engagement and training component is already started. And I think that's probably the most important aspect of all of preparedness. So I'm hoping that maybe you can continue that and maybe plan the structure part and have ongoing discussions on that to implement this.

Because if this bill passes, I'm concerned that you folks not going to be ready to hit the ground running and start with your plans. I think we should get some pre planning done. But thank you. Yep. Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair.

Any last questions? Go ahead. Last questions.

Sorry, no to I guess piggyback on what Rep.

Shamizu is alluding to, which has actually been brought up in other, in other discussions, which is this idea that the state keeps moving forward with infrastructure investments that counties should, some are, some are doing less so but the counties are the ones who should be raising the revenue and keeping people safe as well.

If, if not, I mean, you know, and of course the counties, when disaster strikes the county, they're going to seek help from the state. And so part of me understands that you're going to go in, it's kind of like you're hedging your like you guys are going to come to the state state for help.

So this is our help beforehand. I get that.

But I just please ask the question.

Yes. So I mean, so what how do you justify or how do you explain to people in the House who feel that the counties aren't funding enough of their own efforts that we're going to this overlay of state funding?

Again, I would say that from our standing being with the state, it's kind of like a Kako effort where we're trying to partner and not necessarily match but kind of use our dollars to do the same thing that the counties are doing.

And if one county is doing more, then we would do less and kind of like help out. The communities are kind of cut off already, naturally.

And so you don't imagine the counties going, the state's going to do it, so we'll back off and let the State Fund, sustain state effort, the state investment.

Again, that would be an assumption that I don't think I'm allowed to take. But yeah. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Seeing no further questions. Let's move on to Senate Bill 371, Senate Draft 2 relating to property damage of critical infrastructure facilities. First up, we have testimony with comments and amendments from Department of Attorney General.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Tricia Nakamatsu appearing on behalf of the Department. We do feel that this bill would fill a gap, I suppose if you want to call that, in terms of heightened penalties for direct, causing direct damages to critical infrastructure, as our testimony indicated.

Our written testimony indicated the current statute really only covers damage that results from interference that results from damaging the computer system that runs the network. We do have two suggested amendments. One is really just reformatting and the other is a slight amendment to the critical infrastructure facility definition. Available for questions, if any.

Thank you, Ms. Nakamatsu. Testimony in opposition for Office of Public Defender.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Sonny Ganaden, Deputy Public Defender. This is a pretty harsh penalty and it's going to have some fairly unintended consequences. The federal crime for violating this, you know, criminal property damage against a critical infrastructure is set at $100,000. This would bring it down to $20,000 and it includes in this bill negligence.

So that means your average homeowner, your average person who trims trees, could accidentally break any kind of former critical infrastructure worth over $20,000. And if you search that, that's a whole bunch of stuff, including in this bill, cable lines and things owned by corporations that bring Internet to people. $20,000 means an A felony.

20 years in jail. We just don't think juries are going to agree with sending people to 20 years in jail for maybe hitting a power line or something like that. If you do want to pass this bill, we would suggest meeting what is currently the federal standard. Also taking out the negligent standard in page one, line 10. Recklessly, maybe. Otherwise, we feel this bill is bad for community. Thank you.

Thank you. Testimony in support from the Maui Prosecutor's Office. Testimony in support from Charter Communications. Testimony... Go ahead. Charter is going to just stand on its written testimony. Testimony in support from Hawaiian Electric.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Same words. Are going to stand by our strong support of the bill.

Thank you. Testimony from in support from CTIA. Testimony in support from Frank Schultz. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, questions? Go ahead, Representative Iwamoto.

For HECO. Given the negligence and reckless aspect, who at HECO should we arrest when corporations or companies act recklessly or negligently and damages happen?

I believe that's outside this bill, ma' am.

Right, okay. But the point is that we're going to subject individual homeowners, for instance, if they are reckless or negligent in maintaining or, you know, a tree branch does, something happens, and...

I don't believe that's the intent of the bill. I can let the Attorney General's Office argue the difference between recklessly and negligently. That is not... Our issue is these occurrences are occurring across the country. We want to make sure we're prepared and be able to prosecute successfully for anybody that is out there maliciously damaging our equipment, causing harm to the community.

Okay, so your standard is you support malicious as a standard threshold of intent?

I wouldn't want to get into the legal definitions. I like the bill the way it is. As far as prosecution goes or how the Committee moves forward, that's up to you all. As long as we have a way to prosecute folks that are out there damaging property, they're causing chaos for the community, possibly causing people's medical equipment to go down. That's our intent.

Members, any other questions? Representative Poepoe.

Hi. In my district, we have a lot of utility poles very close to the highway. Accidents happen where vehicles bang into the poles. The poles get split in half, power lines go down, power goes out. So how would those accidents be impacted by this measure?

I don't believe those would be impacted. Those are accidents. Those are not intentional acts or acts that people far outside the norm which recklessly and negligently typically cover.

Thank you. Question?

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for AG's office, please.

You're off the hook, sir. Any other questions after this? I will ask the last question of the AGs then. Go ahead.

Actually, I have two questions, Chair. Are you aware of the current history of incidents that's involved as far as this type of offense that we're talking about?

As far as current history, I'm sorry, we were not. I don't believe we were involved in training, drafting this bill. So we're not exactly sure where it's coming from. No. If that was your question.

Yeah, maybe Office of Public Defender might have that. But can I ask you a follow up question since you're standing there? Is, you know, based on the Office of Public Defender's opposition and his reasons, do you feel that the current penalties are insufficient?

I don't think the penalty Department is taking any kind of position on what the severity of the penalties or whether it's at the appropriate level or not. We were just noting that, if the bill were passed, it would cover. It would provide heightened penalties for something that does not currently have heightened penalties.

So the AG's office cannot comment on current and new penalties and a position on the severity of it?

I can take that back and ask about whether the Department does have a position on the severity of it or not. But at this point, I believe we're not taking a position. I can tell you what the severities are, but other than that, I don't think we've actually taken a position on it.

Okay. So can I ask my first question to the Office of Public Defender?

I'm going to... We're going over time. So this does have another hearing in Judiciary. I'll let that proceed. But I do have a question for you, Ms. Nakamatsu. Office Prosecutor and the Public Defender mentioned that there's a similar federal statute. Are you aware of what that federal statute is and what the standards are for negligence, recklessness? Does it line up, essentially? Does this line up?

I'm not aware, but I can look into that and get back to you.

Okay, thank you. All right, Members, we have to move on. I'm going to at this time take... Let's take up... Even though it's not normal practice, but because we have a quorum, I'm just going to take up voting on this measure and then we'll move into our 10am agenda.

Members, on Senate Bill 1377, Senate Draft 2, relating to veterans cemeteries. Good discussions. Chair's recommendation is to do an HD—Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. Pass it as, as is. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Members, Chair's recommendation on Senate Bill 88, relating to the Hawaii National Guard, is to pass this also as is, noting that there is a good date and I will allow the final Committee to, to weigh in on this, but Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Senate Bill 1382, relating to the National Guard. Chair's recommendation, again, and noting that there is a good date on this is to pass this as is. Questions, comments, or concerns? All right, seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote on Senate Bill 1382.

[Roll Call]

All right, Members, for Senate Bill 17—1379—Senate Draft 2, relating to emergency preparedness, we're waiting for some information from Hyema, so, Chair's recommendation is going to be to defer this to Wednesday, March 19th, for decision making at our 11:00 AM agenda.

Moving on to Senate Bill 371, Senate Draft 2, relating to property damage of critical infrastructure facilities. Some good conversations. So, Chair's recommendation is also going to be to defer this to Wednesday, March 19th for decision making at 11:00 AM. Members, this will put us in line with our deadline.

So, that's another reason why we are going to defer decision making until then. Any comments, questions, or concerns? Seeing none. Members, we are adjourned on our 9:30 AM agenda. Members, opening up our 10:00 AM agenda and I want to thank the public for being so patient.

Just to review, again, there's no time limits on this for this Committee, but we do have another agenda at 10:45 AM. For those who are participating on Zoom, please refrain from using any trademark materials on your backgrounds as that will kick this off of YouTube and should there be any problems, we may need to adjourn this.

But we will have—we'll readjourn if we need to do so. Members, I'm going to exercise a little bit of discretion and take up the last measure on this Bill first because this is something that we have handled previously before, so I imagine that we're going to be going more quickly through that.

But that is Senate Bill 224, SD 1, relating to identification. So, I want to take that out of order and then go to the top of the agenda because I know that there will be lots of questions about the other bills.

So, first up, on Senate Bill 224, relating to identification, we have testimony in support from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Director. Thank you. We have testimony from the Department of Human Services with comments. Testimony from Kristen Johnson, the Hawaii Correctional System of Oversight Commission, in support.

Stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Testimony from Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Thank you. Testimony from the ACLU in support. The ACLU of Hawaii in support. Testimony from Ms. Kat Brady in Community Alliance on Prisons.

Good morning, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, and Members of the Committee. Kat Brady testifying in strong support of this. You know, without ID, you can't really do very much. So, it doesn't help when people come out of the system and have no way to open a bank account, find a job, find housing, even get a library card.

So, we think this is absolutely crucial. The Bill was passed in 2017, and at that time, it basically said the person would have to ask, well, when somebody's been inside for 10 or 20 years, they don't even know what they need when they come out into the community. So, this Bill really fixes that problem.

And it says the Department shall initiate. And it definitely needs to do that because since 2022, 10,580 people were released, 150 people got ID, and of that, only 32 were provided at no cost.

So, we need to actually focus on reentry and help people successfully transition into the community, not put up barriers so that they are almost forced to go back to prior behavior in order to survive. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from Waikiki Health. Testimony in support from Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii, Kawailoa. Testimony in support from Hawaii Friends of Restorative Justice. Testimony in support from Juliana Saenz. Testimony in support from Carla Ellison. Any other testifiers in the room or in Zoom? Seeing none. Members, questions? Seeing no questions.

All right, we are going to move up to the top of this agenda, relating to Senate Bill 104, Senate Draft 2, and this measure is relating to corrections and does a number of things. But let's just jump right into the testimony. Testimony in opposition from Director Tommy Johnson. And if you could come to the microphone, please.

Thank you, Chair Belatti and Members of the Committee. I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of Department of Corrections Rehabilitation. We strongly oppose this measure. I'll summarize my testimony in short. Our policy, Corrections Policy .11.01, actually addresses almost all the things in this Bill.

And the policy is written based on ACA, American Correctional Association, standards and National Institute of Correction standards. This Bill is more general and would tend to place our staff in danger if we weren't able to immediately place people in restrictive housing, based on their behavior.

I provided some information, our testimony on recent unprovoked attacks on nurses and correctional officers by inmates. I also provided a copy of our policy and all the attachments for the Committee to take a look at at their leisure. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Johnson. We have testimony in support from Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Ms. Johnson.

Hello. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. One of the things that we're really concerned about is that restrictive housing is utilized throughout the Department, but it's not called solitary confinement. And so, it wouldn't align with the policy that's written in the Department—that the Department had referenced.

So, the goal of this Bill is that it would address much of that and make sure that people are getting out of cell when they're in general population if they haven't done an infraction. You know, just making sure that people really have that opportunity to not be held in a cell for 21 hours-plus a day.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Testimony in support from Office of Public Defender. Mr. Ganaden.

Good morning again, Chair, Vice Chair. Sonny Ganaden, Deputy Public Defender. We're in support of this. This doesn't mean that the Department can't house an individual on their own. It just means continuing oversight by the Oversight Committee.

Also, in my brief experience as an Appellate Attorney, it's really difficult to get a hold of an individual who is being held in some sort of restrictive housing in the private facility. These individuals are often just about to be released. They are about to get maxed out. They are facing a hearing before the Hawaii Paroling Authority.

And if you can't get a hold of them, then you can't prepare them. You can't get them involved in any kinds of programs. And then, we release them back into the community, basically fresh out of jail. There's a lot of issues with that.

I think this would be a good step in getting some oversight into that process and in continuing to have a conversation between the Oversight Committee and the Department in allowing lawyers like myself to talk to clients to prepare them for the community.

Thank you, Mr. Ganaden. Testimony in support from Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. McKenna Woodward, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We will stand on our written testimony but would like to underscore a few key points. Native Hawaiians continue to be disproportionately impacted by Hawaii's criminal justice system, comprising approximately—approximately 37% of the state's correctional facilities, while representing only 21% of the total state population.

In 2021, 5.1% of Hawaii's total prison population was held in solitary confinement. 245 people were held in solitary confinement for 15 or more days and 103 people in men's prisons were held in solitary confinement for one year or more.

Solitary confinement often has catastrophic consequences for those who are subjected, including worsening symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and hallucinations—the impediment of rehabilitation, recovery, and community reintegration and adverse long-term consequences for cognitive and adaptive functioning. For these reasons, OHA urges this Committee to pass SB 104, SD 2. Mahalo nui for the opportunity to testify on this issue.

Thank you. Testimony in support from the ACLU, Hawaii. Testimony in support from Community Alliance and Prisons. Ms. Kat Brady.

Good morning, Committee. I'm still Kat Brady and I'm testifying in strong support of this measure. You know, this Bill actually brings this torturous policy into the light. It takes it out of the dark corner of public policy, and it brings it into the light, so people know what's going on inside.

There has been just a plethora of research and some of the best psychiatrists, psychologists, have commented and said solitary creates disabilities. And then, we release people, even if they're released back to general population, they're damaged.

You stick somebody somewhere in a room with a little skinny mattress, no books, no anything to stimulate their minds, and then you wonder what's going on. And Hawaii has had this policy where they put somebody in administrative segregation.

They're there for 30 days, then they come out for a day or two, and then, they're put back into another form of segregation. And this happened with this gentleman who died. He was 34 years old. He died in Saguaro. I got calls from the facility saying, what happened to this guy?

We saw him, he got out of solitary, and now nobody has seen him. What's going on? And what was going on was they put him in another form of segregation. This is not good to do because you're really messing with people's minds.

So, we are really concerned that the state is endorsing this sanction, which the UN and a plethora of national and international human rights groups has called torture. So, this is state-sponsored violence. There are other things that we could do. You just don't throw somebody away and then, okay, you're done, come back as if everything's going to be okay.

It's not. It has a huge impact on the management of the facilities, and I'm really concerned about people. We've had so many people who have committed suicide while in solitary. I have been to the hospital where some of the people—I have seen the people who were dying, and this is just totally not acceptable. There are things that we could do, and we should be doing them. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. Testimony in support from Hawaii Friends of Restorative Justice. Testimony in support from League of Women Voters. Testimony in support from Easter Seals, Hawaii. Testimony in support from Thaddeus Pham, individual. Colleen Rose Ross Banik, individual in support. Michael Older in support. Carla Allison in support.

And then, Isis Usborne, Member of Lambda Law, Hawaii in support. Any other testifiers in the room? Any testifiers on Zoom? Members, questions? Go ahead. Representative Shimizu, followed by Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. Question for Director Johnson, please. My question starts off with what are the numbers we're talking about as far as individuals that are assigned to this restrictive housing due to, I guess, infractions that qualify, qualify them for lack of a better term, and what is like maybe the average per year we're looking at?

Well, it fluctuates based on the type of infraction, but at any given time, it's less than 5% of the overall population. I should explain, though, while people are in restrictive housing, they have unfettered access to their attorneys. We have a mobile library cart that goes to them for books and things like that.

There's different types of restrictive housing. So, if you have a minute, I'd like to explain. There's people in protective custody, that's to protect them from other inmates. There are people in administrative segregation who are there because they committed an infraction and they're working their way back down.

There's dictionary segregation that they go to immediately after the segregation, immediately after the incident occurs. And then, we have people in maximum custody who do need to be double escorted, who come out for recreation and for—they're fed in their cells and come out for shower. That's a very small population.

But those are the violent offenders who have committed serious infractions in the facility, like attacking a staff member or another inmate.

Chair, can I ask a follow up question, please?

If it's quick and then I want to move to Rep. Iwamoto.

Okay. Question for Director, again. You state in your testimony that this new Bill does not follow the guidelines of NIC and ACA, which you reference as a standard. Are there any consequences if, for whatever reason, it doesn't comply?

If you have a policy that doesn't comply with national standards, if an incident occurs, then a civil attorney could use that against the state to strengthen their case, to say, well, you're not even following the national standards.

And so, this is why we provided a copy of our policy on the matter, which is not in some dark corner. It's posted on the web for everybody to see and to comment if they wish.

Last thing is, I'm going to sneak this in, is are you able to, like, advise the Committee on maybe language that might help us to, to be in compliance so that this opposition wouldn't be part of your opposition?

I would say if you read the policy, the policy is in compliance with the national standards of ACA and NIC. So, to be honest, to be perfectly frank, I think this is a Bill looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Because if you know ACA and NIC standards, then if you read—and if you read the policy, you'll see we follow those standards.

I would welcome the Commission reviewing our policy and then coming back to us, the Oversight Commission, with any concerns they might have so we can address those concerns. Again, the policy is posted on the eeb, where anybody can see we have nothing to hide.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair, for your indulgence. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. Well, if I want to be clever about this, have you read the ACLU's testimony?

No, not for this hearing. I did not.

Okay. Well, they list quite a number of questions for us to engage in a discussion, but I'll start with a couple.

One question, please.

Oh. Can you answer all of the ACLU questions?

That's for a future Committee.

But I can tell you that if the ACLU have questions, they can write directly to me, and we certainly will answer their questions. They've sent us inquiries before.

So, I'm just clarifying that you do keep the numbers, daily numbers, of who's in any form of disciplinary segregation, either administrative or segregation?

We have a daily report for anyone who is in administrative or disciplinary segregation or all our segregation categories.

Have the numbers gotten better in the last 10 years? In the last five years?

Well, the numbers have gone down, but our population has also gone down, too. Like, we used to have over close to 5,000 people in custody. Now we have 3,700 total.

So, it is one of your goals and objectives to reduce the number of people placed under administrative and disciplinary segregation?

Correct. Hence, the policy is very restrictive as to who can place someone in that type of housing.

Okay, so.

One last question.

So, you know, as Kat Brady mentioned, there are alternatives. So, what kind of reforms or alternatives have you been utilizing?

Well, in writing our policy, it's very informative on the federal level with respect to the guidelines. It is very hard to come up with an alternative when someone just stabbed another person in the neck instead of separating them out.

So, I want to make it clear, the people who are in disciplinary segregation and administrative segregation earned their way there based on their unacceptable behavior and attacking other inmates or introducing serious prison contraband. And so, they're not thrown in a hole and forgotten. They're getting legal access to legal services. They're getting food, showers, recreation, access to books.

Okay, I'm going to ask, I think, some very quick questions. First, I appreciate that you included the policy, the 2024 policy in this. There's kind of three areas of things happening when you look at the testimony about this Bill. There's the concern that we need to have some state statutes, and I really want—I think that it's really important that we align what's current policy, if it's aligned with standards that we use the same language in the law.

So, there's that piece of it. There's a second piece, a question about do these policies apply to our private correctional facilities on the mainland? And I think that's a different kind of question.

And then, there's a third piece about data collection. So, if this were to move forward, I think we need to have a conversation and is there a way that we can move this forward in this next part of the legislative session? Would the Department be open to a working group?

Could we look at making immediately available data so that we know and have these questions answered? Can you just generally speak to that ability of the Department to continue to engage in the conversation?

Well, sure. We can provide whatever information the Commission asks us to, with respect to the numbers of people who go into restrictive housing, frequency in which they go into, and the reasons they go into in aggregate form without identifying them by name.

We're willing to sit down to talk about the policy, but again, we can pull down the ACA and NIC standards and you can see for yourself that the language and the policy is the language from the national standards.

And we welcome the Oversight Commission's review of the policy and NIC and ACA guidelines and to come back with recommendations that they believe we went off kilter somewhere.

Okay. And then, can you speak to how does Core Civic develop its solitary confinement policies? Is that in the contract that you have with them or what is the guidance that—or do they comply with your policy?

No, they have their own proprietary policies, but their policies follow national standards as well, because they have to go through inspections and audits, just as we do.

Is—even though it's proprietary, that seems to me that that's a policy that we would be entitled to see.

We could obtain it, but I don't think that Core Civic would like to—they would object to the policy being released to the public because it is proprietary.

We—okay.

But I do, but I do invite the Committee to visit the facility for yourself, to talk to the inmates, to talk to the staff, and talk to the folks about the policies and procedures that they have, so you have a better understanding.

Because unfortunately, some of the folks who testify before legislative committees provide misinformation regarding the facility, how it is operated, how the inmates are treated down there. So, I would invite the community to visit first yourself, to see for yourself.

I appreciate that invitation and I guess let me ask the question another way. So, the only thing that is providing guidance to Core Civic now, with respect to their segregation policies, are the national standards.

No. We send out an audit team every three months that consists of our SMEs and food service, healthcare, security, education services, and they provide, they do a complete audit report, which I get and review, and based on the findings, we can determine whether they're in compliance or not.

I think it was last year I fined them $68,000 for not being in compliance on two consecutive audits. So, there is oversight to make sure that they're following—meet the scope of service of the contract. We also have a full-time contract monitor on the ground that works in the facility, who works for us. Okay.

All right, thank you, Director. All right, Members, good conversations. We're going to move on because we have another very important Bill also impacting this. But we'll take this up at the end of this agenda for decision making.

Senate Bill 1612, Senate Draft 2 relating to fitness to proceed, which would be pilot program, five year fitness to proceed program. First up, we have testimony supporting the intent from Director Johnson.

Thank you, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto and Members of the Committee. I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Corrections Rehabilitation, and we support the intent of this measure. Except we did recommend some language changes to section one of the bill where it talks about in new buildings there really should be new correctional facilities as appropriate.

Instead of a five year program, we believe a three year pilot program. And it should be specific to new construction, as the bill says.

But we think it should be specific to occc, the new occc, because this provides us a time to plan with the Department of Health for the appropriate space that needs to be set aside for this and to determine the staffing.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Thank you.

We have testimony in support of intents with comments from the Department of Health.

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair and Committee Members, Mark Lynn Scott. I'm the hospital administrator at the Hawaii State Hospital. The Department of Health supports the intent of this bill. Our comments around jail based restoration programs are in there, as well as suggested amendments that clarify custody and partnership with Department of Health and the Corrections Department. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Please mute if you're on Zoom until I call upon you. Testimony and support from Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition. Testimony in opposition from ACLU Hawaii. Testimony with comments from Hawaii Disability Rights Center. Mr. Lou Ershek on Zoom.

Hello.

Go ahead, Mr. Go ahead, Lou. Go ahead. Mr. Erdoshek, you're okay? With testimony in opposition from Alec Lichten. Mr. Lichten. Come on up, Lou. If you can turn on your next after. Mr. Lichten, you can go. Go ahead, Mr. Lichten.

Aloha. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, I'm Alex Lichten. I'm the Legislative Chair for the Hawaii Psychological Association. As a forensic psychologist, I have performed about 1500 examinations of fitness to proceed in Hawaii over the last 17 years.

Our main objection to this bill is it's a violation of the Clark decision from the United States District Court in 2003 in which Judge Ezra ruled that fitness restoration in a jail setting is a violation of constitutional rights and the state.

Once there is a finding that a defendant is unfit to proceed, the law says that the state has 72 hours to transfer them from the jail to the state hospital. And if they don't, they can pay a fine of $1 million per Clark violation.

And when I was the forensic coordinator at the State Hospital in 2004, I was very much aware that the state at that time was paying the these $1 million fines. This bill is a response to the overcrowding at the state hospital. But of course, the jail is also very much overcrowded.

And there is no legislative fix to the overcrowding at the state hospital because it's caused by lack of jail diversion, cutbacks in outpatient treatment, including outreach, which cutbacks in psychosocial rehabilitation services with consequent poor treatment outcomes and increased recidivism and a lack of civil commitment psychiatric hospital beds in the community.

This bill also undercuts the Chapter 704 review Committee which meets every 10 years to review the Chapter 704 laws. And they will come out with their consensus recommendations in a year. So it does seem premature to act at this time.

Also, I want to conclude that 40% of the jail and prison population have severe mental illness in the general population it's 1 to 2%, 40% in the jail. Passage of this bill would increase dramatically the criminalization of mental illness in Hawaii. I urge you not to pass SB 1612. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And it's not Mr. Lichten. It's Dr. Lichten. Thank you. Mr. Lou Ardashik from Hawaii Disability Rights Center. Go ahead, Lu. You need to take yourself off mute.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. Can you hear. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble with the audio feed on your end. I can't hear anything on your end. Anyway, I'm Lou Erticek, and I'm the Director of the Hawaii Disability Rights Center.

So many years ago, our office brought the Clark case, which requires, among other things, that I can get you a copy of the injunctions later if you would like. But basically, it says that once somebody is found unfit to proceed, they have to be transferred to the custody of the health director within 72 hours.

So that typically means they go to the state hospital. So the issue with this bill, I mean, and the idea of providing better mental health services in the prisons is, of course, an excellent idea. And this bill literally doesn't, doesn't appear to violate Clark because it only applies up until that determination is made.

But the real issue that I have is where it says that the person is in the joint custody of the two departments, because custody is the key word in Clark. Clark doesn't say you have to go to the state hospital. It says you have to be in their custody.

So the concern is that while this only applies up until the determination is made, if that determination is made that the person is unfit, somebody could say, well, hey, this guy's already in their custody, so I guess he can just kind of stay where he is, and we're not going to violate Clark.

I looked at the Health Department's testimony, and I think they had suggestions like joint partnership, or maybe joint. Maybe joint responsibility would work. But I think that. I think leaving the word custody in there is creating this confusion and potentially could lead to a Clark violation. So I would urge the Committee to take a look at that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Any other testifiers in the room? Mr. Gannadin?

Morning again, Chair. Vice Chair. Sonny Gannon, Deputy Public Defender. Sorry, I might have missed the submission on this one. We believe this is illegal. In addition to the Clark decision, basically, incarceration and mental health treatments are treated really differently under law.

So incarcerating mentally impaired, unstable and unfit individuals without meaningful treatment constitutes deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs and is inhumane. This has been ruled as cruel and unusual punishment by both the State Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. Good intent, bad way of going about it.

We do, of course, support improvements at the Hawaii State Hospital. Other ways that the county can intervene with for issues with people with mental health issues, jail and mental health treatment and preparing somebody to be re released into the community by getting them fit are really different things under law. This is illegal.

Thank you, Mr. Gannadin. Any other testifiers in the room? Any testifiers via zoom? All right, Members, I'm going to pull rank a little because I want to ask some questions and then hopefully that will shape your questions from the Hawaii State Hospital administrator.

So yesterday in the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, there was a really good discussion about having examiners for fitness to proceed. And so there's that happening. But it actually intersects with this Bill quite a bit because some of the delay is with the fitness to proceed examinations.

My question there now is to you, how many patients at Hawaii State Hospital do you get in this kind of situation from neighbor islands?

So they're about a third of our total distribution in that admissions. Of the admissions that are coming to the state hospital, there are the petty misdemeanants. And that's part of the issue here. I mean, all these bills are intended to help the patient or defendant where they are, rather than sending them to the highest level of care.

And there's ways to do things to comply to regulations and standards so that we support the treatment of the patient. And I agree that. Okay, so I want to stop you right there.

Question is, how many at the state hospital are coming from neighbor islands, not Oahu?

A third of our total. So we get 600 patients a year in admissions. So a third of those would be. Coming from outer islands.

Okay, and then can you further break that down? And if you can't hear now, I.

Can offer that to the court or. To the Committee and be happy to.

Provide that statistic because what I'd like to know is how many are coming from Hawaii Island, Maui County, Kauai?

Happy to provide that.

Okay, that could be for the next meeting. That's all. I have the questions for you now, Mr. Johnson.

Yes, I'm very interested in this pilot program that's being pushed by the Senate, in particular the Health and Human Services chair on that side, because I think she has great insight into this. And I think a pilot program of some sort that doesn't wait until we build a new jail is really important. So here's my question.

If we know that there are empty beds in some of the facilities on the neighbor islands, which I understand in previous testimony you have said that there are, there's more capacity on some of the neighbor island facilities, is that correct?

At the Kulani Correctional Facility and at the WA Correctional Facility, they're minimum security facilities without fences. Yes.

So if we wanted to create a pilot program of this kind of nature to keep people based on island and we have the appropriate community based services for a moment in time, if we could make sure that they got the appropriate 704 examinations in a timely manner, then we were to put them into some kind of community based system that that could be the pilot program we focus on and that could be something that we do that doesn't wait 10 years down the road for the building of a new facility.

Is that a possibility?

It's a possibility, but we would have to clear out one dorm at each of those locations and then refit the dorm and also make. Put a fence around the dorm because. Because these people are not minimum or community custody, they would have to be in a more secure setting.

Okay. So what we are talking about is potentially creating some of this jail space and creating like mini transition centers, potentially a place where there could be evaluation and examination. You hold them and there's some kind of partnership custody that doesn't violate Clark as raised by Mr.

Erdeshek and that we could then have like with community work on better reintegration. It's a possibility.

I think it is a possibility. But I think the better route would be deflection and diversion so they don't come to the jail setting and they're kept in the community where they can get the services they need.

And I do, I firmly believe the DOH and the DHS need to step up and we and provide those services, including housing, because we are criminalizing people with mental health issues if they're with us only but for their mental health issues because they don't understand they have a court hearing and we're putting them in jail because they failed to show up in court.

But then they don't know they have a court hearing because they can't remember they have a court hearing because they're off the medication.

So I don't disagree that we need to do deflection and diversion.

Right.

But this is now we're talking about a population that has been committed, convicted, or is in the process as pretrial process of being convicted. So we are dealing with two different populations here. Talking about. Okay, I think that's all I have for you. But I want to open up questions to my colleagues. Questions.

So, I mean, your last statement, Director, made me think that you're actually opposed to this, to what this is trying to do. I mean, it feels like you're. You understand the problem and that it's, you know. Now again, it sounds if they're already.

In our custody, which they are under this bill, they would be on our custody already. Then we would need DOH's help to provide the services for them while they wait for the 704 evaluation. But what I'm really saying is that they shouldn't be in our custody in the first place because of the mental health issues.

They should come to a jail as a last resort. Otherwise, if their actions and behaviors are caused by the mental health issues, they should be diverted into the community and provided the services, including housing, food, counseling, medication. It's much cheaper to do that in the community than it is in a jail setting where it's $207 a day.

Other questions? I have one more question for Director. We just heard the state hospital administrator say a third of those individuals coming to the state hospital are actually from neighbor islands. So we have a population that you guys are already transporting from neighbor island jails to Honolulu.

That speaks to me and says to me that there's an opportunity, if there's some way to have a pilot program on the neighbor islands in particular, there could be a way to do this because there's a population of people there that we're already transporting.

We're transporting because we lack the. The capacity to provide proper treatment for them there. Our jails are severely overcrowded with pretrial and sentence misdemeanants.

Right.

But we still have dead spaces in some of the other.

Only at the Kulani Correctional Facility on.

What island is.

That's a big island. It's an hour and a half up Steinbeck Highway from ACCC and only at the Waiawa Community Correction, the Waiawa correctional facility here on Oahu. All the other jails are at capacity or over, particularly ACCC.

So we're looking at a Kulani and Waialva as having possibilities.

If we did, we would have to refurbish the buildings.

Members, any other questions? All right. Seeing none. Members, we're going to take these up for decision making at the end of our 10:45am agenda. So we're going to recess and come back to that. Picking up our 10:45am agenda, Members, we have, relating to emergency management, shifting gears greatly, Senate Bill 353, Senate Draft 2. This is amending Chapter 127A to clarify state and local authority with respect to emergencies. You folks can stay if you want.

Why are they all leaving? What if we have a robust discussion and we need you here?

Okay, let's go on. Testimony in opposition from Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. Wow. Testimony with comments from Department of Human Services. Testimony comments from Office of Information Practices. Testimony in support League of Women Voters. Testimony in support Public First Law Center. Testimony in support from Professional Journalists Hawaii Chapter. Testimony in support from Grassroots Institute. Testimony in support from Libertarian Party of Hawaii. Testimony in support from Frank Schultz. Testimony in support from Nicholas Zehr. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Members?

He was at HIEMA. Was out of when you called. Do you want to testify?

Yes. Thank you, Vice Chair. Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. Administrator Barros or designate. Did you want to speak on Senate Bill 353, Draft 2?

So we... Chair Belatti, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ethann Oki for Hawaii Emergency Management. We stand on our testimony opposing this bill. Available for any questions or concerns regarding that. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any comments? I'm sorry. Any other testifiers in the room? Any testifiers via Zoom? Seeing none. Members... Go ahead.

This is Amanda Stevens from Department of Human Services. Aloha, Chair Belatti and Committee Members. The Department of Human Services stands on our written testimony and respectfully opposes the current draft. We need extra time to respond during emergencies. We defer to the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency and other impacted departments. Thank you so much.

I'm sorry, ma' am, can you repeat your name and if you're with an organization again.

This is Amanda Stevens with the Department of Human Services.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other testifiers in the room? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

I have a question for either the DHS or HIEMA. What kind of requests have you received that you feel you weren't able to provide the information?

I'm not sure if it's really the instance of what is being asked. It's just the time of ending emergency proclamation immaturely will kind of hamper the overall operations for our response, especially in critical times, especially for the recovery portion, which tends to be a lot longer than the response period.

Any other questions? Stay there. Go ahead, Representative.

Thank you, Chair. You know, I'm reading something. It says that part of the reason for this bill is saying that we're going to prohibit the governor or mayor from suspending requests for public records of vital specifics during a state of emergency. And that doesn't sound very transparent. So I'm just trying to get an understanding on how does that apply, that governor, mayor will suspend requests for public records.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. James Barros, HIEMA. What it's looking for is suspending for the period during the emergency. Because during an emergency, we get constant requests for information from across. So, like for Maui, it was international. And we're just trying to get to it as we get to it and not being so strict on time for the request for that information and as we move through this state of emergency.

So my understanding is, you know, it's just a logistic that there's only so much time in a day and you can't respond to all of the requests, but you are responding and not ignoring it.

Yes, sir. We do. And I think the, the state, HIEMA and other agencies did a great job during Maui in responding to requests for information. But then some of it, there's time limits that when we get the UPIs, we get a, there's a time limit, and a lot of times we didn't make that time. We had to ask for an extension, extension. Just because of the ask and the details being asked, it just takes a lot of bandwidth from the agency when our main effort is in the response phase or setting the conditions for the recovery phase.

So would you say that's the only reason why the information is delayed?

From my perspective, yes, sir.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Administrator Barros, I have a question. So in the testimony, there's a lot of attention paid to suspension of laws or record requests. But there's actually a really important piece of this bill where we, as a Legislature, by affirmative vote, can terminate a state of emergency. That's not getting a lot of attention.

The county council could also have that authority in the case that the mayor were to to declare a state of emergency. What is your position on this? On the Legislature reasserting its authorities or stating its authorities to be able to do that.

Go ahead, Administrator.

Yeah. As we look at the state of emergency and declared state of emergency, there's conditions that are met that require the executive to say, here, I'm in a state of emergency. And then it's on us to articulate what the conditions are for us to come out of that state of emergency. And to your question, Chair, I think you guys have that power now to present something to block this state of emergency. You put it in a bill, vote on it. I'm just not sure we need to capture it in 127 alpha.

Okay, but there are, there is language like this in other states. So you don't oppose this? You don't oppose the reassertion or even the restatement of the legislative power to terminate a state of emergency? Because we have, I mean...

You have the power right now, right. So now we just capturing it and putting in 127 alpha. I think going through the process of this body saying, hey, we want the governor to terminate the state of emergency and having those conversations, getting it voted on by both the House and the Senate, and sending it to him or her.

And if the governor vetoes and says no, it comes back and you guys have the numbers to override the veto and it's, we terminate the state of emergency. I'm not sure if we capture it in 127 alpha the process that we would use to get that vote for the House and Senate.

All right, thank you. Thank you Members. Any other questions? All right, seeing none. Members, let's take up the vote. Going Back to our 10am agenda. Going back to our 10:00 am Agenda. Remember Senate Bill 104 relating to corrections.

This is a bill that the House is, I think, I believe, taking up for the first time relating to solitary confinement, although it doesn't say that in the bill itself refers it to as restrictive housing.

My recommendation is going to be to pass this with technical amendments in HG1 to further defect the date to 3-1-3000 and make sure. All right. This is a real work in progress. Real work in progress.

There is a reporting requirement in here, but because we need to meet the triple referral deadline, I'm going to again just move this forward with a defective date and tech amendments and then take up further amendments with the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee Members.

My further recommendation as we move this along is going to be probably to skinny this down because there's a lot going on in this area, but we do need to just meet the deadline.

So as this moves forward, I really want to look at the potential of creating a working group to address and line up the policies with statutory language that advocates are.

Chair, will you put those final words into your Committee report?

No, I'm just advising you guys of that now. But that's going to be my intent as we move this further along.

Okay. Because. I'm sorry, just to clarify, I thought I heard you say you're going to pass with just technical.

Yes. So my recommendation is to pass with technical amendments and a defective date. Okay. To continue the conversation, I'm further informing the Committee that as we continue to move this along, it will probably be skinny down because we need to align the statutory language with some of the language that's in current policies.

So I just want to advise that. Happens outside of our. That will happen outside of our community. Yep. Right. So you can vote your conscience. Vote how you want. Comments, questions or concerns. All right, go ahead.

Okay. Voting on SB104SD2, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair, vote aye. Representative Hashem is excused. Representative Ichiyama.

[Roll call]

All right. Members moving to Senate Bill 1612, Senate Draft 2 relating to fitness to proceed.

Chair's recommendation is going to be to pass this out with an HD1 to further restrict further defect the date to July 1st, 3000 to adopt the amendments of the Department of Health related to the kind of partnership custody, and then also to propose this pilot program for the population that qualifies for County of Hawaii, which I don't know what the number is.

It's not 500,000, but our drafter will know it's going to be a pilot program for Hawaii County, which actually has a potential facilities as well as the community partnerships that could maybe make this pilot program very successful.

Chair's recommendation is also going to be in the Committee report to ask that the Department of Health provide the statistics about those individuals who are subject to the kind of transport to Hawaii State Hospital that might be subject to this pilot program so that we understand the numbers from the different counties. Any questions, comments or concerns.

So, Chair, are you saying that you're going to amend language so that you're tailoring it for a pilot program specifically to Hawaii County? Yes. Okay, thank you.

And the language that we typically use is by population.

I have comments.

Go ahead, Representative Souza.

Thank you, Chair. I'll be voting with reservations just because I do. I am relying on the Clark injunction and I do think that it is a slippery slope no matter how how much we further craft the bill going forward. Also, disclosure that I did extern for Judge Ezra not during the time of this particular injunction. Thanks.

Thank you, Chair. Representative Souza, I will also disclose a very long time ago I also externed for Judge Ezra not during the Clark injunction. So there I'm going to declare confident for both of us.

Sorry, Chair. So I will be voting in opposition. No. Because of the Clark decision. And I do believe it's a slippery slope.

Thank you. Great discussion. Members. I think we're really trying to look for a solution for a very hard problem right now. So I appreciate everyone's minds and thoughts being put to this really difficult problem. Again, Chair's recommendation is to pass with an HD1. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on SB 1612. SD2. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absences of just Rep. Woodson. Seeing recognizing that Representative Hashem has entered the Committee. Are there any Members other than myself voting no?

Chair, I appreciate your thoughtful crafting of the pilot program. I still think it's a work in progress and I'm not comfortable. So I will be voting no at this time.

Also recognizing Representative. If she means that's a no vote. Are there any. Any others? Is there anyone voting with reservations? Okay, represent Sousa is with reservations. And again, Woodson is excused. All others voting I. Your motion is adopted.

All right. Members moving to Senate Bill 224, Senate Draft 1 relating to identification. Members, we've seen this bill many times. Chair's recommendation. I will note there is a good date on it. Chair's recommendation is going to be to pass this as is it does have two more committees to clear through.

And if those committees believe that it should be defective, then they can do that at that level. But I'm going to just move this forward as is. Comments, questions or concerns?

Yes.

All right. No further discussion. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on SB224, SD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is noting the excuse absence of Representative Woodson. Are there any Members voting no. Are there any Members voting with reservations? Seeing None. Your motion is adopted.

Members moving to our 10:45am agenda. Senate Bill 353, Senate Draft 2 relating to emergency meeting management. This provides more guidelines for the suspension of rules and record requests as well as reasserting or clarifying legislative authority to end an emergency.

Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1 to further defect the date to July 1st, 3000 and any tech amendments identified by HMSO for clarity, style, consistency, questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB353SD2 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Are there any Members voting? No. Are there any Members voting with reservations? Seeing none Chair your motion is your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. We are adjourned. Thank you for all the great work.