House Standing Committee on Labor

Good morning, everyone. I'm calling to order the House Committee on Labor. It is Thursday, March 13, 2025, 9:00am. We're in Conference Room 309. First on the agenda, we have SB 1567, SD 1, relating to the classification and compensation systems. First to testify on this measure, we have Brenna Hashimoto, Director for DHRD, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Brenna Hashimoto, Director of DHRD. DHRD submitted written testimony, which I'll stand on. But I also just wanted to thank the Legislature and the House for their strong support of this measure. We are very interested in conducting a comprehensive study of our classification and compensation systems to ensure address any antiquated class specifications and job titles and minimum qualification requirements.

I think you've probably heard from many of my colleagues that the MQs they feel like are a barrier to recruiting and retaining staff. And so we want to be able to contract with a third party vendor to conduct a study of our classification system and all of our civil service classifications. We have about 1400 civil service classes within the state executive branch under DHRD's jurisdiction, and so that would be the scope of our intended study.

And I just wanted to also point out that we've recommended a slight amendment to Section 2 of the measure to just clarify that we are intending to only look at civil service classes or civil service positions and those that fall under DHRD's jurisdiction. So we would ask that the Committee consider that amendment. And I'm available for any specific questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Joshua Wisch, President for Holomua Collaborative, in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Good to see you. Just for anyone who's watching or on a Committee who doesn't know, Holomua Collaborative, our mission is to help keep all local working families in the state by making sure they can afford to stay.

So we're very much focused on cost of living issues and we see as part of that making sure that we have a government that is operating as well as humanly possible for everybody in this state, which is one of the reasons that we think this is actually such an important measure.

I won't go into the details that Director Hashimoto already provided, but just broadly speaking, making sure that you have people who are able to apply for these positions and make it easier for them to apply and get them into those positions as quickly as possible will of course make sure that the government is operating as well as possible.

So this both helps with broader economic measures by making sure that the government is operating as efficiently as it can and of course, directly for the people who are then getting those jobs. Good, steady, good paying government jobs as well. So we strongly support this measure and hope you'll be able to continue it along. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none. Members, any questions? Question for DHRD. So my question regards to the appropriation amount for this request. I believe in the House budget we had appropriated about 1., $1,250,000 for this study. Is that amount still unchanged or is there a new estimate for this study?

Originally, when we did some research on what it would cost to study all 1400 civil service classes, the quote that we received was between 1200 and $2500 per class. So if you do the math, I think it came out to around 3.5 million if we looked at all positions. However, we realized that that's a big number and we are comfortable with doing it incrementally.

So we would look, if we had to prioritize, assuming that we didn't get all of that funded, and I think in the Governor's Budget, originally we had asked for $1.0 million and then there was a supplemental request for $750,000. So that would be a total of 1.75 million.

And if that were what was allocated for this project, we would prioritize. So we would look at probably by bargaining unit. It's, you know, nothing is sort of... We don't have any preconceived ideas about how we're necessarily going to tackle this. We want to learn what best practices are, what other jurisdictions are doing, and how we can make the most impact the quickest. And in my mind and in talking with my team, we think that probably we would start with bargaining unit 3.

It's a bargaining unit that's vast and varied, and it also has a lot of differences in terms of complexity. We have clerical jobs. We have white collar. It's basically the white collar bargaining unit. And within that are a full range of jobs that have very disparate pay. So we would tackle it by prioritizing.

Okay. Assuming you are able to receive the 1.75 million appropriation, what's the timeline for a study like this to be completed?

It would probably take a couple of years, realistically, to do the kind of deep dive that we're contemplating. Because it's not just about the specs themselves, but we want to look at the minimum qualification requirements. We want to remove any barriers to entering positions and ensure that what we're asking for is relevant.

And that takes quite a bit of study. Obviously we would want to be talking with the departments where those positions are located so that they have an opportunity to weigh in on any changes that we ultimately make. So probably this would be a multi-year study.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. Members, any further questions on this measure? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to the next item on the agenda. SB 1287 SD 2, relating to transparency. First, to testify on this measure we have Emma Olsen, Enforcement Attorney for the Office of Consumer Protection at DCCA with comments. Okay, thank you. Next we have Jade Butay, Director for DLIR, with comments.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, and Representative Kapela. Jade Butay for DLIR. We appreciate the intent of this measure, but we have reservations due to the conflict with the federal law. This measure would require a sign in all establishments in Hawaii which would violate federal law, and the vast majority of establishments in Hawaii are under federal jurisdictions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Sergio Alcubilla, Executive Director for the Hawaii Workers Center, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Sergio Alcubilla. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center. The Hawaii Workers Center is a nonprofit organization that believes all workers should be empowered to organize for their own political, social, and economic well being. You know, I believe this bill is a common sense bill.

Just the other day when I was ordering my lunch, I mean, nothing special, but just get in line, tell them what you want, right? And at the end there's an option to tip 15%, 20%, 25%. Yeah. I didn't think anything was special, but I just thought, oh man, I feel bad if I don't tip.

So I tip something, right? Anyways, and then the other day I go buy something else. Go buy a drink at Starbucks. And of course, there's another option, a tip, right? You know, for being part of a worker center, feel bad. So always want to tip something, right? So leave something.

But I mean, how many times do we end up going to go buy something, there's always that option to leave a tip now. Whether it's a restaurant or whether you're, I don't know, there's just so many different places now where you want to tip or they ask you to leave a tip.

And my question always is sometimes when I go to these places is do you actually get the tips? You know, and for some workers, they don't even know. And that's the reality, right? Sometimes it's better just to leave a dollar in the tip jar, then at least you feel like, and make sure that they see it.

So at least you feel like, you know, they'll at least get the tip. But that's just really the challenge that we're facing in this new economy. Right. We want to make sure that tip workers, you know, that we're showing our appreciation for them by at least leaving some sort of tip. But as a consumer, we want to make sure that they're at least getting the tips.

And this is what this bill addresses. I understand some of the concerns from, you know, the testimony, but I think those things can be worked out. Just having some sort of signage at the register that says how the tips are actually going to be allocated. It's good for consumers and it's good for the workers. You know, when I was a waiter, we didn't know how tips were actually divided. We just kind of accepted it.

And that's kind of the reality when we work, when we speak with a lot of people in the kitchen, in the restaurant industry, is they don't really know how tips are divided. They just know that they get paid from their employer, whatever the tip credit is. And that's another thing is, I mean, how do you calculate the tip credit correctly? I mean, for a lot of mom and pop stores, I mean, I try to read kind of the poster how to calculate and it is confusing. So at the end of the day, I hope this bill addresses that issue.

It's good for us as consumers knowing that the tip that we leave is actually going to go to the employees and at least knowing that if it's not going fully there, that how it's actually being divided. You know, other places have posters that is required by federal law. And I think this is something that we can, we can make happen. So thank you very much, Chair and Vice Chair and Representative Kapela, for the opportunity to testify in support.

Thank you. Any more persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, I do have a question for DLIR. So I think we just heard from the testimony for the Hawaii Workers Center. You know, some of the challenges that our tipped employees do face in their working places and how the tip is distributed. I'd just like some clarification from you as to, right, what exactly is the concern when it comes to, what was it, the federal Labor Standards Act and how employers are subjected under this.

Well, just, you know, just the calculation and what the remedy would be. I mean, how would we, you know, how would we calculate? You know, because usually when we do, you know, this type of violation, we can look at the, you know, the wages. But how would you know what would be the, you know, the. But let me ask our administrator for our Wage Standards Division, Sheryl Lee.

Good morning, Chair. So under FLSA, the way it's divided between federal and state is, if the restaurant or business does more than half a mil, then federal would have the jurisdiction to enforce minimum wage and overtime. For state, tips are the way we enforce it is depending on how the employer wants to split the tips among the employees. We don't know. It's up to the employer how they want to distribute it. Once it's distributed, it becomes wages. That's where we can enforce what is old. But other than that, if the employer doesn't keep record, then we won't know how much tips are allocated to each employee.

I think there were a few concerns in your written testimony with regards to potential violations to the FLSA. Can you kind of expand on those concerns? Believe it was, right, the proposed subsection C on page three that was specifically referenced in your written testimony.

So that section is actually specifying how much tips are allocated, I believe. But there's no law that states how much tips, who's supposed to get so much. So it's actually under the state, it's up to the employer. But for federal, I believe that all tips belong to the employees.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. And one more on in your testimony, you referenced page 5, lines 1 through 16, regarding to the remedies. And you said that this overlaps with existing remedies contained in HRS. Can you kind of expand on this?

So under Chapter 388, we already have remedies for OWPVs where if wages are not paid, then Wage Standards would issue an order of wage payment violation. Under 387, if the employer doesn't pay the minimum wage or overtime, then it'll go directly to court.

And for potential violations, how is that reported to your division?

So the employee would, if they believe that the employer is violating any of 387, 388, they would file a complaint and then our division would do an investigation.

Okay, thank you. No further questions from myself. Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none, we'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda. SB 1454 SD1 relating to the wage and hour law. First to testify, we have Jade Butai, Director for DLIR in support.

Thank you, Chair, for hearing this governance package measure that the Department strongly supports that standardizes the enforcement Mechanism in chapters 387 and 388. This bill allows the DLIR to issue civil penalties in Chapter 387, just like it currently does in Chapter 388. Thank you.

Thank you. No. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? zero, please come to the podium. State your name for the record.

Chair Vice Chair, my name is Sergio Alcubilia. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center and stand in support of this measure. Apologies, we didn't submit written testimony, but I just wanted to offer our support for this.

You know, one of the issues that we were dealing with regarding a wage theft case was just trying to be able to enforce the findings of the Department Labor Wage Standards Division. Right.

Kind of the process, from what I understand is once there is a finding that there's wage theft has occurred, then it goes to the AG's office for enforcement. I think at that point. So we, at that point, we're not sure when, what the schedule looks like, when they're actually going to enforce that finding.

You know, we were working with, you know, this restaurant worker and he was the employer, didn't pay him about $5,000. You know, he ended up going to the Department of Labor to file the wage theft claim. And of course they found instances of wage theft. That was two years ago.

He still hasn't found or he still hasn't gotten the $5,000 that he was owed. You know, this really impacts low wage workers because they really can't go to court, hire an attorney for something under $5,000. You know, an attorney is not going to take it for, I don't know, more than $5,000 as a retainer fee.

So it does impact a lot of low wage workers, most of the, most of the communities that we serve.

And just finally, I just wanted to say that I know the Department of Labor works very hard to investigate some of these findings and, you know, they do need the support in terms of having additional investigators on staff that can make sure, you know, that they hold the employers accountable.

Because right now there really isn't a recourse if the Attorney General's Office decides not to take it further. So I just wanted to reiterate in support of this Bill. Thank you very much. Chair.

Thank you. Any other persons here to test funds measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to the next item, SB716, SD2, relating to Hawaii employment security law. First to testify on this measure, we have Jade Bataille for DLIR in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair Lee and Committee Members. Yeah. We strongly support this measure that addresses the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling and makes amendments designed to facilitate the current UI modernization project.

We're requesting amendments to clarify the requirements to register for work to be eligible for UI benefits and also the joint appearance rating as the Committee did with the companion House measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to SB 1503 SD1, relaying to workforce development. First, to testify on this measure, we have Jade Butai for DLIR with comments.

We support the intent of this measure provided it does not conflict with the priorities identified in. In the governor's Executive budget request. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have James Tokioka for DBED and support. Sorry, not in person. Next we have Sherry Menor, President and CEO for the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee, Tonga Hopoi for the Chamber of Commerce in support. This is a priority of our Military and Defense Policy Committee. This is their number one priority, is to create these workforce development programs going into the new military positions that will be coming from the Federal Government.

As we've heard, other positions have lacked in funding, but the military will be consistent. There was a request, the House companion was House Bill 1205. And in that House Companion, the funding was going to the Workforce Development Council. If the chair and Members can consider the funding and as.

As it stated with Department of Land and Industrial Relations, if the funding can instead be implemented by WDC as the original language of the Bill. Had that. Thank you. And here for any questions.

Okay, thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Case seeing none, Members. We do have written testimony in support from dbed, the Hawaii Military Affairs Council. The couple a Chamber of Commerce Members. Any questions for DLIR? So based right on the Chamber of Commerce FOIA's testimony. Right.

There's a preference for this to be funding to be provided to the Workforce Development Council that's under your purview. Is that something that you're comfortable with of supporting?

Well, if they want to, you know, if they think it's, you know, it should be the Workforce Development Council, then, you know, we, you know, we defer to them. But I think in terms of, you know, workforce development, in terms of expertise, I think it's our division that really, you know, can do this kind of work.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. Members, any further questions on this measure? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to SB935, SD2 relating to government. First to testify on this measure we have Jade Butai, Director for DIR in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. We support Part 2 of the SD2 of this measure and refers to the ERS on the specifics and budget and finance and the fiscal impact. We, you know, we believe the reduction in vesting requirement will help with recruiting boiler and elevated inspectors, which has been historically challenging.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Mike Lambert, Director for DL with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brandon Asuka, Department of Law Enforcement. Department supports this measure, helps us get to equality with our other law enforcement partners across the state. We would be acceptable and would recommend that these members pay the 14.2% that the other members do pay in this class. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Luis Salveria, Director for BNF with comments. Thank you. Next we have Rodney Miley, Administrative Director for the Judiciary, State of Hawaii, in opposition.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Rod Miley. I'm the Administrative Director of the courts. As our testimony puts out, we have to respectfully but strongly oppose the provisions that relate to judges retirement. Functionally this is a 50% reduction in judges retirement allowance. It comes out to 42%.

But in terms of recognizing what this constitutes, it's a significant reduction. We're already having a very difficult time filling and retaining judges and this would only make it more complicated. It will have the effect of requiring judges to work twice as long to achieve the same retirement allowance.

And again, there's math involved and I'm generalizing it for the purpose of our position, but it's something that's very critical to the judiciary. We would respectfully ask that those provisions within the bill be removed.

The Committee might consider perhaps creating a working group to study the near term and long term effects of reducing retirement benefits for prospective judges. I'm available to answer any questions the Committee has. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Thomas Williams, Executive Director for ERS with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. I'm Tom Williams, the Executive Director of the Employees Retirement System. You have our written testimony. We stand on the same. And of course I'm available to receive respond to questions you might have. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Kamakana Kaimaloa, UPW in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Kamakana Kaimaloa, UPW. You have our written testimony. As, as you noted it is in support. However, we would like for the record. To change our testimony to comments. While we maintain our strong support for part two of the bill, we are opposed to, after further review to part one.

We rely heavily on judges to uphold our workers rights. And this was, we believe, actually we know, will severely impact the recruitment and retention of qualified individuals. This willingness to serve as judges. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Annelise Wolf, President for West Hawaii Bar Association, in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha. My name is Corey Weinberger. I'm here on behalf of the West Hawaii Bar Association. Ms. Wolf was unavailable. I'm the current Vice President of the Bar Association and both myself and Ms.

Wolf, as well as two of our other officers have signed on in opposition to the provisions of SB935 that would reduce the retirement allowance for judges. We have some of the same concerns as have already been expressed. We've seen a real difficulty in recruiting judges in West Hawaii.

We still have a vacancy on the circuit court in Kona. This position has been open for months, since July. It was advertised for months before that. And the position had to be reopened twice because there weren't enough people who are willing to apply for this position.

I personally had to persuade a couple of people to apply so that the list could be closed. And this is a real concern. The challenge with recruitment of judges. It. Really comes down to, you know, the personal sacrifice that needs to be made when one becomes a judge. Judges pay is not competitive as it is.

Judges make far less than attorneys in private practice already. When you become a judge, you're subject to social isolation. I personally have worked for a number of judges as a law Clerk. I also was a prosecutor for a number of years in district court. And I have seen the long hours that these judges put in.

They're the most dedicated public servants that I've really ever encountered. They're coming in at 5:00 in the morning, they're being woken up with requests for warrants in the middle of the night. They're bringing work home on the weekends. It's just not a glamorous or luxurious job.

And the problem of recruitment that we're having right now is a direct result of these problems. And to be considering reducing the pension for these judges, I think is really a mistake. We would just humbly ask that this Committee consider eliminating those provisions of this Bill that would, that would reduce these retirement benefits.

You know, we're as officers and of our local bar Association just really Concerned about the message this is sending, especially right now with what's going on politically. We really need, we rely on a strong and independent judiciary.

Apologies, our 2 minute time limit is up. If you could please summarize your testimony.

Thank you. I think I've said all that I need to say. I just really appreciate being here today and being allowed to testify. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Randy Pura, Executive Director for HGA, with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Nui Sebast here with HGA. I will stand on our written comments. I do just want to kind of. Clarify that we're in support of part two of this measure. However, we do have concerns and are. Opposed to the provision that reduces the multiplier for judges. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Please come up to the podium. State your name for the record.

Hello, [unintelligible]. My name is Ivan Lui Kwan. I am the Vice Chair of the American Judiciary Society and we provided written testimony. But I'd like to expand on that just a little bit. Good morning. Chair Sayama, Vice Chair, other Members of the Committee.

We believe that it's really important to remove that section in pages 4 and 5 of the bill which reduces the retirement benefits for the the new judges. We believe that it's really important for the judiciary to be able to recruit highly qualified attorneys to deliver justice.

And what's happening in the national scene in the Legislature, the Executive and the judiciary branch highlights the need to have a qualified and independent judiciary.

What you're seeing on the national scene is that the judges are the one branch that are really standing up to enforce what we believe is important, which is to strengthen the rule of law and to ultimately advance the viability of democracy. And so that really begins with judges.

To have a qualified and independent judiciary, you need to have independent and qualified judges. And that's a problem that the judiciary is having now trying to recruit those judges. So mahalo for allowing me to present this testimony.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure?

Might as well. My name is Sergio Alcubilla. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center. But I want to submit testimony in opposition to this bill as not as an Executive Director, but in my independent capacity as a member of the Bar Association.

I've been encouraging a lot of my classmates, law school classmates, to apply for judgeships.

A lot of them are in private practice, A lot of them are being named partners now in private practice and to try to recruit them to apply to be a judge knowing that they're going to get paid less and then knowing that, you know, this bill proposes to do is to, you know, reduce their pensions.

It makes the sell to apply for judgeships even much harder. We need really, we really need good judges on the bench. As you know, more judges retire.

So, you know, in my capacity as a member of the Bar and also as a member of our HSBA Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services to the Public, I just want to oppose the provisions in this bill and echo some of the concerns raised by the judiciary. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, Members.

We do have written testimony with comments from the Hawaii Employer Union, Health Benefits Trust Fund, support from the Office of the Governor, support from hsta, opposition from the Hawaii State Trial Judges Association, opposition from the Hawaii State Bar Association, opposition from Chopo, opposition from ILW Local 142, and opposition from the American Judiciary Adjudicature Society Members.

Any questions on this measure? Okay, I do have question for ERs.

Yes, chair.

So I'd like maybe some clarification. I believe in your testimony you had some concerns regarding the ambiguity of what this reduction in the pension multiplier would apply to what class of judges. Can you kind of explain that a little bit more?

I certainly will attempt to do so, Chair. It seems a reading of the bill as currently structured has a very limited focus. It would be for judges, elected officials with judges service after, I believe, July of 2025 or 2026. And it's my understanding that perhaps the initial intent was more broad than that.

We don't have a position, it's a policy decision. But as currently written, it's very, very narrow and it wouldn't achieve a broader implication effect if that were in fact the goal.

Okay, so just to clarify, the reduction would affect judges who became elected officials post 2025 as the bill is written?

That is correct, Chair.

Yes. That is a very specific subsection. Okay. And if I might actually call up Bienna. Thank you. So in your written testimony, you had indicated that rather than, or perhaps addition to the 14.2% contribution, that this bill would actually require the sheriffs and deputies to contribute 21.85% of the contribution, is that correct?

Yeah. So the issue there is that when Social Security was first implemented, we had an opportunity to exempt certain classes. And so that's when we exempted police. And so they don't pay that 7.65%. But if, you know, there's no way to do that retroactively for sheriffs and deputies.

And so what that would amount to is that about a fifth of their pay would be reduced for these two purposes.

Okay. Dle still here. Okay. So. Right. Based off what BNF said, it's considerably larger contribution. Is that still something that you feel would help recruit? I wouldn't want to speak on it now.

We would probably. I would have to ask the Director, but I think anything that helps us to reduce the time in service would be beneficial. It's a very taxing career and. Yeah, I mean.

But we'll get back to you on that. Okay. Now just, you know, I'm a little concerned. Right. Because that's a big contribution amount taken away from the payroll, so. Okay. And I guess no one really testified in support regarding the reduction. Well, ERS, sorry.

If you could come back up again, like you said, this is a policy choice to reduce the multiplier from 3% to 1.75% for. Right. The original intent was to apply to all judges. I assume the principle in that is because judges are appointed and the 1.75% multiplier is consistent with appointed positions in state within state employment.

Is that correct, Chair?

That is, in fact, correct.

Okay. And the 3% multiplier currently applies to all judges, but aside from that, it's electeds.

That's correct.

Okay. Okay. No. Thank you. No further questions on this measure for myself Members. Any questions? Okay. Seeing none. We'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda. SB 307 SD2, relating to recording of law enforcement activities. First, to testify on this measure, we have the Office of Public Defender in support.

Good morning, Chair Sayama. Vice Chair Lee. My name is Sonny Gandon, Deputy Public Defender. The Office of the Public Defender is in strong support of this measure. In our testimony, we note the State vs. Russo case, which took nearly a decade to make its way from the ICA to the Supreme Court from Maui.

I was surprised by the way this bill was assigned. Ordinarily, labor doesn't discuss these kinds of things. I was also surprised to not see the input of Chopo or the prosecutors or other individuals who might be recorded in this instance. Usually officers tend to not want this sort of thing.

This has proven to be a way to support individuals, First Amendment rights and civil liberties and the effectuation of justice. Hopefully, this bill would stop law officers from, say, grabbing a recording device and destroying any evidence of wrongdoing.

We think this is especially necessary in the current era of federal enforcement of immigration detainers in which individuals are not given their essentially Miranda rights and what kind of rights they are deserving under law. So for those reasons, we are in strong support of this measure.

Thank you. Next we have Nathan Lee, Policy Legislative Fellow for ACLU Hawaii in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Emily Serrasa. I'm testifying on behalf of the ACLU instead of Nathan. ACLU Hawaii supports SB 307, which codifies and protects the public's constitutional right to record law enforcement activities. Our organizational mission is to protect fundamental freedoms as enshrined in our Constitution, both the state and the federal.

Taking photographs and videos of things public, including law enforcement activities, is a constitutional right. And it creates an independent record of incidents, avoiding issues of bias or a faulty memory. Sure, like reiterating what the OPD said. We've seen videos online of such incidents of misconduct, sometimes with law enforcement officers even turning off their body cameras.

So the ability to record has really proven crucial in exposing misconduct. But it also has another benefit which is serving the mutual interest of law enforcement and community by increasing trust and legitimacy in our law enforcement Systems. Please pass SB 307. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony and support from the League of Women's Voters of Hawaii, as well as supportive testimony from Public First Law Center. Members, any questions on this measure? Okay, Seeing none.

We'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda. SB436, relating to State Fire Marshal. First, to testify on this measure, we have Don Chang, Chairperson for DLNR, in opposition.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, my name is Michael Walker. I serve as the Statewide Fire Protection Forester for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. The Department has submitted testimony in opposition of the bill. In summary, the current statute that governs.

The establishment of the State Fire Marshal's office requires that the State Fire Council. Conduct a performance evaluation at the end of each five year term for the marshal. And rather than set arbitrary term limits on the marshal and potentially removing somebody who is performing well, we suggest that we just stick with the performance evaluations.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, we do have written testimony from the Office of Governor with comments. Members, any questions on this measure? Okay, seeing none, we'll be moving on to. Last item in the agenda. SB583SD2, relaying two naming rights.

First, to testify on this measure we have Keith Hayashi, Superintendent for D OE, with comments. zero, please mute yourself on Zoom, please. Thank you. DOE here. Nope, DOE is not here. Okay. Will be moving on to Daniel Nahoopi, interim President and CEO of HTA, with comments. Not here either. Okay.

We'll be moving on to Winston Welch, Executive Director for the Outdoor Circle in opposition on Zoom, please go ahead.

Aloha chair and Committee Members. I hope you got a chance to read my testimony that I had written and sent to you. Basically, we are asking that you do not pass this.

A similar bill last year, which was much more limited in scope for the convention center and the proposed stadium, failed, was pulled on the last session, if you remember that. But you know, our concerns are that this bill is written, it's vague, it's overly broad, it doesn't have any oversight, and we're looking at public facilities.

So this has potential to really destroy whole culture and place names. Think about, you know, Liliha Library becoming General Motors Liliha Library or, you know, Clorox Bleach Hawaii Convention center or Cheerios Kapolei High School. You know, this is actually allowed in this bill.

Our views are shared by last year on this very same issue, as well as the newspaper weighed in on this, the budget and finance has weighed in on this. That jeopardizes taxes and bonds, and it's also a betrayal of public investment. Taxpayers already own. It's not necessary to do this. Alternative funding mechanisms do exist.

We would suggest that if it goes forward, which we don't suggest, that it be dramatically reduced in scope and scale. Also that conditions of a time at least be put on these five years, but also that overall facilities are not named.

So it's not the Clorox Bleach Hawaii Convention center, but it's the Clorox Room at the Hawaii Convention Center. So it's not the overall, but it's a part of that. It could be the General Motors reading room at the Liliha Public Library.

The other thing that we would request is that this bill doesn't say anything about following state and county signage laws. So under no conditions would we want to have any logos or sponsors names on the outside. Because we have the best times laws in the nation. We're a model for the world. So I think.

Serious revisions there could be something.

But this bill is premature and vague at this time.

I appreciate the test ability to testify today and hope that take this advisement and I'm open for questions if you have any.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure, seeing non Members. We do have written testimony. 0 that's. Never mind. We do have written testimony and support from the stadium authority. Comments from BNF, comments from DOE, comments from HTA, comments from the Hawaii State Public Library Systems Members.

Any questions on this measure, we'll be taking a short recess. Recess.

All right, I'm calling back to order the House Committee on Labor for decision making. First, we have SB 1567 SD1, relating to classification and compensation systems. My recommendation is that we pass this forward with amendments adopting D. Herd's amendments to Section 2, subsection A. And we'll also be defecting the date to July 13000.

I'll also note in the Committee report the 1.75 million appropriation for this bill. Members, any comments? Okay. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Moving on to the next item, SB 1287, SD2, relating to transparency. Based off of the testimony provided by DLIR, I believe there is sufficient enforcement mechanisms regarding the distribution of tips for for employees. I don't think necessarily penalizing small businesses or businesses with this signage is necessarily the right way to go about this.

Perhaps an education system or program for employees might be better suited, but for the time being, we'll be deferring this measure. Next, on SB 1454, SD1 relating to wage and hour law, we'll be passing this forward with amendments with technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. We'll also be defecting the date to July 13,000 Members.

Any comments on this measure? Okay. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair. Voting on SB 1454, SD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes? With reservation. Any nay votes? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB716, SD2 relating to the Hawaii Employment Security Law. We'll be passing this measure forward with amendments, adopting DL's amendments to amend definition of registered for work or registration for work. I will also be amending adopting DLIR's amendments for page 2, lines 8 to 9, restoring reference to sections hrs383.1.

We'll also be removing provision from the joint experience rating, making technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style, and defecting the date to July 13,000 Members. Any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB716, SD2. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes? With reservations? Any nay votes? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next we have SB 1503, SD1 relating to workforce development. We'll be passing this bill forward with amendments with technical amendments. Needed for clarity, consistency and style. We'll also be defecting the date to July 1, 2000. And I'll also note in the Committee report the $1 million appropriation for this measure.

Members, any comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on SB 1503, SD. 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any. Are there any votes with reservation. Any nay votes? Chair Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, we have SB935SD2 relating to government. So my recommendation is that we pass this forward with amendments defecting date to July 1, 2000. Technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. I would like to note in the Committee report that this bill still needs a lot of work done. Definitely.

We've heard from testifiers, including ERS, with regards to the ambiguity of this, what the reduction in the multiplier, you know, what class of employees this would affect. We also need to, I think, clarify whether the inclusion of sheriffs and their deputies would adversely impact recruitment efforts given the significant increase in the contribution rates.

Again, just a work in progress. So I'll be working with the Judiciary Chair that's going to next regarding future amendments on this measure. But I appreciate everyone's patience on this. Members, any comments? Yes, Representative Kapela.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate all of your work and your future work on this measure just as it is currently. I, I am going to vote with reservations.

Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SP935, SD2. Chairs recommendations passed with amendments. Other than Representative Kapela, are there any votes with reservation? Kong?

[Roll call]

Raise order.

Enabled. Thank you, Chair. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, we have SB436SD1 relating to the State Fire Marshal. My recommendation is that we defer this measure. As DLNR had stated, there is a sufficient mechanism to hold the marshal accountable to make sure that they're being reviewed based on performance. Okay.

Next we'll be moving on to the final bill on the agenda, SB583SD2 relating to naming rights. My recommendation is that we pass this forward with amendments and we'll be amending this measure to restrict the leasing of naming rights to only the stadium and convention center by adding new sections to Chapter 109 and Chapter 201b in hrs.

Can I defer that one? Did I? Yeah, you missed it. 307. I'm sorry. Members, let's go back to SB 307 SD2 relating to recording of law enforcement activities. Apologies, I skipped this decision Making for this measure, we'll be passing this forward with amendments with technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style.

We'll also be defecting the date to July 1st, 3000. Members, any comments on this measure? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on SB307 SD2 chairs or conditions passed with amendments. Are there any reservations? Nay votes. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Finally, moving on to SB583SC2 relating to naming rights. As I mentioned, we'll be passing this forward with amendments amending this measure to restrict the leasing of naming rights to only the stadium and convention center by adding new sections to HRS 109 and 201B.

We'll also be specifying that the revenues collected from advertising or marketing, including revenues from the naming rights, are to be deposited into the Stadium Development Special Fund or the Convention Center Enterprise Special Fund as appropriate.

We'll also be amending sections 2018 and 109.3.5 in hrs to include monies collected from advertising or marketing relating to the lease of naming rights under the new section added to chapters 201B and 109. We'll also be making technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style and defecting the effective date to 7-1-3000.

Again, I just do want to clarify also that this will conform to existing state and county laws and ordinances relating to signage, so just want to make that for the point anyway. Members, any comments on this measure? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on SB583SD2 Chair's recommendations pass with amendments. Are there any votes with reservation? Nay votes.

Raise order.

Nay vote. Chair recommendation is adopted. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.

Thanks for the catch.