House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Friday, March 14th at 2:00pm here in Conference Room 325. Thanks for members being here and thanks to the testifiers for being here. If you're testifying, if you could keep your comments to two minutes, that'd be great. I'll ask you to summarize at that point.

If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify, and then after your testimony is complete, turn off your video and mute yourself again.

If you have technical issues on Zoom, you can use the Zoom Chat function to talk to our very smart IT staff and they can help you out as best they can. If you're disconnected, don't panic. Just join us again as soon as you can and I'll try to fit you in to provide your testimony if possible.

If the power goes off in the building here or some other unforeseen event that causes us to cancel the meeting, we will reschedule and make sure we post appropriate notice so everyone knows when we're meeting and what we're talking about.

If you are testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images and please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. It really is okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. That would really help all of us do our job here at the State Legislature.

First up, we have Senate Bill 869, Senate Draft 1 relating to community outreach boards. Members you'll remember we had a Bill that related to this House Bill 686, which we approved, and this is the same matter.

This measure defines Community Outreach Board to mean a board established to serve in a community advisory capacity under a county Commission or County Department, and it includes these Community Outreach Boards in existing provisions of the Sunshine Law related to neighborhood boards and authorizes members to attend meetings or presentations related to official board business statewide.

And first up, we have the Director of the Office of Information Practices, Carlotta Amarino. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members.

Just to kind of sum up our testimony providing comments, there was some confusion with the original version of this Bill, but we now understand that it is meant to add Hawaii County Community Development Action Plan Committees to the Neighborhood Board provisions in Part 7 of Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

That was clarified in a prior committee report on this Bill and also in the purpose clause of the house version. And we believe that now that that's been made clear, this Bill is good to go. We have no other concerns.

Thank you. But you would recommend that we make, if possible, we could make the purpose clause explain that just as part of the legislative history.

I think if it's in the purpose clause itself, it would be clearer. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate that very much. Thank you. We've received written testimony in support from numerous individuals. Charlie Young, Jacob Weinschik, Ruth Smith, John Palatier, Nancy Pacico, Meju Louie and Brad Kurokawa. And we have one person testifying against on Zoom, Gregory Masakian.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Yes, My name is Greg Masakian and I do currently serve on the Waikiki Neighborhood Board. But I'm here today speaking as an individual.

I also serve on a couple of other boards and I first want to say I'm in opposition to amending or modifying where the main stipulation of the Sunshine Law, the main requirements of it, which has been in place for a very long time, are ignored. Where the reason for the Sunshine Law is to have transparency.

With that said, I fully respect OIP. I do have to speak to them from time to time, unfortunately, because we do have issues at my board.

And I will respect and defer to the previous testifier that if OIP is comfortable with an amendment, and I apologize if I didn't see the amendment properly or understand it, I've been attending a lot of meetings, but if.

If OIP is comfortable with it, then I'm going to just keep my comments here and I'm going to pull my opposition to this, to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 869, Senate Draft 1. If not. Questions, Members, any questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 405, Senate Draft 1 relating to neighborhood Board Meetings.

This measure allows neighborhood boards to discuss and receive information from third party reports by any government official not included in a publicly noticed adjustment. It requires boards to make decisions on matters raised by third party reports from any government official at a later meeting where the agenda gives notice of decision making on the matter.

First up again, we have Office of Information Practices Director Carlotta Amarino.

Hi, good afternoon again. To sum up our testimony, we have just comments on this measure. We believe this Bill is a matter of legislative policy. But just to give some background, the Sunshine Law does require that all items to be discussed by a board be on a properly noticed agenda.

The neighborhood boards have some Provisions that allow them flexibility to receive and discuss public input. But the discussion has to be at a later meeting. So this would allow. This Bill would allow reports by government officials to be discussed and received and discussed at a meeting without having to be noticed on the agenda.

So it provides the neighborhood boards more flexibility, but it gives the public less public notice. So we just wanted to throw that out for your consideration.

Understood, thank you. Appreciate that. We've received testimony and support from the Waikiki Neighborhood Board from Jacob Weinschik and testimony in opposition from Natalie Iwasa and on Zoom testimony from Greg Misakian.

So this is the one where there's a little more concern here. I do recognize that again, Greg Masakian here, Waikiki Neighborhood Board. But as an individual I could speak on behalf on behalf of this if I was supporting it as a Waikiki Neighborhood Board Member.

But since I'm opposition to it or have concerns with it, I'm speaking as an individual. So the person that submitted that testimony was speaking because we did as a group vote.

The problem I have with what happens at these meetings is if something's on agenda, and I see this all the time, the description of what's on agenda often isn't clear. It's not clear for me even as a board Member, but it's definitely not clear for members of the public.

So I'm entrenched in understanding these issues that we're going to be discussing usually. But if there's something on agenda and it's not clear or clearly defined, then that raises a concern. I've raised those concerns before and I've had deep discussions with OIP about it.

Then what happens is you go to the meeting and what the intent of that discussion was changes and then you start to get into other discussions.

But in this case for this particular Bill, basically we're talking about when a report's being given and then all of a sudden questions come in and then there's deep dive discussions on those things. That starts to become problematic when there's deep dives and you've got a lot of back and forth debates, discussion.

Members of the public didn't know that that was going to happen. If the board's involved in it. By all means the public should have every right to speak to the presenters, the public officials, the representatives, elected officials, and there should be deep dives with the public.

But it's the board Members that need to kind of stay arm's length until we get it on agenda for a deep dive discussion at the next meeting. So I fully support that. I just don't support striking things that are going to be harmful to the way the Sunshine Law is right now. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 405, Senate Draft 1. Seeing no more testifiers. Any questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much. The testifiers. Let's move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 903 relating to Hawaiian affairs.

This measure establishes in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, for administrative purposes only, a claims review working group and requires a report to the Legislature. And it repeals the working group established pursuant to Act 226, Session Laws of Hawaii 2022, and it appropriates funds. First up, we have the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. McKenna Woodward, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in strong opposition to this measure. Any offer from the state for a settlement of claims for revenues due to OHA from the PLT is premature until a complete inventory of the Public Lands Trust has been assessed.

To that end, OHA thanks the Committee for its Support of HB 1358 HD3, which crossed over to the Senate last week and would Fund the inventory and audit. We respectfully request the Committee defer this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 903? If not. Questions, Members?

Representative Bilati. Just asking for the public record, but I do have the status in front of me. What is the status of House Bill 1358 as it's moving?

Apologies, Representative. I do not have that information in front of me. I know it was referred to Committee, but I can circle back with that information for you.

Okay. Because this certainly seems like in the opposite direction of what House position was correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. The testifiers. Let's go on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1408. Senate Draft 1, relating to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. This measure clarifies that Act 130, Session Laws of Hawaii 2024 shall take effect on either the date of the Secretary of the Interior's notification

letter to the Congressional Committee chairpersons that this act meets none of the Criteria in Title 43, Code of Federal Regulation, Section 48.20, or on the date the United States Congress approval becomes law. First up, we have the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Oriana Leo of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. The Department stands on its written testimony in strong support of this measure. As noted in our testimony, we're grateful that Act 130 was signed into law last session.

However, there was a error in Section 4 of the Law concerning the proper process for amendment of the Hein Homes Commission Act. This bill will clarify and confirm and correct that error. I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Mahalo. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1408 in Senate Draft 1? If not questions, Members?

Yes, Just a comment.

Representative Bellati.

I just want to say thank you to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands for providing this nifty graphic because, and I have not served on this committee before, if this graphic has been circulating in the past, it precisely describes, I think, the situation that we need to adapt our law to. So I really appreciate it.

It is very helpful. This is a complicated matter and it's a state and federal process that the Department of Hawaiian Homelands dances every day. And it is a challenge.

So when we do pass measures that relate to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, we need to make sure that there is that accommodation to, to ensure that there's the federal, this approval that would come in a couple different ways. So thank you. Any questions at all, though? No. Any questions? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1469, Senate Draft 2 relating to tax collections. This measure suspends the statute of limitations on collections during the period an assessment is pending and on appeal before the Taxation Board of Review or Tax Appeal Court. On this measure, we have Department of Taxation. We have the Director here. We are so lucky.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Gary Suganuma, Director of Taxation. The Department supports this administration measure which seeks to amend various tax types to suspend the statute of limitations on collections during the period an assessment is pending on appeal before the Taxation Board of Review or the Tax Appeal Court.

The reason that we're asking for this is that there is a 15 year statute of limitations on collections, but where a matter is appealed and is pending before the Board of Review or the Tax Appeal Court, the department is barred from doing any collection action.

And so what we're trying to do is seeking to suspend the statute of limitations while the case is pending before the Board of Review or Tax Appeal Court so that we have or the state has the full 15 year opportunity to collect delinquent taxes. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it. Tom Yamachika, Tax foundation of Hawaii on zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair Members from Tax Foundation. Questions?

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 1469, Senate Draft 2? If not questions, Members?

I'll ask a question since

Representative Bellotti.

I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly. This really empowers the Department of Taxation and the state to go after tax monies that it's rightfully owed after an appeal has been processed and a person or corporation may be found to have to pay taxes. That's correct. So it's really potentially going after tax golf laws.

Yes, that's correct. So in a case where an appeal is taken, the case is pending before the court for many years, the state ends up winning, and then we get a judgment, you know, if we hit the 15 year mark, then really are not able to collect on the judgment. Right. So it would just give us an opportunity after the case is done to go in and collect.

And I think in these times when we're going to have to be scrounging for every important tax dollar that is owed to the state, this is something that is really critical as another tool in the toolbox, right?

Yes, we agree.

All right, thank you, Director. Thank you for your work.

Okay. Any other question? Okay, thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1467 relating to tax appeals. Clarifies that a notice of appeal relating to an appeal of a county tax is not required to be served on the Director of Taxation. And first up, we have Director Suganuma, Director of Department of Taxation.

Gary Sugunama, Director of Taxation Currently, the language, when there's an appeal to the Tax Appeal Court, the language for notice to either the Department or the county is kind of ambiguous. So what happens right now is there are a lot of tax appeals involving county tax or property tax.

And because of the ambiguity with the language, the Department of Taxation and the Attorney General's Office routinely get served with copies of appeals, but solely involving the county. So we have nothing to do with it. We end up receiving the notice. We don't act upon it.

We just wanted to clarify because we talked to practitioners as to why they're doing it. We learned that it's because of the ambiguity of the language. And so this would help, you know, practitioners, taxpayers not have to go through the extra exercise of serving the state when it involves just a county tax. Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, thanks very much to testifiers and questioners. Moving on to Senate Bill 544, relating to sentencing of minor defendants. This measure requires courts to consider certain factors when sentencing a person. Oh, Mr. Yamachika, I overlooked you. Sorry. Go ahead, please.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Still on.

So, let's—we're talking about Senate Bill 1467.

Yes, we concur with what the Department is saying. I did want to point out one thing that I kind of forgot to say on the last Bill, which is 1469, and that is I think the Department of missed putting those provisions in the insurance premium tax, as mentioned in our testimony.

So, that probably is an amendment that should be made to make everything consistent.

Okay. And that was—that comment is about Senate Bill 1469 more appropriately, is that correct?

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Yes, that is correct.

Thank you.

Let's ask the question. Director Suganuma, you want to comment on what Mr. Yamachika just mentioned on Senate Bill 1469?

Yeah, I don't have the statute for the insurance premium tax that he just mentioned, but.

That's okay. You don't have to make a quick decision. But it is an issue. It's going to go—1469 goes to finance next. Mr. Yamachika tends to be very thorough in his analysis, and I would like you to be able to look at that and see if it needs to be done—if it does need to be done, it would be good for you to make that recommendation as well in finance, so that it can be addressed.

Understood.

Yes, I think that would be appropriate, because if you're not ready to respond to it, I'm hesitant to do anything until you've actually looked at it.

Yeah. Certainly, if we need an extension of the statute of limitations or of statute of limitations in that provision, yes, we would agree that.

But go back and look and see if that's what's needed.

Will do.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yamachika, and thank you, Mr. Suganuma. Any other questions on either Senate Bill 1469 or 1467? If not, thank you very much. Now, onward to Senate Bill 544, relating to sentencing of minor defendants.

This requires courts to consider certain factors when sentencing a person convicted as an adult for an offense that the person committed when the person was a minor. It allows courts to reduce a mandatory minimum period of incarceration or depart from a mandatory sentencing enhancement if the court determines that the reduction or departure is warranted, given certain factors.

First up, we have McKenna Woodward, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. McKenna Woodward, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in support of this measure. Mandatory minimum sentences for minors failed to recognize the extenuating circumstances that often lead youth to offend by failing to allow for flexible penalties that can take factors like diminished decision-making capacity into account.

Mandatory sentences may contribute to Native Hawaiians overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system and increase their risk of involvement in the criminal justice system later in life. Requiring greater discretion when sentencing youth as adults will ensure the mitigating circumstances surrounding the charged offense are considered and thereby reduce the unjust impacts of mandatory sentencing on offenders who are minors.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next. Darcia Forrester, Office of the Public Defender. Ah, Haley Cheng. Lucky us. Thank you for being here. Please.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. The Office of the Public Defender is obviously in strong support of this measure. We routinely represent juveniles who are waived or cross over into circuit court to be treated as adult offenders.

And the only authority that the Judiciary currently has to take into consideration their age is under our youthful offender statute.

It does authorize the Judiciary to, or the sentencing court, to reduce the mandatory open term, but it doesn't require or mandate any consideration of these certain factors, which we believe, as articulated in the preamble, are critical to consider when we are dealing with children, who are unfortunately charged and treated as adults in our correctional system.

So, we stand in strong support. I will be available for any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sure. Thank you very much. Next. James Dold, Human Rights for Kids, in support, on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. James Dold, for the record. I just want to start by thanking Senator Gabbard for introducing this measure.

One of the things that makes Human Rights for Kids unique is that we have a board of directors that's made up of Democratic and Republican state lawmakers from all across the country who come together in recognition of the fact that the children who end up in our justice system are oftentimes some of the most victimized and vulnerable children in our society.

We got to this place as a country because back in the early and mid-1990s, John DiLulio coined the term super predator, where he theorized that there was a new group of super predator children who were coming of age, who were more violent and less remorseful than ever before.

And lawmakers at that time were really urged to make it easier to transfer children into the adult criminal justice system.

At the same time that this was happening, the rest of the world was moving in the opposite direction through the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most universally ratified human rights treaty in the entire world, where every nation state has ratified except the United States.

There were certain protections put in place, specifically to require that children be treated differently when they come into conflict with the law. Unfortunately, that just hasn't happened in the United States.

And so, through research that we've done in Human Rights for kids, we've identified over 32,000 people who are in our state prison systems today for crimes that they committed as children. Last year, we started conducting adverse childhood experiences surveys amongst this population, and what we found was shocking.

More than 75% of people who were tried as adults experienced both emotional and physical abuse. Another 40% were sexually abused prior to their incarceration.

All that to say that the children who oftentimes are in the deep end of our criminal justice system, that is, those children who end up being tried as adults, are oftentimes the most victimized and abused children in our society. They act out behaviorally, oftentimes because of the trauma that they've experienced.

And that is not to diminish the harm that's done when children commit serious crimes, but it is to say that it's important context that judges in court should take into consideration when deciding how to hold them accountable in a trauma-informed way that comports with international human rights standards. So, against that backdrop, Mr. Chairman, we would urge a favorable report. I will just note, too, that there's a number of states that have passed similar laws.

The District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, Nevada, the Supreme Courts in Washington and Iowa have also ruled that mandatory minimums or the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, without the consideration of youthful factors, violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment under their state constitutions. Thank you. So, with that, we would favorable report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dold. And we have received support—testimony in support—from Rights for Girls, ACLU of Hawaii, Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii, and from one individual. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 544? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 691. Senate draft one relating to family courts. This measure establishes a minimum age of 12 for adjudication for any alleged or attempted violation of law. First up, we have Attorney General in person. Oh, great to see you. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair Committee Members. Ian Sudo with the Department of the Attorney General providing comments on this Bill. Our recommendations for revisions will ensure that.

This Bill, which is directed at juvenile criminal law violations, will not affect the family court's jurisdiction to have jurisdiction over cases where a minor experiences issues with school non attendance or other behavioral issues.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon again, Haley Chang. On behalf of the Office of the Public Defender we support this measure. We had proposed requested amendments in the first version of the Bill.

It looks like our requested amendments were incorporated into this new version just to really clarify a language change the term delinquency and then also to really create a bright line rule and another provision that law violations shall not be filed against children under the age of 12.

We also just do want to highlight for the Committee's benefit that this does not mean that the family court can't intervene and provide services for behavioral issues for children under the age of 12.

But filing a petition for a law violation which is the criminal mechanism in family court, it's the equivalent to like the adult version of a criminal complaint. We do believe in support should be limited to children the ages 12 and above. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Daniel Hugo, Prosecuting Attorney Honolulu.

Good afternoon Chair Bryce. Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's office. And we do oppose this measure. There is a difference between filing a petition which allows the family court to assume jurisdiction over a case and adjudication. So adjudication is already restricted under HRS 57144 for children under 12. You need an expert psychiatrist.

What this essentially will do is mean that in cases where the child has committed what for their age would constitute a serious criminal offense, the family court does not have jurisdiction. They might be able to handle behavioral issues, but they're not going to be able to have any sort of jurisdiction over the crime itself.

So this can mean that if the child is involved in a thieving ring, if the child has assaulted someone, that they are not able to get the sort of wrap around services that we would want.

And it's important to have early intervention because by the time you have children who grow up having committed, having been juvenile delinquents, once they get to circuit court and they're adults in many ways, we're trying to put the, put the spilled milk back in.

The other thing I think that's important here is that this bill may also have the unintended consequence of causing adult criminals to recruit children in their criminal enterprises. That's something that we see with a lot of smash and grabs recently, and it would be horrible if we saw that escalate to serious crimes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hugo. Next, James Dold on Zoom.

Hi, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, James Dold. For the record, I just want to start by correcting a couple of inaccuracies in the last testimony that you heard.

Actually, under current law, children who are under the age of 12 would still be able to be under the supervision of the family court through the person in need of supervision statute. So that allows the court to exercise jurisdiction and still provide those children with treatment and services.

It just does not allow the court to adjudicate them as a law violator, which is really important for children of this age for a really important reason, which is that these are very young children. These are kids in elementary school.

And as a result of that, and because they're undeveloped brains, these children don't have the ability to form mens rea or criminal intent.

And that's really the purpose behind this bill, is in recognizing that at a certain age, children don't have that same capability as you or I or even older adolescents do to be held accountable in the same way for their criminal conduct.

It's one of the reasons why the international United nations included included this provision within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 40 actually requires nation states to establish a minimum age below which children are deemed incapable of transgressing the criminal law.

And the American Bar Association has actually urged states to set this standard even higher. The American Bar Association passed a resolution urging states to set it at the minimum age of 14.

In addition, the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council also passed a resolution in 2018 urging states to follow the leadership of states like Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Massachusetts and Connecticut, which have all passed similar minimum ages to prohibit children from being adjudicated delinquent and prosecuted for crimes.

I always tell people, if you can get Texas on the same page as Massachusetts, then you've really bridged the ideological divide and you know you're on to good policy when Republicans from the most conservative state in the union and liberal Democrats from the most one of the most liberal states in the union agree on policy.

It's for those reasons that this bill is absolutely important in passing to make sure that we end the school to prison pipeline. And that starts with prohibiting children in elementary school from being adjudicated delinquent. The last thing I'll say on this is that we call this the Santa Claus test.

If a child still believes in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, has difficulty tying their shoes or telling the right hand from the left hand, they're simply too young to prosecute. This is a human rights issue and we would urge a favorable report. We support.

We'd also be okay with the amendment that was put forth by the Attorney General's Office as well.

Thank you. We've received written testimony and support from the National Youth Justice Network and from one individual. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on Senate Bill 691? Senate draft one if not. Questions, Members. Representative Shimizu first and then Rep. Pilotti.

Sorry. Rep. Belatti. Thank you. Chair. Question. So you presented some valid concerns. And my question is, would you be able to provide maybe some language amending the Bill to keep the good parts of this bill and address your concern?

Right, sure. So if the Committee doesn't want to have children under the age of 12 adjudicated as law violators, then the minimum thing to do here is amend 57144 to remove the exception that would allow adjudication with a licensed psychologist. And just make it straight.

No child under the age of 12 shall be adjudicated as a law violator. Adjudication is separate from filing the petition.

We believe that it's important when a child is engages in criminal conduct that that process not be treated as if it's just a behavioral issue, like not going to like being a truant, which would be something more like, you know, a person in need of supervision.

We're dealing here with serious behavior that often would require significant treatment services. By the court significant investigation to determine underlying causes. And so we think that having a mechanism that treats criminal offenses separately from any other sorts of behavioral issues is an important distinction to keep in place. The ultimate adjudication over this putting children in custody.

That's not something. That's not a hill we're going to die on.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Lottie.

I'll pause on my questions.

Okay. I have a question for Haley Chang. So you've heard the objections from the prosecuting attorney, the concern that this would deny treatment services for troubled children who can cause serious harm and prevent early intervention to steer them away from the life of crime. Could you explain to me your position?

You support this Bill, and we're hearing something completely different from the prosecutors. That's not unusual, so.

No, not at all.

So if you could give you your chance to explain your position.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide further comment. HRS571-112B is the statute that I believe Mr. Hugo, as well as the other gentleman who testified via Zoom. Reference, regarding persons in need of supervision.

This is the statutory mechanism that authorizes and gives the family court jurisdiction and the authority to supervise children under the age of 12. And it is not limited to just naughty behavior or truancy or casual delinquency.

The statute authorizes family court jurisdiction, which would then mean services oversight for people who are for juveniles or children who are beyond parental control, who are in danger of becoming a delinquent or who may be truant. So it is. It is not limited to just those who may be absent from school.

There is a mechanism to allow family court intervention. And the acknowledgement is, as you've heard from the testimony of others, the age of these children makes them different. And what Mr. Hugo said earlier about filing a petition to be charged as a law violator and adjudication, those are different things.

But to put it in terms that people outside of the juvenile system may understand better, it's like charging an adult and then convicting an adult. Filing a petition for a law violation is like charging a juvenile. We don't use the word conviction in family court for juveniles.

We do use the word adjudication, but that's really what we're talking about. So I'm a little bit confused. While I understand and recognize Mr. Hugo's. Position.

If the purpose is to pursue a petition for a law violation with no ends for a possible adjudication, and then we can engage them in services to address some of the concerns that Mr. Hugo was raising and it's already statutorily authorized. Then we again maintain our support of this provision for all the reasons that we've articulated.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Other questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 694 relating to the detention of minors. This measure prohibits minors from being held in jails, lockups or prisons for adults. And on this we first have McKenna Woodward, Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Hello again, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. McKenna Woodward and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs supports this measure which will mitigate the long trauma inflicted upon minors, including a disproportionate number of Native Hawaiians who are unnecessarily exposed to incarcerated adults.

When a youth is transferred to adult jails or correctional facilities, it has a profoundly negative effect on both the youth and the larger community. Adult facilities do not provide the developmentally appropriate rehabilitative services youth require, as they are not specifically designed or staffed for this purpose.

Keeping youth out of adult facilities reduces the likelihood that incarceration as a minor is equivalent to a life sentence in the criminal justice system. Mahalo Nui for the opportunity to testify on this important issue.

Mahalo. Next we have Office of the Public Defender.

Thank you. I'm Hayley Cheng again, on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, our testimony is concise and I think very to the point. Without exception, juveniles should never be held in adult correctional facilities.

For those of you who may not have had the chance to or the opportunity to visit here on Oahu, Oahu Community Correctional Center, I really would encourage the committee members to do a tour. We, as public defenders are in these facilities daily, weekly. I've been there twice this week.

It is petrifying as an adult to be placed in this correctional center. And for juveniles, we're talking sometimes 1617 year olds who get waived as adults. Even if they are going to be charged as an adult, they cannot be housed as an adult because they are not one. It is a completely unsafe, traumatizing environment.

Oftentimes they will have to be isolated and put in special holding, solitary confinement sort of scenarios in order to protect them from themselves. So under no circumstances and without exception, as we stated, juveniles are never appropriately housed in adult correctional facilities. So we strongly support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, James Dold, Hawaiian Rights, Human Rights for Kids on zoom.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. James Dole for Human Rights for Kids. And we support this measure. Just to build off what the public defender has said, you know, when children are placed in adult correctional facilities, they are five times more likely to be subject to physical and sexual violence.

It's actually one of the reasons why the Prison Rape Elimination act was needed. We were placing so many kids in adult prisons and jails in the 1990s and the early 2000s. They were the ones who were being victimized and sodomized and harmed in these facilities.

And finally, Congress stepped in in 2003 and required that there be sight and sound restrictions. And this is what the public defender was actually speaking to is that federal law prohibits children from having contact with adult inmates. And so what that means is that they have to be kept separate.

And when we do that, that oftentimes means solitary confinement. And this has very traumatizing and long lasting impacts on children. Solitary confinement has been recognized as a form of torture under international human rights law. And what we see is unfortunately, devastating impacts on these youth. A few years ago, folks may remember the case of Kalief Browder.

Kalief was held in an adult jail when he was 16 years old on Rikers island in New York. He was held in solitary confinement for two years. When he was released, he killed himself.

Just last year, a 16 year old girl by the name of Kaylyn Drake killed herself after she was admitted into an adult correctional facility after being arrested on a robbery charge. These are very serious incidents. These children, when they get in these facilities, they're very desperate, they're upset, they're traumatizing environments.

And for children who are already dealing with a lot of trauma in their life, it can lead to absolutely devastating consequences like suicide. And so it's not a stretch or an exaggeration to say that this bill may very well save a child's life in Hawaii by making sure that they're not in these traumatizing conditions. And so. So it's a very important piece of legislation. And we would really urge the Committee's favorable report of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've received written testimony and support from ACLU of Hawaii and from Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii, and from one individual. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 694? If not. Questions? Members? I have one question for Ms. Cheng.

When our attorneys were looking at this, they noted that subsection L in the statute they felt should also make, we should also make some conforming amendments in subsection L to effectuate the purpose of the bill. So that's my intention. It's not in the bill itself, but it's just another part of the statute that we think is relevant. I know it's sort of.

All right. And subsection L is. I'm sorry, my papers got all of a sudden very disorganized. What does subsection L address? I apologize.

We're all looking it up. Oh, don't apologize. No, I mean, this was a detailed technical question, and I didn't prepare, I didn't ask you to get prepared in advance, so no apologies needed.

But I was just advised by legal analysts working on this that it seems in looking at subsection L that we should also make conforming amendments to that section as well.

And if I'm understanding correctly, subsection L is dealing with the temporary use of a room confinement situation for juveniles who are maybe posing potential risk of harm to themselves or others. We do understand. And without doing maybe a little bit of a deeper dive.

Even at our current detention home here in Kapolei, they do have rooms that they use for confinement for the purposes of dealing with mental health concerns. Just like adults, we do have children who are placed on suicide watch and need to be placed in a separate and different environment.

There might be children who are having behavioral episodes that may need to be separated. So we do acknowledge that. I think that the room confinement. My understanding of some of the information is that it should be used very sparingly, only.

Only in very limited circumstances, that the judge needs to be apprised of what is going on and kind of be monitoring the situation. So if the committee would like further comment from our office about the use of, you know, temporary room confinement, we're happy to, to provide that.

We, of course, maintain that it should be used sparingly and only for very limited circumstances for the. Maybe the safety or health of the minor.

All right, thank you. Thank you very much. Other questions, Members? Okay. Okay. Let's—thank you to all the testifiers for coming in and thank you to the Members for being here so we can move on to decision making. To the top of the agenda, Senate Bill 869, Senate Draft 1, relating to community outreach boards.

I'd like to move this forward with House Draft 1. I would like to insert into the purpose clause for this measure some additional language so that it mirrors the purpose clause in House Bill 686, HD 1.

There's just a couple of sentences that we want to add on lines 4 to 5 and lines 8 to 12 that explain in more detail what this Bill is about, in relation to the Community Development Plan Action committees that are formed on Hawaii Island.

So, it's just a couple of sentences we'll pull from the purpose clause in HB 686, HD 1, and insert into the purpose clause of this measure and put a clean date on it. That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Cal]

Thank you. Senate Bill 405, Senate Draft 1. I would like to change the effective date to 7-1-3000 and move this to conference. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 903, Senate Draft 2. I agree with the testimony from Office of Hawaiian Affairs. I much prefer the measure that we moved out previously, House Bill 1358, House Draft 3. That measure is currently in the Senate. It has not been scheduled for its first hearing of two.

And out of an abundance of caution, what I'd like to do is, since this is the same subject matter deals with Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Public Land Trust Working Group, I would like to insert the language of House Bill 1358, House Draft 3, into this measure and it has a defective date and move this to Finance.

Just to make sure that we can make sure that we get support that this group needs. That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 1408, Senate Draft 1. Very straightforward Bill. Just cleaning up a previous measure from last year. So, I think I'd like to move this forward as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 1469, Senate Draft 2, relating to tax collections. We have to make some technical amendments to this, but that's all I'd like to do, and I would like to move that forward to Finance, with only those technical amendments. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 1467, relating to tax appeals. Same thing, I'd like to move this forward only with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 544. I would like to move this forward with technical amendments only for clarity, consistency, and style. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 691. Senate Draft 1. I'd like to move this forward and adopt the recommended amendments from the Attorney General. Got a clean date and I think that's okay. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Last Bill, Senate Bill 694, relating to detention of minors. Just so we have time, this is a single referral, so we have some time. But I want to make sure that we get this right.

I, so, while we were suggested by our attorneys to make conforming amendments to Subsection L to effectuate the purpose of the Bill, I'd like to have time for the public defenders to do some research on this as well and get back to us so that we can make sure we're on the same page.

So, I'd like to defer decision making on this until Wednesday, March 19th. Any comments or questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much. There being no further business before this Committee, we are adjourned.