Senate Standing Committee on Government Operations

Sorry, I have no gavel so I'm going to use the old fashioned way. Behind—I do this a lot. Okay. Aloha, everybody. Good afternoon. Mahalo for joining today's GBO hearing on Tuesday, March 18th, 2025, at 3:05 PM—was our start time—convened in Conference Room 225. The meeting is being streamed live on YouTube.

And in the unlikely event that we have to abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 3:01 PM, Tuesday, February 4th, 2025, Room 225, and a public notice will be posted on the Leg's website. Although if we did that, all the vote would be dead anyway.

So, with that we will move right into the agenda. First up, we have House Bill 412, House Draft 1, relating to lobbying. This would establish certain presumptions regarding lobbying on behalf of private clients and also would expand the definition of lobbying in the lobbying law to include certain communications with high level government officials regarding procurement decisions.

First up, Ethics Commission.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Robert Harris, testifying on behalf of the Hawaii State Ethics Commission. We are in support of this Bill. If I can just briefly state that this is—glad you won't have to use your fists on me, just the gavel now.

This Bill catches up essentially with a number of other states, which essentially will look at the impact of soliciting contracts. So, interactions where somebody might say, hey, what you really need to do is buy my product and we'll actually spend time, energy, effort.

The idea is having transparency on that marketplace as an opportunity to say, well wait a second, my product's even better. But more generally speaking, the public has the ability to say, I understand what the interactions are. I want to be really clear that this is the solicitation.

Once it gets to the contracting part, it specifically exempts the actual procurement process, and it also does not include the actual enactment of the contract itself. The interactions that the agency normally would have. It's limited specifically to solicitation. I'm—if I may, I have reviewed the testimony.

We are in full support of the amendment proposed by the Estate Procurement Office, which is basically trying to ensure the AG's Office, if there's any attempt to try to invalidate, would have any interactions—the agency, which is wonderful, and that is squarely the intent.

And then, the other discussion, which was submitted, I think really is sort of mistaking what this would reach to. Again, it does not interact with conversations between an agency and somebody who's already gotten a contract and those normal interactions.

Part of the reason why this Bill goes into effect two years from now is the intent to have the ability to educate, really make sure everybody understands this. Again, this is well done in other states.

We can really follow a lot of the guidance and rules other states have done and try to make sure the impact is relatively minimal.

All right, thank you very much. Any questions while he's here? No? Okay, just might as well grab you. Okay. State Procurement Office.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Bonnie Kahakui, Administrator, State Procurement Office. The State Procurement Office stands on its written testimony in support of this Bill with an additional language which I believe Mr. Harris agrees with.

But you're in support, not comment, correct?

All right, thank you. Making note of that. Okay, thank you. Finally, Hawaii Primary Care Association. They have offered—written—in opposition, noting their concerns about various employers and such perhaps being swept up in this. That's all we have on 412, HD 1.

Yes.

Is there anybody in the audience or Zoom world wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We'll move on to the next Bill on the agenda, House Bill 131, Office of Information Practices. Sorry to read a description, but this basically allows agencies to disclose government records to researchers for certain research purposes. Come on.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. The Office of Information Practices stands on our written testimony in support. And I'm here if you have questions.

Okay, thank you very much. We have next up, University of Hawaii system, Mr. Calvert Young. They have written in opposition. We have Mr. Tokioka, Director of DBEDT, written with comments, but more like opposition, expressing aggregation of data. Let's see. Ryan Yamani, Director, Department of Human Services. They too have comments, but more along the lines of...

We—excuse me, Chair. We have them on Zoom.

Oh, you do have them on Zoom. Well, jump on in. Go ahead and fire away.

Aloha. My name is—Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair, Members, my name is Amanda Stevens. I'm Public Information Officer, and we stand by our comments and request for clarification. DHS agrees with the concerns of DLNR and the University of Hawaii.

Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate you putting those concerns and touching upon them here. We also have late from Mr. Jade Butai, DLIR, Labor Industrial Relations. They have comments as well, but a lot of concerns. Also, Don Chang, Department of Land and Natural Resources. Okay, thank you for those comments and concerns.

Ted Kefeles, Director of Strategic Campaigns for Grassroots Institute. Okay. Is Mr. Kefeles on at all, IT?

No, he's not online, Chair.

Okay. I just want to note his support for the measure. We finally have Mr. Ben Kreps, or not finally, but Mr. Ben Kreps, Public First Law Center.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Ben Kreps with the Public First Law Center. We strongly support this Bill, alongside with the Office of Information Practices. It's a small but important Bill, and it clarifies OIP's authority to make uniform rules for the disclosure of government records to researchers.

And this kind of disclosure happens currently, but on a really limited and ad hoc basis. So, uniform rules would provide for consistent standards across government for confidentiality and data security, among many other things. I did have a chance to read through the opposition testimony, and largely the agencies and the opposition testimony misread the Bill entirely.

So, this only clarifies OIP rulemaking authority. It's not, with its enactment, it doesn't then release the floodgates of records. This just gives OIP further clarity on what rules they can make. And really, all of the substantive concerns that's raised in the testimony can be addressed through the rulemaking process.

And so, for example, the rules can require researchers to sign confidentiality agreements, maintain insurance, and share their research, the findings of their research, with the agencies. So, it's a really good Bill. We ask that the Committee pass it as is.

I had a chance to look at Heco's proposed amendment, and that would defeat the purpose of the Bill because it would only afford researchers access to what's already publicly available. And that's kind of the opposite of what this Bill tries to achieve. So, thank you, Chair, for setting this Bill for a hearing.

It's an important Bill, and I'm available for any questions.

All right, thank you very much. Next up, we finally have Mr. Abraham, Associate General Counsel for Hawaiian Electric. Oh, there he is.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is James Abraham, testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric, offering comments on House Bill 131. And we do have a proposed amendment for the Committee's consideration.

We just wanted to note that the public records that this could impact also include confidential information that's submitted by private parties to government agencies where the agencies oversee, for instance, the Public Utilities Commission overseeing Hawaiian Electric, and a lot of what we do.

So, we do have concerns if this Bill would allow researchers access to our confidential information, for instance, our critical infrastructure information, which, you know, a bad actor could get a hold of and potentially threaten the grid if they were to get that through some kind of loophole that this Bill would allow.

So, we did propose to remove certain language that looks to the exceptions to Uniform Information Practices Act, which is section 92F-13. So, we appreciate the Committee's consideration of that proposed amendment. Thank you, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Let's see, that's—oh, I'm sorry, it's another Bill. That's all we have on HB 131. Is there anybody in the audience or in the world of Zoom wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, questions?

Yes, please. OIP. Hi. Your testimony says that you don't have the authority to make rules, but the law clearly states that under 92F-13 that you can make rules because it's in the law that research is there. So, what is your problem?

We have authority to adopt research rules, but my understanding is the researchers are looking for information that's not necessarily in the public domain. So, what we don't have is authority to allow the agencies to share nonpublic information.

So, when you say they're not able to share, if you put it in your rules as to what is or is not. I was with the University for many years in Office of Research Services and SSRI and there are really strict rules and definitions of what is research.

And this seems overly broad if it's any non-commercial entity that could ask for information. So, how might you look at this law as enabling you to protect those rights? Because this is a privacy confidential rights that concern everybody.

The proposed new section of Chapter 92F has a "may," so agencies may share records for research purposes. It's not a "shall." So, if this Bill passed, they would be able to, but not required to.

But it still requires you to do rules. When you're not sure what it is now, how are you going to be sure then? By just changing a "shall" to a "may?"

We're not planning to immediately do rules. We're hoping that if the Bill passes and research requests are made, it will ferret out what issues the agencies have, what issues the researchers have, and then, that will help us to develop rules that hopefully would work for everyone.

So, what you're saying is this is premature because you haven't asked the agency, so you don't know the impact? And I would suggest that you also talk with the University of Hawaii because they're really the people who do most of the research and they have definitions, and so, have you talked with the University?

I have not, but I can reach out to them.

Yeah, because I think it's really important because research and study is one thing, and having your door open for anybody asking for any information because I could call it a study, is pretty dangerous for government operations.

Okay, I'll reach out to the University.

Thank you. I really have concerns about the breadth of this and the generality of any non-commercial objective to study. Okay. All right, thank you.

What's a researcher?

Well, the Bill would propose to define that.

It appears that all the people in opposition goes, what's a...researcher? I'm a researcher. Right. I mean, it sounds like the people who work for DOGE are now researchers.

So, this—couldn't this in essence be used for different groups to label themselves as such and go on fishing expeditions or on targeted recon for information that would then be used in a way not under research?

A non-researcher could pose as a researcher and ask for information if this Bill were passed, but the agencies still have that "may" language. They may share the information. They're not required to.

I understand the rule thing, but I guess mine of my concerns always has been that, you know, the statute establishes the parameters and the rails and the rules, and the admin rules come in to fill in the functionality.

And instead, we're going to go ahead and leave very critical terms like this to be defined in admin rules that need to be defined in the enabling statutes, don't you think, to give guidance to the rule promulgation?

That is one way to handle it, yes.

Isn't that what you're asking, though? You're saying, I don't know, and so I would like the statute to tell me what, how to define it. And yet, this is overly broad. Then you still have a problem if you're trying to go to rules making.

Well, again, we weren't going to go to rulemaking this year or immediately. We were going to see what kind of problems that agencies were having and hopefully be able to address them in roles.

So, might this be premature, then? What you should actually be asking the agencies to come back then with actual definitions that would work that would help you in making that decision or developing rules?

We can certainly do that. Respectfully, I don't think it's premature in the sense that they would still have the ability to say no.

Not when it's in statute. The language says "may," but it defines research and researcher. Even if you have the "may" to give information, it still defines who is the researcher and what is research, which is overly broad.

Okay, understood.

So, if you would go back to the agencies who opposed and see what a definition would be that would be narrow enough and have guardrails enough because this is an exemption that you're taking away privacy rights of individuals.

And even so, when you're requiring, okay, data in the aggregate, you still need the individual raw data that comes in as individual. And so, the agencies will have to then take the individual data and then make it into an aggregate. So, I guess we need an appropriation as well, right?

I guess it would depend on the size of the request.

Or any request to have to look through all the data in my, my department, and give you aggregated data.

They wouldn't—I mean, if they're going to give aggregated data...

I don't have to give aggregated data or it's not private.

Right. And I think what the research want—researchers want—is data that is not public information. So, I think that's where this bill is coming from. Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for being. Appreciate your coming in and talking story with us. Next up, let's move on to House Bill 792 HD 1. Admire the creativity of the House. This one relating to government services. Office of Legislative Analyst. This clarifies the office of the Legislative Analyst insofar is how many members it takes to remove them.

First up, we have only. We had received no testimony on this up until a little bit earlier today. We have late testimony from Nicole Wu for the Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks. Are they here? Is she here on Zoom?

Nope, not present on Zoom, Chair.

They have written in. She has submitted written in support. However, what she's asking for us to amend it is not part and parcel of the Bill. Is there anybody else in the audience or in Zoom wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none, since there's nobody here to ask questions of.

We'll move on to the next Bill on the agenda which is 1424. And this measure here is relating to appropriations. This would prohibit the transfer of funds appropriated for positions to operating expenses and vice versa, except to fulfill the legislative purpose for which the funds were appropriated. Got a defective date.

First up, we have the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Thank you very much. We have Attorney General's Office, Mr. Robertson.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Ian Robertson, Deputy Attorney General. We've submitted testimony in opposition and also summarizing some operational concerns with this Bill.

Okay, thank you very much. We have up budget and Finance.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Senator. Luis Salaveria, Director of Finance. We will stand on our testimony in opposition, but again, be happy to work with you, answer any questions, see what it is that the Legislature would like to try and accomplish. Thank you.

Next up, we have Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Director Ando. They have written in opposition. We have Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. Mr. Butay submits comments, but sounds a little bit more like opposition. Department of Land and Natural Resources. Okay, thank you so much. DAGS. I feel like I just saw you.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Keith Regan, Comptroller for the State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General Services. We stand on our written testimony providing comments.

However, you'll notice that it is more leaning towards opposition on this particular measure. So I just wanted to make that clear. We do have concerns about this measure.

Okay, how opposition opposed are you guys to this?

To the point that I would change my testimony from comments to opposition.

I really appreciate that. I appreciate the politeness of comments, but time to be real.

Absolutely.

If you hate it, just say I hate this thing.

I oppose this measure. Thank you Chair.

The author might, but I won't. Okay, next up we have Kali Watson, DHHL. Thank you very much for keeping it real. Okay, finally we have Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, Mr. Kefalas. They have submitted written in support. That is all we have on 1424. Any more glowing comments if anybody else wishes to testify. Not Members. Questions?

Yes.

Yes, fire away.

Okay. Luis Salaveria. Since you're Budget and Finance.

Good afternoon Senator.

Okay, I note that this Bill was drafted by the Speaker of the House.

Apparently so. Yes

And it's not by request. So it seems that what I want to know is how often do you folks - the agencies - move what is budgeted to something else? So let's give an example. We have put in substantial monies, for instance in Department of Ag for invasive species, you know, to control it. And we find out that...

...so within the Department of Ag, how often do they move the monies that we allocate for Department of Ag for invasive species into something else.

So for specific legislative appropriations like that, when it comes to the Budget and Finance, we only allow them to expend it for what the legislative purpose was for and if it was a specific appropriation.

In this particular case, and what this Bill is proposing to do is that there's two categories of expenditures. One is wages and payroll and OCE.

And what happens, you know, in the course of the year is that if there are savings, for example, in payroll, but there are some expenses in other current expenses, it's what we call a transfer from 10 to 20. 10 being payroll and salaries and wages into the 20 category, which is other current expenses.

So what this Bill attempts to do is to prohibit that movement. Not necessarily like if the Legislature appropriated something for a specific purpose, that they would go and use it to expense something else, because we wouldn't allow that from Budget and Finance's perspective.

Okay, so I'm Health and Human Services Chair, so I see that human services has huge allocation of budget. A lot of it is federally funded. And I could see because of the federal funding possibility of shortfalls, that there would be monies being moved around in order to be able to expect are...

...but in the Department of Health side, we have the ADAD monies that we made sure of with positions. You know, we know psychiatrists are expensive. We put in all of these positions, a lot of which remain vacant. Okay.

If we don't pass this Bill, is the Department of Health allowed to use those monies that we have set aside for, like, psychiatrists to go put into vaccination?

If there was savings in payroll, for example, in the case of, like, a vacant position, if there was savings, the current process does allow for a transfer from 10 to 20, but they would have to come in and request for basically a reallotment from that particular category into the...

And how often do they ask for the reallotment? Pretty regularly.

Pretty regularly, yes.

Okay. So I could see why the speaker introduced this Bill.

I think that there, and, you know, to her point, and I understand there's, you know, transparency and accountability, especially in the budgeting process, is something that I think we all strive for. You know, also going back to this whole thing is our current process of budgeting is still a lot of spreadsheets and Word documents.

And so one of the things that we are doing and what we are implementing this year, and we're going through the procurement process about to select a vendor to actually implement a statewide budgeting system that would provide a lot more transparency and accountability to the budgeting process going forward.

So it's not here yet, but it's something that would provide you with the level of transparency that you're looking for in the future.

So my concern is if they have this, I mean, like, I could see for Human Services, with the federal budgeting allotment not being there, that they got to move monies around to be able to pay for SNAP benefits and kind of all of the things we are regularly required.

But what I'm also concerned about is if this Legislature has allotted x amount of money in the budget, like for invasive species and biosecurity, that the final act then decides to use it for weed and seed or something like that, and we have no controls on that because it's in the budget versus an actual Bill.

Yeah. In that particular case, if there was a legislative appropriation for a specific purpose, it has to be spent for that specific purposes. And the only way that you could essentially reuse that is if there was savings, but savings from that expenditure.

But the purpose of what that expenditure should or that appropriation was made for has to be accomplished first.

And the other thing, and I'm not in WAM, but my concern also is how are we as Chairs of our various committees, trust the projected positions and amounts from the Department heads when in back of their mind that they actually intend to go use these monies for operating expenses when we had allocated because of what they told us in testimony that they actually need like three or four FTEs and the like. I mean, how can we. I mean. How can we trust that allocation?

You know, it's a great question, I think, as departments come in and they ask for, you know, either new positions. One of the things that we. Information that we provide to you every year is the vacancy report.

When you look at it, you know, the Governor did at the beginning of this legislative session, tried to look at taking, getting rid of vacancies that were been vacant for longer than four years to basically kind of clean up the payroll roster.

We are in many ways kind of a victim of the, the low technology situation that we have that would be able to provide you with that level of comfort that what you appropriate actually gets expended upon. So when you put in a new position, it's like, how long does it actually take us to fill that position?

Or does that position stay vacant and then the savings on that payroll ends up getting used for something else? I think that's, you want to make sure that that doesn't happen. And again, we want to be able to provide you with that information. We just need the tools in order to do that. Senator.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay.

Any questions? Quick one is that I guess, you know, you heard the concerns of our colleagues and such, the Bill. But also, you know, given what's happening with the Federal Government and such, would this Bill, given the, for the legislative purposes, I mean, that's a pretty loosey-goosey. You could sue over that term. Right.

And so I guess having that, having this Bill, could this impede the ability of the departments and the Administration to respond to federal cuts coming from the Federal Government, especially this September?

It could, yes.

Okay. If we were to try to keep it moving to ensure that there is. Is there a way for...would you guys be, I guess, more amenable to it being a reporting Bill. In other words, before you do this, you would report to the Legislature?

We could institute that policy and if you so choose to put it, codify it.

What I would do is whenever a department comes in, because they have to request from Budget and Finance to reallot their money from 10 to 20, but then when, you know, when a department does come in and request for a reallotment from 10 to 20, I would ask them to provide the information that we would just.

Yeah, but codifying it. And then the Chairs are notified and they're in on what's going on and they can weigh in. See what I'm saying?

If the Legislature so chooses, we could institute that. Okay, thank you.

Appreciate your comments.

Just to add. So, Luis, are you saying then that this Bill would sit better if it were that if instead of prohibiting it, that it will be reported and you would report annually or when or quarterly or can you do that so that we would get information?

We could, I guess, quarterly. And I'll be, you know, it really doesn't happen in the beginning of the fiscal year because normally there's enough allotment and appropriation in the beginning of the year.

A lot of the transfers between 10 to 20 kind of tend to happen towards the end of the year when you have specific budgets that do start to run out, and then you also start seeing budgets that have savings going forward. So it really kind of happens towards the end of the year.

Would there be language that you could provide to have that kind of reporting, which is not overly burdensome, but for the purposes of giving information to.

I mean, quarterly would work because, you know, we are on a quarterly allotment process, so quarterly would work.

Thank you. Thank you. Member. All right, looks like we're making some progress here. Next up, House Bill 1153 relating to funding adjustments for state programs.

This one here authorizes supplemental allotments and transfers for unrequired balances for capital improvement program projects and establishes a protocol fund with a cap of $7,000 each for each state principal Department. And it has its effective date of 3,000. First up, we have Budget and Finance.

Chair, the Department will stand on its testimony and support.

Okay, thank you. And you've offered amendments?

Yes, we've offered amendments.

Thank you so much for those amendments. We also have Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Okay, thank you for being here. We have Department of Transportation. Okay, thank you so much. That's all we have on 1153 HD1. Anybody else in the audience wishing to testify. Zoom World. Anybody out there wanting to testify, seeing none, Members, questions?

Okay, just quick one of DOT. Have you looked at the budget and finances proposed SD1 to the Committee?

Forgive me, I have not. I should have.

But if the Bill Bill moves forward, we can maybe you can look at the SD1 and work with them on it, okay?

No worries. We know you're busy. All right, that's it for 1153. Any questions? If not, we will move on to 1297. Department of Transportation.

Absolutely, I will. Thank you.

All right, thank you so much. We have Budget and Finance. I'm sorry. Sorry about that, DAGS.

Steps in. Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Keith Regan, Comptroller for the State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General Services. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you so much. We have SPO.

Good afternoon, again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Bonnie Kahakui for the State Procurement office. We'll stand and written—with our written testimony—in support. And we provided a $1.5 million cap on the protest bond. Available for questions.

Okay, thank you. Saw that. Next, we have John Boustard, King and Neil Pacific, strong opposition. Ryan Sakuda, General Contractors.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ryan Sakuda, on behalf of the GCA. We're opposed to this measure and to be clear, we're only opposed to the Section 2 of the measure. We take no position on Section 1.

We realized that a healthy procurement code needs to have checks and balances and ethical safeguards in it for it to work. Several years ago, we recognized that there was an unhealthy state of the procurement code with regards to the appeal process of agency decisions.

The Legislature worked with the stakeholders last year to Pass Act 162 which brought the procurement code back to what other states use when it comes to putting up a protest bond. This section two of the Bill is going to undo what the Legislature did to install the ethical safeguards that we put in.

And for that reason, we don't want to fall back out of line to what all the other states do when requiring an administrative appeal protest bond. So, we're in opposition to that.

Thank you very much, sir. We have Roseanne Freitas, CEO of BIA Hawaii, written in strong opposition. Tim Lyons, Subcontractors. They too are opposed, concerned about the discussions of the cap amounts. J. Richardson Road Builders Corporation written in opposition. Aaron Yahiku, JR Construction, written in opposition. Francis Sakamoto, S And M. They too are in opposition.

Marianne Arasato, Ralph Esnoi Corporation Limited. They're in opposition. And Greg Ichiyama for KOGA Engineering. They too are in opposition. And finally, we have Anna Oshiro for the Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert Law Corporation. They too are in opposition. That's all the written we've received on 1297. Anybody else in the audience wishing to testify? Zoom World?

Members, questions? None. We'll move on to the next Bill on the agenda, which is House Bill 988. And of course, without further ado, we have House Bill 988. Keith Regan, DAGS.

Chair, Vice Chair, and Members, Keith Regan, Comptroller, State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General Services. We stand on our written testimony in support. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you so much. We also have DOT.

Okay, thank you so much. SBO.

Thank you so much. We have city and county of Honolulu. They have submitted written testimony comments. They would like us to make amendments to the Bill based upon the words "awards" and "executed." Ryan Sukuda, GCA. He just left. Okay. They have offered comments too. That's all we have on 988.

Anybody else in the audience would looking to testify? On Zoom land, anybody out there? Members, if not, questions on 988? Okay. If not, we will move on to House Bill 1187. First up, State Procurement Office.

[Unintelligible]

You might as well come up and—so everybody can hear it in the world.

Sorry, I'll start again. We are in support of this Bill, however, we do note that there may be some challenges for the applicability. If you will require the flower growers and the plants growers to certify that their products are made in Hawaii, so that the agencies can comply with this Bill.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. We also have Andrew Kawano, city and county, Honolulu. They are in opposition. That's all we received on the Bill. Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to testify? Is there anybody in Zoom land out there wanting to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, Bonnie. So, I noticed there's no appropriation request because I was going—I'm looking at Andrew Kawano's opposition. It's difficult to confirm percentage amounts of plant material grown or harvested during the procurement process. Sounds like if we're gonna enforce this, other than the labeling requirement, you're gonna need some kind of somebody to go figure out the percentages.

That's not how I read—thank you for the question—that's not how we read the Bill. We read the Bill that the state agencies cannot buy more than a certain percentage of locally grown flowers or plants that are grown in Hawaii. So, we're not requiring anybody to certify it. We're just asking that how are we intended—how are the agencies supposed to know that this lei that they're buying is from Hawaii or from another foreign country?

So, it sounds like if there's no enforcement, this is more like a resolution. I mean, if there's no hammer to tell the state agency or there's somebody going around measuring the percentages, that this is more like a resolution asking them to please do this because we can't really enforce this.

Yes, you are correct. I'm not sure how you would enforce this because it would be from the leimakers or the flower people that would have to—we would have to have them tell us these leis are, these flowers all grown locally.

Yeah.

As opposed to the percentage of the flowers on the lei itself.

Because we also don't want to increase the burdens on the flower growers to label each particular flower. Okay, thank you.

So, so we used to have, we used to have the Hawaii preference. So, I'm just—and we thought it was really difficult to implement. But so, so if this is just the purchase by our agencies of locally grown, would that be something where we would say to our agencies, if you, if you buy from a grower or you buy and they're local, that you would be preferred to buy from them?

If you can't, then, you know, then you don't give them credit or whatever. Give them a little 5, 5 cents more of they, or something.

I don't know. I don't know how you would implement it. But, but you know, it's a preference rather than you shall not buy. Because that's what this reads is prohibits us.

Well, it is phased in, so the first...

Still a prohibition at the end of the day.

At the end of the day it is, that the agencies cannot buy locally grown flowers.

But this is, but this is mimicking the Stafford Act a little bit. It's like we have that which you cannot buy or use stuff from China, right, and to use federal monies.

But we rely on the vendor and certifying of the beds that none of this comes from China because if it is, then they're now in real deep trouble. So, I see this Bill along the lines of that saying, okay, we're only going to allow procuring of these. I'm sorry, bro local—be local. 100% local.

That's why I wanted to hear the Bill. But it kind of puts the requirement onus on the vendor and if they misrepresent it, there would be actions the agency could take, right?

We could, we could, if they misrepresent themselves, we could start initiating suspension and debarment proceedings because they weren't fulfilling the contract which is to buy, in this case, buy local flowers.

So, that becomes your enforcement mechanism. Okay. Any other questions?

Yeah. Question. Okay. No, because I'm looking at if we pass this Bill, then the implement—who is the implementing agency? It's the people who buy this, right? So, it's us, it's on us. But now we have to know is this local or not? And what if there are no flowers that are local? We buy them all out, then what?

I think there have to be an exemption to this because obviously, if you want flowers—pardon me?

There's no good cause exception in the Bill either. So, there should be an exception if there is.

Yes, there should be.

I, I have a question. Shouldn't there be a presumption that if you buy from a local vendor that it is presumed—and I'm thinking about Costco because I noticed in the Committee Report, Watanabe Flowers, who is a vendor to Costco of their leis, was in opposition to this.

So, now, I'm starting to think that maybe Watanabe Flowers is buying from off island. But we go to Costco, we see a Watanabe Flowers on there, we're gonna assume—I'm gonna assume—that it's local. I mean shouldn't there be a presumption that if you buy from a local vendor that it is, you fulfill the—this Bill?

I don't read that Bill as saying that. Is—we read the Bill as we have to buy, the flowers themselves have to be locally grown. And so, even if you go to Costco, Watanabe Flowers, those flowers can come from Malaysia or from Mexico, from any place.

And we, agencies, wouldn't know it unless as we noted, unless it says grown in Hawaii.

Yeah, but they're representing it. They're actively engaging in a contract with the state. Okay, we'll DOT, we'll send you, we will sell you leis. We have a requirement. It's got to be X amount percentage. Okay, we promise it's that. And if it's not, then to your point, that becomes the enforcement.

Exactly. But just if we were to, if an agency were just to go to Long's or Walmart or wherever it is you see the flowers in there, there's no warning label on that. So, that would be, that'll become problematic.

It's like I want to buy only—I'm required by law to buy only. Do you have only? Yes, but locals only? We do. Great, I'll buy it. Oh, it's not. Well, that's fraud.

That's why we would—the agencies that we would have to buy from or the companies that we have to buy from, we would have to say is it local grown? And we would take their word for it, unless we found out otherwise. And then, we do suspension and debarment procedures. Okay.

So, long as it goes to the procurement. But—thank you. Interesting stuff up here.

Anybody else in the discussion on 1187? If not, we will go on to the final bill, I believe on this agenda 987. Surprise, relating to procurement procurement again. Fired. Come on up.

Finally, the State Procurement Office will stand its written testimony and support. Any questions? Not at all.

Yeah, yeah. You're here.

I thought we did this already. I mean, I don't. What is the problem? I thought you already had. And we're collecting money, so. We are collecting money.

Thank you for the question, but yes, we are collecting the money. Actually, what happened in the last legislative session that that simple sentence or that portion was maybe inadvertently left out about the special fund. So we have to come back in this year to ask for that. So you don't have a fund to collect right now the.

Our vendor is holding that fund, calling those monies in trust because we, there's no place for us to put the money.

But you still can spend the money.

We can. We can use it as a credit against. But it would be. We would prefer that we control what the money is.

Having it in trust with an outside entity.

Yeah. It'S our money. We want to spend it the way we want it. Thank you.

Yes, support the DEV on this one. All right. Sorry. 987. I sort of forgot. We also have DAGS. And then there was DAGS. And then there was DAGS.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Keith Regan, Comptroller. State of Hawaii Department of Accounting and Chairman, General Services. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure and happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.

But we like your aloha shirt too. Okay. Any other questions of DAGS or spo? If not, we are going to go ahead and we are going to take a very. Actually, we're going to go right in decision making. Do we have the vote sheets? Let's go.

Okay, so first up today we had House Bill 412 relating to lobbying. Recommendation on this measure is we remove this out as a Senator. Act one like to amend page three, line one to end after insert with consultation of the purchasing agency. Effective, affected, technical, non substantive amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

And it already has a defective date. So as a learning moment, since there already is a defective date, we're making other substantive changes but going to leave the defective date that's in there the way it is. Okay.

In the Committee report, we also want to note that this measure will fundamentally change the ways social service nonprofits organizations may operate and that for organizations that rely on contracts with the state or by extension of the feds via state administered contracts.

Any communication by a paid employee, officer or Director of the organization with a legislative employee of a governmental agency could be construed by the Ethics Commission as lobbying. And so you want to note those concerns for the next Committee Members. Questions? Comments? If not, Vice Chair 412 HD 1 SD 1 I vote yes.

[Roll call]

Okay, thank you very much. House Bill 131 relating to research. Given the discussion and the concerns of the Committee Members I don't feel we have the support necessary to move this measure. However this measure is parked it's still alive for next year.

I'd like to work with the Office of Information Practices and others on defining specifically what researchers are research and all these other terms that have caused a lot of consternation.

And I'm going to work on this bill and bring it back next year so we can get down to these terms and hopefully pass something that will effectuate transparency but yet protect the privacy issues that were raised by my colleagues in their concerns. Okay, next UP, House Bill 792 relating to government services.

This one is the Office of the Legislative Analyst. What we're going to do with this measure here since it seems to clarify the legislative analysts of which we've never filled this position.

So we're going to re affect the defective date to 2491 so we can create a Senate draft one and we're going to ask the Committee to look and see if this entity is needed since it has never been billed previously. Members questions? Comments? If not Vice Chair 792 HD 1 South Dakota 1 I vote yes.

The Members present. Are there any no votes or reservations hearing any measure passes.

Okay, thank you. Senate Bill 1424 House draft one relating to appropriations. We'd like to go ahead and keep this measure moving and based on the conversation with budget and Finance we're going to amend this as a Senate draft one to have them provide quarterly reports to the Legislature upon when such transfers are made.

So we can create legislative oversight for the chairs but also be flexible for the looming federal chaos to.

So are you deleting the prohibition?

Yes, it's gonna be a notification.

Okay.

All right. Questions? It already has his effective data 3000 in there so we're going to leave that okay to go to conference. Any other questions or comments? If not 14:24 HD1SD1. I vote yes.

Members Members present. All Members present. Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none. Measures adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up, HB 1153 HD1 relating to funding adjustments for the state programs. This is a very important Bill for our Governor of the Administration and as such we are going to accept the proposed Senate Draft 1 from Budget and finance in its entirety, except we will keep the defective date that was in the measure.

And then finally we're going to per wham, we're going to blank line item the amounts that are in the measure and we're going to assert those recommended amounts into the Committee room reports Members Questions? Comments? If not Vice Chair 1153 HD1SD1. I vote yes.

All Members present. Are there any no votes or reservations Hearing none. The measures adopted.

Okay, next up, House Bill 1297, House Draft 1 relating to procurement. What we're going to do on this measure here is we're going to take out the section two as was testified to. We're going to place an amount, suggested amount of 1.5 million on page three, line seven.

And we also need to make technical non substantive amendments for clarity, consistency and style. And we're ignoring the strikeout or Section 2 because Hawaii was the only state that imposed immediate forfeiture of the bond to the state's General Fund if a protester loses an appeal.

Every one of the other six states that impose a bond requirement only required either partial forfeiture to pay for costs or forfeiture under certain conditions, most often a frivolous or bad faith protest. And the HRS and the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, which we'll put in the Committee report, also outlines what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit.

So we're going to move it along with those measures. It already has changes that already has a Defective date of 3,000 Members. Questions? Comments? If not 1297 HD1SD1 I vote yes.

All Members present any no votes or reservations? Reservation. Reservations. Reservations for Senator Measure passes.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have HB988HD1 related to procurement. This is the protest briefing disclosure. There is some issues going back and forth between the testifiers on the terms of award and executed. We need more time, I think, to discuss this with the other committees in the other chamber.

So we're simply going to redefect the defective date to 2491 so we can create a Senate draft and then we'll note the concerns between awarded and executed and also ask the SBO to send a Memo to the agencies reminding them not to share competing offerors proposals which is already in admin roles Members questions Comments if Not Vice Chair HB988HD1SD1 I vote yes.

Members present with any no votes or reservations hearing on the measures adopted okay.

House Bill 1187 House Draft 1 I'm a big fan of this bill. I do believe that the enforcement that was questioned can come about by the fact that the vendors need to represent that this truly the products materials which is required under law and so therefore noting the concerns.

I still want to move, this thing on, as is Members, questions, comments?

I have concerns. You got concerns all right. Because of the implementation and if we're looking at trying to get government agencies to be more efficient and effective and they're going about saying is this local or is this not local flowers and they're buying buying Glade I find that that's totally burdensome when they've got more.

Important work to do.

I appreciate your concern but I think again if you're representing that something is something to the state and if it's not the case then they're recommending But I appreciate what you're saying. There are concerns. Any other concerns? If not Vice Chair as is I vote yes by the way on HB.

[Roll call]

I'll go with reservation just because I support the chair. Grow local Buy local reservations from Pavela.

Senator Favella. Measure passes.

Thank you very much you guys. And then Finally House Bill 987 HD1 this is the Automation Special Fund. What we're going to do is we're going to make a conforming amendment to HRS 103D 204A which refers to 103D 203A8 and that came from our drafting agencies who caught that.

And then we need to make some other technical non substantive amendments for clarity, consistency in style. It already has a defective date so we're just going to leave that in there which will ensure it goes to conference Members. Questions? Comments have Not Vice Chair HB987HD1SD1 I vote yes.

Are there any no votes or reservations? Reservation reservations for Senator Favella. The measure is adopted.

All right, thank you very much. This concludes the hearing. Aloha.