House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Wednesday, March 19th at 2:00pm here in Conference Room 325. Thank you, everybody, for being here. As I say, often legislators, we do a better job when we have testimony, and I appreciate you taking the time to come here.

You know you can't do your other work because you're here. So we'll try to move efficiently through all these measures that we have on the agenda so you can get back to your other things.

So if you are planning to give testimony today, if you could keep your testimony to about two minutes, I'll ask you to summarize at that point. And if you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and then again after your testimony is complete.

And use the chat function on Zoom if you need to check in with technical staff here on issues that are only technical. If you're disconnected on Zoom, don't panic. Just rejoin as soon as you can. I'll try to fit you in to provide your testimony if time permits.

If the power goes off in this building, or, God forbid, we have more fire alarms, we may have to delay the meeting or if necessary, reschedule the meeting. If we have to reschedule, we'll post appropriate notice so everyone will know what we're doing and when.

If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using trademarked or copyrighted image images and then please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. Okay? First up, Senate Bill 104, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1 relating to corrections.

This measure restricts the use of restrictive housing in state operated and state contracted correctional facilities with certain specified exceptions. And it goes on, but that's the gist of it. First up, we have. Let's go with Tommy Johnson, first Director, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. So I'll summarize my testimony. In short, we strongly oppose this measure.

We provided our 13 page policy along with the nine attachments and forms, and that same policy and attachments have been posted online for some time now for all to see. The policy meets ACA, American Correctional Association standards and the National Institute of Correction standards, and in some areas exceed it.

In particular, troubling to us is that we're already doing what this Bill asks us to do. So this Bill is a problem- is a Bill looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

We're very concerned with section one on page five, lines 1 and 2, because it appears to give the Oversight Commission decision making authority with respect to placing inmates in certain types of housing that are actually in the custody and care of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

That goes far beyond what the Legislature intended when they enacted, when they created the Oversight Commission, which was to make recommendations to the Department to the legislators or the Governor, not to make operational decisions for the DCR.

Also, the way this Bill is written, it really, it provides generalized information, not specific information as required by ACA and NIC standards. And this is why we refer the legislatures, even some of the testifiers to our policy.

I think once they actually read the policy and understand the ACA and NIC guidelines, they'll see that our policy exceeds those guidelines in almost every area. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much for being here, sir. Next we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. McKenna Woodward, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in support of this measure. As you may already be aware, Native Hawaiians continue to be disproportionately impacted by Hawaii's criminal justice system, comprising about 37% of the state's correctional facilities, while representing only 21% of the total state population.

Currently, about 5% of the state's prison population are being held in solitary confinement. That may seem a small percentage. So to break it down further, in 2021, 245 people were held in solitary confinement for 15 or more days. 103 people in men's prisons were held in solitary confinement for one year or more.

The United Nations Nelson Mandela rules prohibit the use of solitary confinement for a time exceeding 15 consecutive days and characterize this disciplinary sanction as a form of torture. The impacts of solitary confinement are catastrophic and well documented. Worsening depression, anxiety and hallucinations. The impediment of rehabilitation, recovery and community reintegration.

Adverse long term consequences for cognitive and adaptive functioning, and tragically, suicide. In addition to being overrepresented in prisons, Native Hawaiians experience higher rates of depression, anxiety and suicidality compared to other ethnic groups in Hawaii. SB104 would align Hawaii with the 42 other states which have already established laws restricting solitary confinement.

If our prisons and those we contract with insist upon this extreme form of punishment, they must accordingly be upheld to scrupulous standards of conduct only to be used as a last resort with strict limitations, representation and frequent evaluation before, during and after confinement. Therefore, OHA urges this Committee to pass SB 104. Mahalo for your consideration.

Thank you very much, Ms. Woodward. Next. Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission.

My name is Martha Tornay, and I'm one of the Commissioners with the Commission. We are in support of this Bill, and we want to bring up one example of how we think misuse right now of solitary or restrictive housing is used on the mainland.

We do have a contract with CoreCivic, and they have what's called the SHIP Program, the Special Housing Incentive Program. It really is a disciplinary program. And in that program, inmates are broken, They're broken down into three phases, each one lasting four months.

In the first four months, you are allowed out of your cell for one hour a day. The second four months, two hours a day, and the third four months for three hours a day. That is very restrictive housing. And we- other contracts that people.

Other states that have contracts with CoreCivic do not have that program in it because they're not allowing it. So we are very much in support of this Bill. We also do agree with the Director. We are not supposed to be doing operations the Commission, but we are supposed to oversee the system. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Office of the Public Defender on Zoom. If you could unmute yourself, that'd be great.

Thank you for allowing us to testify remotely. Is this in regards to the SB 104?

This is. Yes, SB 104.

Okay, thank you. So, in General, the Office of the Public Defender is a opposed to the use of solitary confinement. However, if it is used, our office is in support of SB 104. That requires due process protection and independent oversight. These measures would prevent any abuse of the useless solitary complex. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Lou Erteschik.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Committee Members. I'm Lou Erdicek, Director of the Disability Rights Center. You know, I'm not unsympathetic to the plight that the Director faces. I mean, jails, not just here, but around the country, have basically become the dumping ground for a failed mental health system. It's not what they're designed to do.

It's not what they really are that good at doing, and yet they're forced to do it. And I think the Director has been pretty candid over the years about the challenges. But we've been working on this issue for a long time trying to restrict solitary confinement. And for a long time, we've been hearing from the Department.

Oh, don't worry. We got these policies in place. We're good. We got it covered. We don't need legislation. So if you look at the testimony that was submitted right on page five of the policies, our issue was folks with mental health issues, not necessarily everybody in the prison.

You look at that, if somebody with a mental health issue was placed in solitary, it says, well, within 24 hours, go back and check on them. And then it says, if there's no mental health worker on duty, don't worry about it. Just check on them next time you're back in the facility.

So that person could be sitting there for a long time. There shouldn't, should never not be a mental health worker on duty. That makes no sense. And to say, don't worry about it if nobody's around, just kind of catch up with them next time you're there, that's not a policy. It's a recipe for suicide.

And speaking of which, it seems like every so often you read about a lot of them. So if all their policies on mental health and isolation were working that well, you wouldn't be having all those suicides. So we would urge the Legislature to basically be a little more proactive with that.

And I think codifying these kinds of restrictions in statute really makes perfect sense. So thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Erteschik. Next, Kat Brady.

Good afternoon. Chair Tornas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. Kat Brady testifying in strong support of this. We've had more suicides. We've had the most suicides since 2020, so we've already had like four last year.

And the last person who committed suicide in Saguaro was a man who was about in his early 30s who had been in some kind of segregation.

And I got a call from the facility from one of the inmates who said, wow, I haven't seen him for, I know he was in solitary, but then I ran into him yesterday and now I can't find him. What's going on? Well, they took him out of one part of segregation.

They let him out for a day, and then they went and got him again. And he's in another part of segregation. This guy was mentally ill. And I just, I cannot believe that the Department can't even mention all the people who died. And way too many.

Civil Beat did an article about saying the suicides are still coming, and it's because people are sent to someplace when they have big problems and they receive no help. That is a huge, huge problem. We urge you to put this in statute.

There can be 42,000 pages of policies, and yet the community has no input on how the policies are made. And the only way the community families can actually fight for their loved ones is if this is in statute. And we ask you very kindly and respectfully to put it in statute. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. We have testimony in support from Easterseals, Hawaii. Testimony from ACLU Hawaii, Ms. Shirota.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Committee Members. Carrie Ann Shirota, Policy Director on behalf of the ACLU of Hawaii, we strongly support this measure.

As has been reiterated time and time again, solitary confinement that lasts more than 15 days is considered and recognized not only by United Nations Standards, but by the National Commission on Correctional Health as constituting torture.

The fact that we have to come here year after year to codify not only United Nations human standards, but even constitutional standards, knowing what the conditions of confinement are like in our jails and prisons. I would like to further elaborate about solitary confinement.

We've heard that it's costly, it's not effective, it does not deter violent behavior in jails and prisons, and it may in fact, exacerbate it. Research also shows that incarcerated people deprived of normal human interaction have a more difficult time reintegrating back into the communities, resulting in higher recidivism rates.

But beyond that, I want to highlight the SHIP program, which is in Saguaro. This program existed for a number of years. People have committed suicide. People have been murdered. And I would like to invoke Bronson Nunuha. He was from Maui. He was convicted of a drug related charge. He was close to coming home.

He was in the SHIP program. And a few months before he was to return home to his family on Maui, he was stabbed over 140 times. And the gang carved out their name in his chest. That is how he came back home to his Ohana. He was in this SHIP program.

So we need to pass and codify these minimum standards relating to solitary confinement, restrictive, we can call it whatever we want. It's still torture after 15 days. Please pass this law. And when we're also doing that, we also need to bring everyone back home. Thank you.

Thank you very much. In total, we've received 13 testimonies in support, one in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure in person or on Zoom? If not. Questions, Members? Representative Shimizu first.

Thank you. Chair, I have a question for Kat Brady. You mentioned the number of suicide. Excuse me, history numbers going up. Do you have those numbers? Do you have numbers of suicides that have been happening?

I think, I'm remembering correctly. Since 2020, there have been. There have been a dozen suicides or suspected suicides because not all of them have been adjudicated, but six of them were on Maui.

Okay.

I speak with a lot of families.

Can I ask another question? Chair? Okay, let's see. Can I ask a question of Director, please?

DCR I read someplace, I think it was in the Oversight Commission testimony that in Saguaro, where they do have this program that was recently mentioned in the testimony that there are, there is Idaho that's also having their inmates there, but Idaho does not participate in this program. And I was wondering why is, why is that?

Based on the contract specifications, the COPA services and Idaho's contract versus ours. But I can clear up some misinformation about the SHIP program. The SHIP program is a year. It is in three phases. It was 18 months. We reduced it to a year.

Inmates earned their way into that program due to gang activity, due to high misconduct, violence, things like that. So people are just not chosen and put in there. And it's a step down process.

And I provided the Commission coordinator, Christian Johnson, with a schematic, a graph of the program where they are allowed out of cell more than one hour, more than two hours, more than three hours. They are allowed unrestricted legal contact via telephone, and they are let out for programs. And then we bring the libraries to them.

So I think that's misinformation on the SHIP program. But I also think too that when we say segregated housing or solitary confinement, there are different types. There's administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation, protective custody. So we have different types.

So protective custody, the person is there because we believe that their life is threatened or they're going to be harmed in some way. We have administrative segregation when the person is pending adjudication of misconduct and then discriminatory segregation when the person has been adjudicated and found guilty of the misconduct.

But in all of those types of housing, they're not restricted from legal contact, they're not restricted from religious services. And we bring the libraries to them and we bring programs to them in the facility, in the cells are in those housing units. It's just that their movement is restricted.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for explaining that. I have a. Just trying to wrap my brain around the opposing viewpoint that over 15 days is considered, quote, torture, which is much less than the one year that is being done at Saguaro. And why doesn't Idaho have those same requirements?

And you mentioned it's in their contract, so I guess we could have the same language in our contract. So is there a reason why we have it and Idaho doesn't have it.

Right. Because we have a huge problem with gang activity in our facilities. And including at Saguaro. As one of the testifiers mentioned, Inmate Nanuha was killed. He was killed by another Hawaii inmate. All of the murders in our facilities are committed by other Hawaii inmates. They're not sent there and forgotten. Violence is a part of incarceration, unfortunately.

And any life that's lost, whether to suicide or violence, is a tragedy. But we have to understand the people and the environment we're dealing with. And I'm not advocating that we should get rid of the SHIP program.

I'm advocating that the SHIP program actually helps those inmates stay away from gang activity once they get out, because they don't want to go back into SHIP and they're allowed to do programs while they're there.

I think what some of the testifiers don't understand is it's okay to be an armchair quarterback and sit back and say something is wrong, but you're not the one who's responsible to man those posts, to run those facilities, responsible for the lives of those people in the facilities.

And when you have that perspective, it's a little bit different. Because if you don't have safety and security in the facilities, you don't have good governance. You don't have a facility at all. What you have is complete mayhem.

So, Director, do you have the data of how many suicides or fatalities that have occurred and the person who committed that murder, as you say, that it's being committed by fellow Hawaiian inmates, Do you have that information?

I don't have with me, but we can. We report every assault and we report every death to the Governor. So we have the information on every inmate death. So if you give me the period that you're looking for, we can provide that from every facility providing investigation is not still ongoing.

We then can provide you what the result of the investigation was.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Whatever information you provide, you could provide it to me and I can share it with the Committee Members.

Do you have a period you want me to take a look at?

Unless Chair has. Has other. Five. Five years. The last five years.

Okay, we'll stop. We'll go about from 2019 to 2024. Is that okay?

That's fine. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Representative Bilati.

Thank you. From the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. So I think I want to acknowledge that this is actually the first time that this Bill has moved fully through House committees. Yes, so this is our first take on it. And you're going to have to educate a lot of us on this side of the table.

My question for you is, I don't know if you were involved in the drafting of this Bill.

No. But Ted Sakai was a former Director who was nationally known for his work in corrections. Yes.

Yes, and my friend and former constituent as well. Do you know if this is drawn off of any other state statutes? Because I don't know the context and the history behind where this language from the from the Bill came from. Other than that. It's from Ted, and I believe in him completely, but I just.

Is there any best practice and standards and other statutes in other states that we can look at?

I think part of it's mentioned here, but I really would refer to Kat Brady would be in a better situation to answer that particular question.

Okay, let's hold that for now, and then I want to ask a further question. Sorry, Chair. We have in the director's testimony that their policies have been updated as of 2024. Has the Commission done any work around that particular policy?

And maybe you can speak, whether it's this policy or just policies in general, how has the Commission dealt with some of these policies and the communications and the oversight?

In our role, I mean, we have many things we have to deal with, and we haven't focused specifically on this, except for at Saguaro. And that was after a visit to Saguaro and talking to inmates in Saguaro and then telling the staff that this is what is happening there.

But I did, as I'm reviewing this policy that is currently in place, like on page eight of the policy, placement number two, it says if the Adjustment Committee issues a sanction of disciplinary segregation exceeding a period of 60 days, the express written approval of the IDA is required.

It used to be in our previous policy, and it could not exceed 60 days. We had some problems with that because what some of the disciplinary committees were doing, somebody commits on one day, three infractions.

They would adjudicate one, put them in disciplinary for 60 days, put them out for a day, adjudicate the second one, put them back in disciplinary. So we had to adjust our policy to ensure that was not happening. It should never exceed 60 days. That's too long already.

Okay. All right. Okay. So there are elements in this policy that the Commission could dig further into and give us a better read onto whether or not these policies match.

We could definitely do that for you.

Okay. Can I ask a question of Ms. Brady and then follow up with the director? So the question is real simple.

Just are there other states from which these statutes are being drawn from and that we can look to for best practice?

This Bill is based on the PNPS written by Ted in 2014. And this is the last bit of public service he did before he died. And we talked maybe a month before he died.

Move the MIC closer to you.

Okay, thank you. That was my question for Director. So I spent the weekend poring over the NIC, National Institute of Corrections, the American Correctional Association policies and procedures. I have been poring over the Department of Justice procedures from 2024 recommendations. Also documents from 2016.

There's a lot out there I will note on the Federal Bureau of Prisons or the DOJ. They've actually taken down these policies and they're no longer found. I have to do some quick digging to find it, but they are there.

When you say in your testimony as written, Senate Bill 104 SD1 does not follow the guidelines of the NIC nor the ACA. Can you give me an example of where that doesn't or examples of where the Bill does not follow those guidelines?

Portions of the Bill, the languages in some parts of the Bill are ambiguous. Whereas ACA and NIC guidelines are very specific when it comes to types of housing and to some degree criteria for selection for inmates for those housing.

So all I was trying to get across was before we enact legislation, we should look at those NIC and ACA guidelines, look at our policy and if we need to improve our policy and I'm willing to work with the oversight Commission if they're willing to do that. Our policies are posted online.

Our non confidential policies are posted online for all to see. And so if the, if the Commission has Oversight Commission has some concerns, then they should come to the Department and we can sit down and work out those concerns and then address the policy. Because I have no problem with amending the policy if something we're doing exceeds.

I agree with Martha Tornay with respect to exceeding the 60 days. But I would like to clarify on page five, a previous testifier indicated that when the next healthcare worker reports to work, well, we have 24/7 medical care at all our facilities now. We didn't in the past, but we do now.

We don't have 24/7 mental health care at the neighbor island facilities, though.

I do want to acknowledge you mentioned that there's different kinds of custody and in my review of the standards, multitude of standards that are out there, you mentioned four. Can you say those again?

Because other jurisdictions have others but we use four, we have disciplinary segregation for those people who have been found guilty of a serious misconduct. We have administrative segregation for those people who may be a disciplinary. For those people who may be pending adjudication. We have protective custody for those people whose lives may be in danger.

And we have some people who actually want to go to segregation because they got in trouble with the gangs, they owe somebody money. So they'll ask us to put them in protective custody or to put them, or they're afraid of the gangs, or they'll ask us to put them in administrative segregation.

Our security tech group staff who specialize in gangs at every facility will look at them, will talk to them about it, and then decide which is the best placement for them. Because. Because sometimes, unfortunately, inmates want to be housed with other people so they can harm them.

So they may claim that they want to go to PC, they're a gang member, they want to go there to harm somebody else.

Okay, those are the questions I have for now Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Director.

Other Members have any questions? Representative Shimizu, second time.

Thank you, Chair. Director, I want to thank you for your work. I don't envy your position and the problems that you have to face. I heard you testify that you're already doing what the Bill does or what the Bill asks. So when I hear that, and then you also. I'm sorry.

And you also did say that the Oversight Commission should not have authority over you and dictating what you should do. And I would agree with that statement.

So based on your statement that you're already doing what the Bill asks, if we were to remove the language that is of concern that the oversight Commission should not have authority over you, would you be okay with the Bill?

I still wouldn't be okay with the Bill because I think, to be perfectly frank, and this for all Committee Members, is that we should work with the Oversight Commission, which is why it was created, to better the system. I think if we work together and we can't come to a resolution, then we look at legislation.

But I think that would help foster the working relationship between the Commission and the Department and would let the public see and the Legislature see that we're partners in this and we want to improve the system. We may not always agree, but we should have the opportunity to try to work out the differences before we legislate.

I would totally agree with that, and I would prefer that versus passing bills, mandating and tasking people to do something against their will. So that being said, do you have regular meetings with the Oversight Commission? And have you been discussing these issues?

Because I would think that this is a serious issue that has longstanding history, that a lot of discussion would have been happening or in. In the process of being discussed. So what's the status of that discussion that you are saying that you would like to do?

Well, a couple things. One, the Commission has a meeting every month that I try to attend. I attended the last couple of meetings. They visit the facilities. I'm in contact with Christian Johnson, the coordinator. Not on a daily basis, but maybe a couple times a week. We speak on the phone.

Not once did the Commission coordinator ever indicate there was a problem with this Bill, even the problem with the policy, even after the Bill came up. So in my testimony, that's why I specifically mentioned that the Commission never mentioned it before. And if the Commission does have issues with the policy, let's sit down and work it out.

And they have a lot to do and they only have three or four staff. Their mission is huge. I don't think they have enough staff to do what they mandated to do.

But if the issue is that important, then we should have the opportunity to sit down and work with them and come up with a happy medium that we all can live with.

And if we can't, then the Commission can propose legislation where they think we are at an impasse and where they think we may be harming people in the policy. I think that's the more appropriate route to go.

Can I ask one last question?

One last question.

Thank you for your indulgence. Can I ask Oversight Commission to comment on your perspective of this situation?

I think this discussion is implying that this Bill comes from the Commission. It does not. It comes from other people who are very concerned about overuse of restrictive housing in the correctional facilities. We do have a very large mandate and we address many, many things. And this is just one of many issues that we will be addressing.

When I say I don't, I agree with the Director that we should not be involved in operations. This Bill does not ask us to get involved in operations. It asks that we monitor it, that we overview and we submit reports. That's what we do already. Did that answer your question, I hope?

Yeah, it doesn't. But I'll be respectful to Chair's timing.

Thank you. Question for the Director. Thanks, Martha. Director, you referenced in your testimony, Section 1, page 5, lines 1 to 2, appearing to provide operational decision making to the Commission. The words say, require the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission to review certain housing placements.

Could you explain why that causes you to conclude that this exceeds the intent of the legislation creating the Commission.

Because I take that to mean that I could be wrong, I take that to mean that the Commission review our decisions regarding housing and then make changes. If I'm wrong in that, then that's my fault.

Well, what if they review it and make recommendations?

That's fine with me as long as it's recommendation.

This doesn't say that they have any operational control.

But that's how I interpret it.

But it doesn't say they have any operational control. Just says they review certain housing placements. I just want to make it clear to everyone here and everyone who's listening. That's the language in the Bill. Okay. Okay.

So I would.

You're assuming that causes operational.

I would ask that the language be changed to say that they. They review and make recommendations, just as you indicated. I think that is fair for everyone concerned.

Okay. And then this is not the first time a measure like this has come before this Committee. You're familiar, you've been before this Committee testifying on previous measures on this.

Correct?

So to say that this has never been brought up before isn't really.

When I said. When I said I meant that.

No, I'm just saying this has been clear as an issue that the Legislature has wanted to address. Whether the Commission has made it a priority is a separate matter. I'm just saying that it's clear from this Legislature we are concerned about this and that this is not new.

Even though some Members here have not dealt with it before, this Committee has dealt with it before. So, Director, I just want to make it clear to you, we are very concerned about this.

I understand, but my statement was that. And I specifically stated that the Commission didn't raise concerns prior, not the Legislature didn't. I said the Commission.

What have you done to address the concerns that this Legislature has brought up in previous sessions? I don't see any change in your policies.

If you go back and look at the policy before 2024, I think the last update in 2022, before that, it was in 2019, I think, before the pandemic, I think you'll see changes. And if you track the NIC and ACA guidelines, you'll see the policy tracks with those guidelines.

What have you changed in the last two years?

In the policy, in the 2024 update, I believe. Let me go back to the policy. We changed some of the definitions. We were getting away from segregation type wording, and we changed procedures in 5.0 on page three.

I think it would be really helpful for the Legislature, for the Commission, for advocates, for us to know what you're doing to address this concern because it's clearly not going away. And you know, we are very concerned about the issue about the policy and it's not been resolved as to the satisfaction of stakeholders.

I'd like the Commission to be more involved. So I agree with you. I mean, I'd like a collaborative working relationship there to be able to address these concerns. They know a whole lot more about it and can spend more time working on it, even though they have so many things to do.

So I would just really encourage you to take this very seriously because we do have a significant concern.

I do. And I'll reach out to the coordinator, Christian Johnson, to sit down and go over the policy with the ACA and NIC guidelines. And then the Commission is free to consult with Kat Brady, the ACLU, whomever they feel is appropriate, and we'll consult with NIC and ACA.

I'm sure we can come to a happy medium on the policy. To be honest with you, you, I think, I think all parties concerned need to actually read the policy and look at the guidelines and look at what we have in the policy and look at the resources we have.

Understood. Thank you. Other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much Director. Let's move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 825, Senate Draft 2, HD1 relating to eviction mediation.

This measure says beginning February 5th, 2026 extends the period for a notice of termination of a rental agreement from five business days to 10 calendar days and requires landlords, their agents and tenants to engage in mediation and requires landlords and their agents to delay filing an action for summary possession if a tenant schedules and requires landlords or their agents to provide specific information in the 10 calendar day notice to tenants and requires mediation to take place within 30 days of the date that a mediation center makes contact with both the landlord or the landlord's agent and tenant.

First up, we have testimony from, testimony in support from the Department of Human Services. Next, we have testimony in support from the Judiciary. Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Representatives. My name is Jeff Crabtree. I'm from the Judiciary Center for Dispute Resolution. We largely stand on a written testimony available for questions. But I have just two brief comments I'd like to highlight.

First, some of the opposition to the bill basically implies that the measure would not truly be helpful unless there's also a rent relief component to it, namely money for the landlords. Judiciary just respectfully disagrees that we see the success of mediation in our district courts and family courts every day.

And while it's technically true that, sure, if you had money with rent relief, it might increase the benefit of the measure, the fact that there is no rent relief should not take away from the benefits of mediation. And then, second comment briefly. Well, first of all, we had details about what I just said in our written testimony.

But second thing that I did not mention in our testimony because we're just getting stats out now. Last session, Act 202, the legislature established pre-eviction mediation for Maui fire survivors. Our office has been helping to administer it. We're now five weeks into it since the governor listed the moratorium.

And we are getting a good percentage of agreements between landlords and tenants for the cases that actually go to mediation. And there's no rent relief in that bill, so more evidence that mediation is effective. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And I appreciate you educating us about that, even without funding for rent relief, mediation does help.

Thank you.

Very good message.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Certainly, certainly. Okay, next we have the Mediation Center of the Pacific.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Tracy Wilkin. I represent the Mediation Center of the Pacific. We stand on our testimony with two points. I'd like to reinforce the point that Judge Crabtree made about the rental assistance. The Act 57 program was a unique program because of the moratorium.

There needed to be rental assistance because people hadn't been paying their rent for months and months beyond their control. So certainly it helped make a robust program. But we also saw even without it, mediation was successful. And as a result, the Mediation center the Pacific on Oahu has maintained an early eviction mediation program.

There is no rental assistance and we continue to have a high rate of agreement. And what we're asking for with this bill is a one year pilot statewide to prove that and build on the momentum we have.

We don't want to lose the momentum because it's too easy for landlords and even tenants to go back to the same mindset of we'll wait, we'll go to court. The last point I wanted to make, I know a couple people said it delays landlords opportunities, but it really doesn't.

It's giving them an early opportunity to come to the table and have conversations before the tenant's hole is so deep there's no way they can pay and they just walk away. So I urge you to pass this bill. Thank you. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Ms. Wilkin. We've received total 11 testimonies in support, two in opposition, one with comments. Next person we have to testify is Lindsey Garcia. Welcome. Please proceed.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Lindsey Garcia from Hawaii Realtors. So we do stand on our comments. Just wanted to highlight a few things. We do support mediation.

The reason why we point out emergency rent relief is because it was a very key component of the last eviction mediation program during COVID as was highlighted by the other testifiers. And it was very, very helpful for ensuring the success of the program. That being said, we do believe that mediation itself does hold a lot of value.

But this Bill is focused on tenants that are being going through the eviction process because they choose to stop paying rent for whatever reason that may be.

Ideally, we would hope that the tenants could reach out earlier before they're struggling to, or before they've decided to cease paying rent, to reach out to ask for the services for mediation before it gets to that point. And so that's kind of what we're, what we are hoping to achieve.

There is other measures that are floating around in the Legislature this year, including one setting up a landlord tenant working group that hopefully we would have all the stakeholders come together to talk about looking at the entire landlord tenant code, seeing if there are ways that we can weave in mediation even earlier into the process to be able to better help tenants and landlords to ensure that people can stay in their housing, but also to ensure that we reduce conflict, we reduce the amount of cases that are in the courts that bog down the courts so that issues can be resolved sooner and hopefully to everybody's satisfaction.

So that's kind of what we're saying in our testimony. Just wanted to highlight that for you all. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Ms. Garcia, is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 825 House Draft 1. If not questions, Members questions. Thank you very much. The testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1388 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 relating to education.

This measure adds two ex officio members that represent the Department of Education and the Board of Education to the School Facilities Authority Board. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Education.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Excuse me, Dean Uchida, Deputy Superintendent with Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. I'll be here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

You're just in support of the measure, as is?

I provided some comments about.

You want to highlight what your concerns are, if you have any?

Sure. We would like to make the two members voting members go back to a version of the bill that allowed them to be seven members, all full voting members on the authorities board.

Currently, there are ex officio but non-voting.

And you want to change it to voting?

Could you explain why?

Correct.

Correct.

Well, the SFA has a lot of authority, a lot of power, and I think we're responsible for the school and the facilities. And I think it's important that the DOE has a say in whatever SFA does on the school properties, as it might impact the learning environment for the students.

Thank you, Mr. Uchida.

Okay, thank you.

Next, Hawaii State Board of Education with comments.

Aloha and good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepo,e and members. Capsun Poe, Executive Director of the board. And just here, you do have our written testimony supporting the intent of the measure. And we do want to thank the committee for hearing this administration bill. I do want to make sure I note that similarly, that was similarly voiced.

The board does believe that having its voice on the SFA board would help with some of the accountability, strategic input, as well as oversight. And therefore, similar to the department, the board prefers that they be voting seats. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Poe. Next, Hawaii School Facilities Authority.

Good afternoon, Ricky Fujitani with the School Facilities Authority. We offer comments. The authority is committed to collaboration, and we support any change in government that improves collaboration between the authority and the Department of Education. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1388, House draft one? If not, questions, members. Representative Perruso.

For Mr. Poe, please. So I'm just curious about the context that gives rise to this bill, because the structural situation has been in place for a few years. So I'm wondering, are there specific conflicts or specific examples you can provide as to why it's now necessary to change the structure of the SFA board?

Sure. Well, instead of pointing to specific problems, I think it's just of a broader level, meaning by having seats on the board, it would ensure some communication, some alignment, and some collaboration in all of our efforts that there have been challenges.

And I think this is one way that the board sees that it can be part of the solution in overcoming, whether it be operational challenges, logistics challenges, funding challenges, and the board believes that that's why it wants to have more of a voice.

You know, the board can receive updates, but I think it is important to have a seat at the table, as you know, and to be able to vote.

Yeah, I mean, the reason I ask is because the funding streams are separate. So it strikes me as perhaps something of a conflict for you folks to be on the board, because we do allocate funding specifically to SFA for them to accomplish their mission. And it is related to, of course, the department's mission.

But I feel like the department is already struggling in multiple areas. It strikes me as strange that you seek to have more authority over this space, and yet there are so many other areas where we could be.

Yes, I will give you. You know, again, there are challenges. There are other things out there. But to your point, right. The department is SFA's largest client, and, you know, the department, although the board has more oversight than just the department, you know, including the libraries, the charters, Teacher Standards Board.

But the department takes up more than 95% of the board's attention. And so that's, again, why the board is trying to be here, present at the table. I said earlier to, I think, at another hearing, that, you know, we.

It's clear we, our communities and our keiki, you know, they are definitely needing school facilities, and this is part of the board trying to get that moving.

Okay. And so just like, to be clear, like, on boards, it's usually that body's authorizing organization. Right. And we don't normally see clients of that body also incorporated into the board. So that is just really, like, the source of my questions. Okay. So thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you very much. Other questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for DOE. So my line of questioning is kind of following Representative Perruso's, because my understanding is the SFA was created for a purpose, and, as Representative Perruso just mentioned, it would be odd for the client to be part of this board that is overseeing and tasked with a mission.

So my understanding is there is regular meetings between the SFA and the DOE as the client. Is that correct?

Yeah, we started some recently. We're meeting, I think, weekly and biweekly right now.

Yeah. One is every two weeks, and I think one is every week.

Weekly and biweekly?

Okay, that sounds pretty often, in my opinion, as far as you having the opportunity to communicate, express your concerns that you testified that you would want to have that opportunity, and that's the reason why you want to be on the board.

So I don't understand the reason for being on the board when you already have that opportunity, meeting once a week or even biweekly, to have free communication, expressing yourself, and having that free ability at this point. So, so, so why would you need to be on the board when you already have this communication opportunity?

Well, a lot of decisions at the board level would probably would impact our facilities because while SFA is charged to do construction, most of the construction will occur on DOE lands. And we are concerned about potential impacts for our operation of the schools.

That's why it's important that we get involved at that policy level to understand the direction they're going, and we can protect, you know, the education environment of our school systems.

But, but with two positions versus five, you would probably not be able to, quote control anything that's, you know, contrary to the SFA, which, again, they've been created and tasked with a mission, so. I yield, Chair.

Okay.

I just, when asked that, ask a question.

Okay. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. Thank you very much. The testifiers. We'll move on. Senate Bill 423. Senate Draft 1. House Draft 1. Relating to the Early Learning Board.

This measure adds the Director of the Hawaii Head Start State Collaboration Office or their designee as an ex officio non voting Member of the Early Learning Board and requires the Early Learning Board to invite the President of the Head Start Association of Hawaii or their designee to serve as an ex officio non voting Member of the board.

And it requires the Early Learning Board to invite a representative of local providers of early childhood education and development services to serve as an ex officio non voting Member if no voting Member fulfills that role. First up, we have the Executive Office of On Early Learning.

Hi Chair Tarnas Vice Chair P.O. Members of the Committee, I'm Yuko Ar, Director of the Executive Office on Early Learning. We stand in strong support of SB423HD1 and I thank the Committee for hearing this Bill. In February, this Committee heard and passed out a similar measure, HB 1066.

That Bill and this one before you this afternoon address the need to bring the composition of the Early Learning Board into compliance with the Federal Head Start act, the only substantive difference between SB 423 and the House Bill that you previously heard in this v.

In this that this vehicle also contains language to ensure that representation of early childhood education and development services is included in the makeup of the Board going forward.

This is also a requirement of the Federal Head Start act but was not included in the original version of the bill because the membership of our current board includes an individual who satisfies this requirement.

We support the addition of this language to ensure that this is not accidentally overlooked in the future and the EOEL supports the current version of this Bill and respectfully requests the Committee's consideration of an amendment to change the effective date to upon approval. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, the Early Learning Board on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Maui. The Board stands on its testimony and strong support of this bill and I think Yuko explained it very well. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. And then we've also received written testimony support from Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 423 Senate draft 1 House draft 1 if not questions Members seeing none. Thank you very much.

We'll move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1009, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to parking. This measure establishes a state reserved parking space enforcement fine for parking and parking spaces reserved for persons with disabilities or electric vehicles to be deposited into the Safe Routes to School Program Special Fund and increases the fines for any person who parks a non-electric vehicle in a space designated and marked as reserved for electric vehicles. First up, we have Department of Accounting and General Services on Zoom. Mr. Arakaki, please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. We stand by the written testimony submitted by the Comptroller and available to answer any questions.

Could you summarize the main points of the testimony, please, for those who may not have had a chance to read it?

Sure. So we do have comments on this measure. Although the measure identifies that only reserve parking space enforcement fines be deposited into the Safe Routes for School Program Fine Fund, it does contradict with the statute HRS 101, 10711 that states all fines collected by the Motor Pool Parking Control go into the State Parking Revolving Fund.

Thank you very much for that explanation. Next, we have testimony in support from the Disability and Communication Access Board.

Yes. Hi. Good afternoon, Chair. Thank you for hearing this bill. And I want to thank your staff and Vice Chair's staff. We submitted testimony on a bill that's actually being heard in a different committee yesterday, and they helped us get that corrected this morning. I'm here on behalf of our Executive Director, Kirby Shaw. DCAB is in support of this bill.

DCAB is not in charge of enforcement, but we are in charge of issuing the disability parking permits. We have over 100,000 people in the state that currently have one, and they often do contact us when they run into problems, observe misuse and abuse of accessible parking spaces. So we know that it is a problem out there. So anything that can serve as additional deterrent like this bill does, we strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We received testimony from Department of Budget and Finance. You want to testify on a later bill or this one? Director Salaveria.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Well, yeah, I was going to testify on the later one. I just wanted to reiterate. I mean our concern, or at least the comments that we did provide to the committee just highlights some of the nuances with regards to the establishment of this particular subaccount within the special fund. And then making sure that there is a nexus between the fine being assessed and the benefit or at least the program that is being funded with it. So be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Next, we have testimony in support from the Ulupono Initiative.

Thank you so much. Chair, vice chair and members of the committee. Mariah Yoshizu, on behalf of Ulupono Initiative we are supportive of this measure. In particular the Safe Routes to School. A portion of the fines going to the Safe Routes to School program special fund.

An analysis of Hawaii EMS calls showed that children are most likely to be injured when they're walking or rolling biking to school. So we hope that with but through the means of this bill and finding funding mechanisms to build safer infrastructure, we can help mitigate that- that risk and the safety of our children can be top priority.

There's over 800 million that we need to invest in infrastructure projects and that's just a preliminary search so that we hope that by a portion of these fines going to that we can start to chip away at that need. So thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next we have Abby Seitz with Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice on zoom.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair and members of the committee. My name is Abby Seitz and I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. We are providing comments on this measure.

We support the intent of this bill which seeks to address the misuse of parking designated for disabled individuals as well as electric vehicles while also generating funding for the Safe Routes of School program. Our organization is, you know, advocates for this-

this program which supports the building of pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure within a 1 mile radius of schools and as Ulupono pointed out is a critical need in Hawaii. We are however concerned about some of the steep fire proposed in this bill and worry about the negative impacts this could impose on low income residents.

And as such we have a few suggested amendments in our written testimony. Thank you so much for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We've received a total of nine testimonies in support, zero in opposition and four with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to provide oral testimony on Senate Bill 1900 House Draft 1? If not questions members? Nope. I have a question but I don't know who to ask it to.

I have a question I just wanted to clarify.

You have to pick a person to ask.

Okay, I will pick DAGS on Zoom.

Mr. Arakaki. Please proceed, representative.

I just wanted to clarify. Hope you know the answer. The new fines that are being proposed, do you know that?

Yes, the $100 I believe it is.

So it's an additional hundred to the current fines. My understanding is handicap stall is 250 to $500 and the new law would be an additional $100 to- to the existing.

That's correct.

And as far as the EV, would it just be another $100 to the existing also?

Gosh, I think- I think that has also increased. Currently it's at $65. So it would be an additional $100 to the current fine of 65.

Okay, understood. Thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, members? Not thank you very much to the testifiers and members, let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 662 Senate Draft one House Draft one relating to transportation. This measure authorizes county police officers to enforce the state statewide traffic code on all public streets, roadways and highways within the state.

We have Jacob Weinschik testifying in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions? Are not going to have any. We don't have anyone to ask, so we'll move on. Senate Bill 1667 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 related to transportation.

This is an omnibus bill with a whole lot of things in it. Prohibits any vehicles from blocking marked crosswalks. Requires a person under arrest who refuses to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test to surrender their license to a law enforcement officer. Increases the duration of the suspension of a license when a person is arrested for driving under the influence and refuses to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test.

And it goes on. It authorizes State Highway Safety Modernization Council to select new areas for additional photo red light imaging detector systems. Authorizes DOT to implement additional automated speed enforcement systems in school zones and requires annual reports. First up, we have the Judiciary with comments on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe. This is Ernest Delima with the Judiciary on behalf of SB 1667. We submitted written testimonial with stand on that. I'd make some comments. You know, in general, our concerns are with the potential for the additional volume that would be created by these potential 25 additional automated speed enforcement systems on the Judiciary.

We would request that any expansions remain in consultation with both the community and Judiciary if possible. We did provide some examples of the current 10 cameras that are active and the types of numbers that are generated from that monthly is about 1900 that need to be processed by the courts. That's just for the 10 that are currently active.

You know, we did ask that potentially that there might be consideration for an appropriation of $750,000, and that would be used to help the Judiciary to develop its data system to ingest e-citations that will be coming in potentially from law enforcement who might be utilizing a variety of different vendors throughout the state for this particular initiative.

It also help us to develop our information system to update that and to try to minimize the data entry that's required on our staff and then also allow us to kind of assist with future expansion for this purpose. So those are kind of our concerns that are outlined in our testimony, and I can be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from the Office of the Public Defender on Zoom.

Thank you. The Office of the Public Defender is in opposition to several aspects of this bill. The first one is that we oppose the mandatory driver's license extension with respect to the reckless driving event. We feel that it the penalties that are already statutory mandated, which include an SR 22 that is triggered from a conviction of this offense, is the adequate and sufficient punishment and deterrence.

Having an automatic driver's license suspension or mandatory one would be overly burdensome and disproportionately impact the lower income segment of our community. Another portion of the bill that we are in objection to is the increase of the driver's license inspection for the under 21 breath refusal.

That is enhancing the penalty for three year license suspension if a 19 or 20 year old, 18, 19, or 20 year old refuses to participate in the breath test. This is more than what an adult would face, somebody who's over 21. And I'm not sure why the bill was written that way, but you know, ideally the adult who's over 21 should know better than somebody who's 18, 19, 20.

And this portion or this segment of the population is really the younger portion which we should be supporting and setting up for success, making sure that they're able to go to school, be gainfully employed. And at least the Office of the Public Defender has a large segment from the west side of rural communities, and this measure with three year license restriction or suspension would disproportionately impact those individuals.

And having a mandatory increase in the license suspension is also in contradiction to the shift in what the district courts are really trying to do. The district courts are really trying to shift from this punitive withholding the driver's license to more of a promoting and enabling it to get their license back under the law. And part of that is because the court as well as my office impact on the community when an individual does not have a license. It impacts their ability to have a job, income, to take children to school, to take family members to medical appointments.

If you could summarize please.

We're objecting to this, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. And next person who said they wish to testify is Abbey Seitz, Hawaii Appleseed Center.

Aloha again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Abbey Seitz with Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. We are testifying in support of a few of the aspects of this bill. And this measure has a number of provisions to address pedestrian safety.

Each year we tragically lose around 100 people on our roadways, with hundreds more critically injured. In 2024 alone, there was 102 roadway fatalities, with a staggering 42% of those fatalities being pedestrians and bicyclists. Of the safety measures in this bill, we are particularly supportive of the provisions for pedestrian lead times, which are found in Section 5.

These are also known as leading pedestrian intervals, which allow pedestrians a few more seconds to start crossing the street before the turns green for vehicles, making pedestrians more visible. These are extremely effective and low cost solutions to improve pedestrian safety. We do, however have concerns similarly to the Judiciary as well as the Public Defender.

And those concerns regard the Judiciary's ability to process the growing number of citations as well as the potential economic impacts of some of the punitive measures of this bill, particularly those regarding the increases to license revocation. And lastly, we would also like to see the requirements surrounding the leading pedestrian intervals strengthened. So to address some of these concerns, we've included a number of suggested amendments in our written testimony. Thank you so much for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Ms. Seitz. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 1667, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? I have a question for Mr. Delima. On this one, your testimony says that the 10 intersections with existing red light photo detection systems issued an average of 1991 citations per month in 2024.

Then you reference a news story from January 2025 reporting that during a one week period the automated speed camera system recorded 22,000 vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit by at least 11 miles per hour. Could you describe to us what your system capacity is to process the citations that could have been issued by the automated speed camera system that recorded 22,000 vehicles? Do you have a capacity to handle that now?

No. That clearly would have overwhelmed the First Circuit courts in Oahu, Chair Tarnas. And you know, I can give you some examples when we go back to Covid or other time periods, you know, when there were Mauna Kea on the Third Circuit, when there are high spikes in citations needing to be issued, there was definite backlogs that were created by that in those two particular situations.

So, yeah, if you had a significant bump like that that had occurred, there would definitely have been a significant impact on the First Circuit being able to process that in a timely manner. You know, the challenge comes with any citation situation is that there's people that are going to contest those citations as well.

So those have to be set for hearings. And then in addition to being set for hearings, hearings then have to be conducted to deal with those contested matters. So it's not just processing the citations, it's also dealing with the other potential things that may occur. It's also the hearings that could come out of that.

I'm just concerned that even, let's say we start to allow citations off of the existing automated speed camera system, which this committee had previously decided would only be in the existing red light photo detection sites. So it's just those 10. Right. And you can't even handle those.

And this bill contemplates increasing them, you know, by an additional significant margin, 25 more and perhaps more after that. What do you think that the Judiciary needs to do in order for the state to adopt more of these automated speed camera systems?

I think through our written testimony, we've been asking to work collaboratively with DOT to kind of look at the issue of expansion. I think obviously we need to improve our technology so that we can receive these citations in a more effective way, especially if there's a possibility, like let's say, if there's more cameras that are placed on the neighbor islands. Those police departments could elect to potentially use maybe a different vendor at that time.

So we could then start receiving citations in a lot of different formats if it's not the same consistent vendor throughout the state. Right. So our technology has to develop along with that. So I think there's two key things. You know, we need more time to be able to kind of deal with this particular issue and work with the DOT effectively. And then potentially there's going to be resources that are needed both maybe in personnel as well as our technology, so that we can start to kind of deal with this issue.

Okay, thank you. While this, we'll see what happens with this measure, I would just urge you and the Judiciary to start those conversations with DOT. Because even if we don't expand the system, if we just allowed the citations from the existing 10 systems that we have in Honolulu, that would overwhelm you. So if you could, if you could, please. I'll ask DOT to do the same. If you could, you know, start those conversations and figure out a way to move forward.

And clearly you've requested funding, and if that's what you need, tell us. If you've got technology solutions, you know, see if you can find them and help us out. Because it clearly there's interest among many legislators that you start to adopt more of these automated speed camera systems. I'm just wanting to make sure that you have the capacity to deal with the citations that will come from it.

Much appreciated. Yeah. And I believe Director Sniffen has reached out to my First Circuit counterpart to start those discussions. So, yes, we definitely recognize the importance to do that.

Thank you. I appreciate your attention to this. Thank you. Other questions, members? If not thank you. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 763 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 relating to the Department of Law Enforcement. This measure establishes the agricultural enforcement program within the Department of Law Enforcement and establishes a special fund.

First up, we have the County of Hawaii Office of Prosecuting Attorney in support. And we have the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Mr. Miyamoto.

Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. We are in support of this measure. We had vibrant discussion yesterday on two other Ag crime bills. This one is slightly different, chair. This one creates an actual law enforcement program, actually puts boots on the ground.

It- It- It establishes 45 positions within the Department of Law enforcement, investigator positions, actual law enforcement officers, even a deputy chief. We believe that this will have some results because they'll work directly with the farmers. We'll get our own police force. It also will coordinate with the county police and DOE care.

So, again, this is a really comprehensive law enforcement program that will be able to work, to work with the farmers and ranchers, build those relationships, build up the trust, and we believe this will go a long way to decreasing the amount of ag crimes that we are seeing that are impacting our farmers and ranchers.

So we are in strong support of this measure as well as the other or the other law enforcement or ag crimes bill that passed yesterday. So we ask for the committee's consideration on passing and moving this bill forward. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Sure. Thank you very much. We've received written testimony, support from the Purple Maya Foundation, and we have testimony on Zoom from Nicole Galassi, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Nicole Galassi, on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, we're in strong support of this bill because it gives both the funding and the directive to the Department of Law Enforcement to directly address ag crimes.

We believe that Department of Law Enforcement is the best department to deal with this because they've already been engaging with agriculture and the Department of Law Enforcement has that background, the experience to deal with dangerous crimes that come up, things like trespassing with a gun, poaching. And so thank you for considering this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, Ms. Galassi. Next we have Raquel Achiu on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, chair.

Aloha. Good to see you again.

I know you couldn't have a day without me, so--

You bring sunshine to my life. Please proceed.

Appreciate the opportunity and the inclusion here. I have submitted, submitted written testimony, of which I stand by and as well mirror Hawaii Cattlemen's Council and Hawaii Farm Bureau's testimonies. This opportunity of this bill provides an actual move and some real tangible recourse for us. And that's just what we need. You know, we're just trying to ensure.

I think the biggest part of it is ensuring that the jurisdiction part of it is addressed for response and ability to call upon DLE whether you're on state property, city property lease or even private property. My experience has been very difficult with getting response being on leased land by a private owner.

So I'm hoping the jurisdictional part of it can be addressed and understanding that there is someone that we can call and say, hey, I got a problem. I hear right now. Who do I call?

The whole process part of it and really put some meat behind addressing and attacking the problem and making sure that, you know, we have the recourse that we have been talking about. So I appreciate the opportunity and look forward to seeing this through. Mahalo.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 763 House Draft 1? Seeing none. Questions, members? Seeing none thank you.

Let's move on to the last measure on our agenda for testimony and that is Senate Bill 935 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 relating to government this measure does a number of things.

Sets the retirement allowance for a member who first earns credited service as a judge after June 30, 2025 to 1.75% of the judge's average final compensation for each year of credited service as a judge. It also reduces the minimum number of years of credited service qualified.

Tier 2 Employees Retirement System Members must have to be eligible for vested benefit status for service retirement allowance purposes from 10 years to five years and it increases employer contributions to offset the resulting liability. First up, we have the Office of the Governor in support. We have Department of Labor and Industrial Relations in support.

Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund with comments. Department of Budget and Finance with comments. Thanks for being here director. Please, please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members, I don't normally testify in front of the Judiciary Committee, so this is brand new process to me. So you know, the Department will stand on its comments.

What we really wanted to highlight is that there are provisions within the bill that we just want the Legislature to understand could result in an increase into the state's unfunded liability. I think there are provisions that within there I will defer to ERS with certain provisions, but specifically the provision related to the sheriffs and the deputies.

I think changing the particular benefit package that them will add to the state's unfunded liability, which currently stands at a little bit under $14 billion right now.

And so we just ask if we do decide to proceed forward that, you know, again, I don't want the Legislature to say it's like why did you not tell us that this would have added to the liability going forward. So I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. And thank you.

Thank you. You'll definitely need to if this bill moves forward, you definitely need to be there for finance when they ask these questions. Next, the Employees Retirement System. Mr. Williams, welcome. Thanks for being here.

Good afternoon. Chair, vice chair, members of the committee, I'm Tom Williams, the Executive Director of the Employees Retirement System, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify on Senate Bill 935. Chair, as you've articulated, this bill has three distinct components.

The first relates to the- to a reduction in the multiplier applicable to Judge's service after June 30th of 2020- June 30th of 2025. We take no position as it relates to that particular component. So. But do we- But we do provide what we think are clarifying comments.

The second component of the bill relates to a reduction in the vesting period applicable to tier 2 employees from 10 years to 5 years. The ERS board has reviewed that particular recommendation and strongly supports it.

We think it would significantly enhance the ability of our plan to recruit and retain new employees and improve the fiscal stability of the plan longer term. The third component relates to the provision of enhanced benefits for sheriffs and sheriff's deputies. We have some significantly strong concerns about the impact that that enhancement would have on the ers.

It has a potential for retroactivity. It would potentially constitute an enhancement in benefits that's precluded by current statutes. We think that it does not provide for increased contributions that apply to enhanced benefits. Employers currently in this group contribute 8%. They'd have to contribute 142 going forward. Employers contribute 24%. Now will go to 24.

So for those and additional reasons, as not yet stated, but in our testimony, we are significantly concerned about that component. I'm available to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. Next, the Judiciary. Rod Miley.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, my name is Rod Miley. I'm the Administrative Director of the Courts. We'll stand on our testimony in strong opposition to Section 1, which would reduce the retirement allowance for judges. I'd like to thank this committee for hearing this bill and for this opportunity.

I also like to thank the individuals and the organizations that submitted testimony also. Sharing concerns about the impact of this bill. It's really a question of fundamental fairness. Judges are the only ones identified in this bill which will have their retirement benefits reduced cumulatively by half. Originally, the retirement benefits were calculated at 3.5%.

This would reduce it down to 1.75. In the past, when those reductions were. Made, they were made across the board. So the Governor, the Legislature, the judges. All had the same reduction put in place. This is different. So for those reasons, we would ask respectfully that this portion of the bill be removed.

There are other parts that we think are good, but as long as this bill has this particular language, we have to respectfully oppose. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Miley. Next. Judge Kim. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the committee. The judiciary and the state courts are your last vestige to support the rule of law. The judiciary is the third branch of government. Legislators should get a pay raise. Legislators should be paid more. The Governor should accept the pay raise. Because your job is difficult.

You have to run for election. Judges have to isolate themselves. They have to give up their practices. They have to shield themselves from activities with other attorneys that they grew up with. They have to take the assault, the threats and the like. And what we're facing right now is a crisis.

We can't fill the positions on the outer islands. Nobody wants to be a judge. My position, which I aged out at 70, I told the Judicial Selection Committee one year before my 70th birthday, I'm not going to be here. They haven't filled that position yet. This was in 2023. We can't get enough candidates.

Unintentionally, this sends a message, and I hope that. And quite frankly, if I could just say, does this contribute to minimizing the budget? And so I would ask that you support our position, which is to oppose that reduction. Keep it as it is. Give us that helping hand to recruit good judges to protect the rule of law.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next person who said they wish to testify is Kamakana Kaimuloa, UBW. Welcome. Please proceed.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Kamakana Kaimaloa, Government Affairs Manager for United Public Workers. You have our written testimony providing comments. We do strongly support part two of this bill. We believe it could help employers address the staffing shortages across both the counties and the state. However, we do oppose part one of this bill.

You know, we echo the concerns of those before us who have. Who opposed that section. You know, the judiciary is critical to safeguarding labor protections, upholding collective bargaining agreements, and enforcing labor standards. We feel that part one actually undermines the stability and integrity of the judicial system.

Happy to answer any questions you may have thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Sure. Thank you very much. Next person that said they wish to testify is Corey Weinberger. West Hawaii Bar Association on Zoom.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Corey Weinberger, and I'm the Vice President of the West Hawaii Bar Association. I am just here to echo the concerns that have been raised already by those that are testifying today regarding the provisions that would reduce the retirement benefits for judges in West Hawaii.

We've had a vacancy here on our circuit court that has been open for over 600 days. Judge Kim is there and just explained that we've not had enough applicants for judicial positions here on the outer islands.

I can tell you, as somebody who's very active in our local West Hawaii bar, that the reason that the position had to be advertised three times over the course of over a year is because nobody wanted to apply for that position. The pay is just not competitive. It's not a glamorous job. It's long hours.

We really need good judges. And this provision, this proposed cut in pensions, I think really has the potential to negatively impact the quality of justice statewide, but in our own community where we've had this issue, and I would. Really just ask that this committee reconsider that provision.

The rest of this bill would provide more benefits to state workers, and it's just not clear to me why judges are being singled out. So I just want to reiterate that, and thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much, Ms. Weinberger. Next person I wish to testify is Mark Murakami, Hawaii State Bar Association.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, we tried to submit our testimony in compliance with your rules yesterday, twice, and once again this morning. So I apologize. I do think it's been submitted. It is in our package.

Thank you for your diligence and efforts to keep trying.

You know lawyers, we like to put a lot of words before the tribunal. So the Hawaii State Bar Association does oppose the aspects of this bill related to the judicial pension. I do think that as the Kona Circuit courtship judgeship sets forth very clearly that we have a mounting crisis with our bar and our community.

And if you look at the demographics of our bar, when you take into account the minimum years required to be a circuit or appellate judge in the state of 10 years, the mandatory retirement currently of 70, you have a really narrow window in populace to draw judicial applicants for.

And I do think that a robust applicant pool is critical to provide the Governor and the Chief Justice the solid qualified candidates that we all want our judicial system to be led by.

And so we do think that pension and the percentages is a key part of what a private practice attorney will be thinking about when they decide to put in their name to submit to a very public and political process. And so we think that the case has not been made that there's an.

Immediate budget call to reduce judges pensions. That they're causing some kind of problem with the state budget. And so we would ask that this committee not approve this language as it's written. I'll stand by for questions if you'd like. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Murakami. Next person said they wish to testify is Sergio Acubilla on Zoom not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 935 HD1? Yes. Please come on up. You could introduce yourself, please.

Aloha maikako, Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe and members of the committee. My name is Ivan Lui Kwan. I'm Vice Chair of the American Judicial Society and we have submitted written testimony. We are deeply concerned with the difficulty that the judiciary is having with recruiting qualified judges.

For that reason, we are opposed to the provision that support one in the bill that would reduce retirement benefits for judges. What is happening in our national government highlights the importance of a qualified and independent judiciary of the three branches of government.

On the national level, it's the judiciary, it's the judges that are standing out to stand up for our rule of law. At the end of the day, a qualified and independent judiciary really requires good qualified, independent judges.

It is our judges at the end of the day who deliver justice to all of our citizens, which is fair, reasoned and compassionate. It is our judges who strengthen the rule of law. It's our judges who defend our institutions which are the foundation of democracy. For letting me provide testimony, thank you.

Mr. Lui Kwan just remembers we the testimony Mr. Lui Kwan has presented we did receive in writing from the American Judicature Society. So it's in your packet. Thank you very much. Mr. Lui Kwan. Others who wish to testify, please come on up and introduce yourself.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members. Nui Sebast, here, Legislative Manager for HGEA. We submitted written comments. I do just want to elaborate that we are in strong support of the provision that looks to reduce the vesting period for tier 2 members from 10 years to 5 years.

We believe that that will help with the recruitment and retention of government employees. However, also in opposition and echo some of the concern, the concerns that were brought up at this hearing today about reducing the multiplier for judges. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And members, we do have the HGEA testimony in our packet. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not questions, members?

Well, I have a question. Yes, I do. But my question, and I want to be very clear, I don't necessarily support, I really don't support part one, but I guess just ask the question for the judge.

Judge Kim.

Judge Kim, come on up. Judge Kim. Former judge.

Yes.

So if this.

Former Judge Kim. I know, but you know, it's just out of courtesy we call you.

I appreciate that.

So I'm really concerned that this appears to target the judiciary and I hear what you say about that. All branches probably deserve a pay raise and so that it might be more appropriate to have done this through the salary commission.

But if this were to advance with the reduction to judges, would it be fair to say if we treated all branches of government the same and applied reductions to the legislative and Executive- Executive branch, that it would make it a better bill?

If the motivation behind it is about saving public funds, that would be a polity policy decision that you would have to make.

That's a very diplomatic answer. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Chair.

I was a lawyer. Thank you.

Yeah, right, right. Once a lawyer, always a lawyer. Yeah, yeah. Any other questions, members? Just one question, I guess for HGEA, I could say come on up. It's been asserted that if you reduce the vesting period from 10 to 5 that it would help with recruitment and retention. What evidence do you have to show that?

We don't technically have hard evidence, but I think what I'll say is that it would entice new employees to, to join state workforce, which is the recruitment side from a retention piece. Let's say an employee is four years in state, in state service now they would need to stay for another year and they can continue.

And now they're currently an ERS member after five years and they can continue as an ERS member to continue to put more years into system after that. So hopefully that answers your question. Question that stuff.

You did your best. That's okay. Thank you. Mr. Williams, could I ask you the same question? There's concern that this actually might help with recruitment, but it would not help with retention. What evidence do you have that this would help with both?

Well, it's my sense that we have significant turnover in new staff even in the first 1, 2, 3, 4 years of service, particularly when they go to private sector jobs, oftentimes with higher compensation. I think the availability of a pension within five years.

Defined benefit plans such as we offer is a distinct improvement over the types of benefit that would be available to them in the private sector and may very well encourage them to stay longer than they otherwise would have.

So it would perhaps help with retention for the five years. Do you think it would help beyond five years?

I think so, because once an individual has the experience and begins to improve in terms of benefit security, growing each year an additional percentage of pay, we find that once people are in state employed, they tend to stay because they like the work environment, the challenges and to some extent the compensation.

So I think once in, you're more apt to retain these individuals, but the difficulty is in bringing them into the system in the first instance.

Okay, thanks. Appreciate that. Other questions, members? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers on all these measures. We're going to go ahead and go directly into decision making on the measures that we heard today, plus a couple that we had deferred to decision making today.

Members, if we go to the top of the agenda, Senate Bill 104 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 related to corrections, this is the one that restricts the use of restrictive housing in our correctional facilities, both the ones we operate and we contract to operate.

As I mentioned to the Director, this Committee certainly has concerns about the use of restrictive housing, or call it solitary confinement. And we have passed out measures in the past. We've had hearings on them and expressed our concern about them. And this is coming back again.

And so I will support what the Public Safety Committee has done in moving this bill forward. Would like to do the same. I would recommend we move it forward with some technical amendments or some cleanup. I want to do rather than so I'd like to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

And there's some other technical amendments I just want to explain so it's clear what they are. I want, rather than repeating the phrase except as otherwise provided in subsection D at the beginning of several paragraphs under subsection A, I'd like to insert that language at the beginning of subsection A so that it applies to the entire subsection.

It's just a different way of crafting it so that it's not so repetitive. On page 10, line 5 to 10, I want to clarify, put in clarifying language, that this paragraph shall not be interpreted to delay a committed person's scheduled release, because that was a potential interpretation of this.

In no way would I want this paragraph to be interpreted to delay a committed person's Schedule of Release on page 11, line 19, the word alternately actually should be alternatively. And then on page 17, line 19 and 20, there's a term that's used that's restrictive disciplinary or administrative segregation.

I'm going to just change that to restrictive housing for conformity across the bill. And then finally just technical amendments for clarity, consistency and and style. Those are my recommendations and move this forward to finance. Questions or concerns. Members if not Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on SB104 SD2 HD1 with amendments.[Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 825. Senate draft 2. House draft 1 relating to eviction mediation. Good bill. I think this is ready to move forward to finance and I would just like to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Questions or concerns. Members if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 825 SD2 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1388 Senate Draft 2. House Draft 1 relating to education. I'd like to keep this as the House position that came out of the Education Committee where we're adding two ex officio non voting Members to the School Facilities Authority Board representing the Department of Education and the Board of Education.

Keep the defective effective date to move to conference Committee. So just technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Questions or concerns. Members if not Vice Chair for the.

Vote, please voting on SB 1388 SD2 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? A no vote for Representative Garcia. Reservations for Representative Shimizu. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 423 Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to the Early Learning Board. On this one I'd like to just make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Style and I want to clarify the language so that I think it's right it a little more clearly to make it clear that the intent is for at least one voting Member to have experience as a local provider of early childhood education and development services.

We're just going to change the way it is included in the Bill to make sure that it's clear. So we'll do both technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style and just make that one revision to make that language clearer. Not changing the intent of the language. At all.

We'll keep the defective effective date as it moved out of Education Committee and move it to conference. Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB423 SD1 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1009 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1.

I would like to move this forward with by adopting the amendments from Appleseed and also including some language, it was brought to my attention that it's not in statute, that there's nothing in statute that would provide the Department of Accounting and General Services the flexibility of not ticketing a vehicle based on an inoperable EV charging station.

The Last Committee, it sounded like Daggs was saying that they had the authority, but afterward they said, zero, we really don't. So I would like to add in certain language as follows, adding a new subsection C to section 29172 that reads subsection C.

Notwithstanding subsection A, no fine may be imposed on a person parking in a space designated and marked as reserved for electric vehicles if the electric vehicle charging system within the space is visibly inoperable or broken as determined by an enforcement officer.

Upon the visual inspection at the time of citation issuance, the enforcement officer shall document the inoperability of the charging system in the report, end quote. So that would be added to 1009. Senate draft 2. House draft 1. That's the only. And I would keep the defective effective date in there for now and move this to finance.

Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB1009 SD2 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure. Senate Bill 662, Senate Draft 1. House Draft 1 relating to transportation. I'd like to move this forward to Finance with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Questions or concerns Members if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB662 SD1 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no's or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 1667, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1. This really needs work. So I'm proposing that we delete section 23 and 4, make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. I would also like to. I would like to codify Sections 5 to 8 in the Hawaii Revised Statutes. I would.

In Section 5, line page 7, line 6, change January 1, 2027 to July 1, 2027. Give the Judiciary a little more time to prepare their system to deal with any increase in number of these automatic speed enforcement Systems. In Section 6, page 8, line 12, change from January 1, 2027 to July 1, 2027.

And then in Section 7, page 8, line 20, change from 6 months to 12 months. And then I would like to also on page two, line six, the words or more should be inserted after the word two, so it would be two or more. Page four, line five.

I want to amend the existing language to clarify that the penalty applies for a suspension that occurs within five years of a prior suspension under this section. zero, wait, no, we don't need that. We're taking that out. Right. And then Section 585 to eight of the Bill, we're going to codify in Hawaii Revised Statutes.

And then we'll make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Okay. Sorry for all that, but that's what I'd like to do to move this measure forward to Finance. Questions or concerns, Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 1667 SD2 HD1 with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 763, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1 relating to the Department of Law Enforcement. On this one, I want to move this forward to Finance. I want the term on page seven, line 20 to 21, the term Deputy Director. It should also be defined under Section 353C. A.

And on page 7, lines 2 and 7, the references to Department of Agriculture should be changed to Deputy Director to conform with language in other parts of the Bill. Those are my recommended amendments and I'd like to move it on to Finance. Questions or concerns, Members? Yes, Representative.

Not so much a question or concern, but I just wanted to express my gratitude for your work on this measure and for moving it forward. It's really important for my district. Thank you.

Absolutely. I couldn't do it without you.

You could.

Thank you. It's much better to do it with you, put it that way. And I know this is important to folks in your district and my district and others that have agricultural operations. And thanks to the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems for her work on this as well.

Other comments or concerns, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB763 SD2 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next Measure, Senate Bill 935 Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1 I share the concern of many of the testifiers about the potential negative impact that this provision to reduce the multiplier for the judge's pension. I fear that that would have a very negative impact on the ability to recruit judges. Judges.

This is a very tough job to be judges. You think that the Legislature has got a tough job. The judges have an even more challenging job in many respects. And I think that we need to amend this to delete. We need to adopt the recommended amendments from Judiciary.

Regarding deleting Part one, I really don't think that that's fair to the judges and I will support the judges as we move forward with this measure. I would also like to make a couple of changes too that are more technical changes.

On page nine, line 15, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs should be included in one of these preceding paragraphs for this amendment. Page 20, line 3, the word thereafter should be changed to quote who returns to service or becomes a Member after June 30, 2027.

So it matches similar language throughout the bill on page 21, line 6 to 11, and page 23, lines 3 to 7. I like the way this is constructed.

This amendment splits the language regarding persons who become a Member after June 30, 2012 and who is in service of July 1, 2027 or who returns to service after June 30, 2027 and then the separate group is those who become a Member after June 30, 2027.

I want to use the same construction for other sections so that it's in conformance with the sentence structure for clarity. So I would like to do that and then make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. I want to move this forward without the part one to finance.

For their discussion, I would encourage those who are advocating for the reduction in vesting from 10 years to 5 years to have your data ready to talk to finance because I know that there's skepticism about that component, that this would help both with recruitment and retention.

And then on the section regarding sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, I'd like you to really flesh out your the impact that you see that having on our system and the costs to lay that out for finance so that they can really seriously consider and address that as you move forward.

So with those amendments, I'd like to move this forward to Finance. Questions or concerns Members Nope, Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote please voting.

On SB935 SD2 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? No. For Representative Garcia. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Now moving to the measures that we had deferred from earlier hearings. Senate Bill 1324, Senate Draft 2, relating to fireworks. On this measure, I would like to defect the effect. Well, I'd like to insert the contents of House Bill 1483, House Draft 1, which this Committee and the House approved and sent to the Senate.

I want to make sure we retain the defective effective date. But I also want to include amendments to address the concerns of the commercial fireworks companies, the ones who put on the big fireworks shows at different properties throughout the state. I want to make sure that their existing permit system is not negatively affected by this.

So we would have to make some amendments. And we got some suggested language from phantom fireworks and testimony and from the Hawaii Explosives and Pyrotechnics in that we could incorporate into Our House Draft 1 of this measure to add to the language that we're inserting From House Bill 1483. House draft 1.

So that's my suggested amendments to Senate Bill 1324. Senate draft 2. Questions or concerns, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. There was a concern regarding the neighbor islands wanting to be protected with their consumer type products, sparklers and fountains.

Yeah, I looked at that. I didn't think that that was necessary to include in here, but I appreciate you bringing it up again. I don't think that upon reviewing the language in 1483 that it would affect that.

So they're okay with that? You think that they're okay.

That's my. Yep, that's my analysis of it. Okay. But if you want to vote with reservations to highlight that, you know, that's completely your call.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Other questions or concerns, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 1324 SD2 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? No. Vote no for Representative Garcia.

I will take you up on that and vote with reservations to highlight the neighbor island concern.

Reservations for Representative Shimizu recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your support for the neighbor islands. Representative Shimizu. Next and final measure, Senate Bill 694 relating to detention of minors. And this. We needed to do some more homework on this because we wanted to make some additional conforming amendments to subsection L to effectuate the purpose of the bill.

We worked on some language and I want to include it in the amendments now. So this would be a potential. This would be amendment language for subsection J. K And L. So we would actually delete what is currently subsection J, make subsection K subsection J, and it would read any other provisions of law to the contrary.

Notwithstanding, any person otherwise subject to proceedings under Chapter 832 and who is under the age of 18 may be confined in a juvenile detention facility by order of a judge for the purposes set forth in section 83212. 83215 or 83217. Section L becomes K, number one is a new language.

A minor may temporarily be held for processing or while in transit to court in an adult jail or lockup in a county that does not have a juvenile detention facility if A, the minor is separated by sight and sound from adult inmates and B, the minor is held no longer than is necessary to be transported to court or the nearest juvenile detention facility, what was one becomes two.

I mean, what was L now is K2. And in here we're just making a couple small changes. But let me read it. I'll read the final version of it with the small changes we made so it's clear.

The Department of Human Services, through the Office of Youth Services shall certify police station cell blocks and community correctional centers that provide sight and sound separation between minors and adults in temporary secure custody pursuant to subsection 1. Only cell blocks and centers certified under the subsection shall be authorized to temporarily hold juveniles pursuant to this subsection.

And the Office of Youth Services may develop site and sound separation standards if certifications, monitor and inspect facilities for compliance, site facilities for violations, withdraw certifications and require certified facilities to submit data and information as requested. In addition, the Office of Youth Services may monitor and inspect all cell blocks and centers for compliance with this subsection.

That language is all in there, but it changes the subsection reference. So it's those changes that I wish to make to Senate Bill 694 so that it will be a House draft one. And I would like to keep a clean date and move this forward. Excuse me. No, I should actually, because I've made this change.

I should keep a. I should put in a defective effective date just so I can have a chance to talk to Senator Rhodes about this in conference. So let's put in a defective effective date and take this to conference. That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns, Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 694 with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. There being no further business before this Committee, we are adjourned. Thank you.