Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Good afternoon, everyone, and still Happy New Year. Welcome to everyone here in the audience and those on Zoom. This is Vice Chair and myself. Our first official Labor and Technology meeting, so thank you for welcoming us and to our returning Members.

Senator Moriwaki and the rest of our Members should be joining us shortly, so before we begin, just a few housekeeping announcements. This is the Senate Committee on Labor and Technology. This is our 3:00pm agenda. Today is January 28, 2026 and we are in Conference Room 225.

This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel. In the unlikely case of technical failures, this meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on January 30, 2026 at 3:00pm for all testifiers, including those on Zoom. We ask that you stand on your written testimony.

If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute. The content, including the hearing notice, copies of the measures and testimony can be found on the legislature's website. If time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from those offering testimony.

First up on our agenda is Senate Bill 2122. This is relating to cafeteria plan specifies that the maximum contribution and carryover amounts for a public service flexible spending account plan shall be set in accordance with the annual limits prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service for cafeteria plans on our list of testifiers.

First we have in person Director Brenna H. Hashimoto from DHRD. Welcome. Aloha.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this measure. DHRD generally is supportive of increasing the rates just by means of a little bit of context. The current rates are set by administrative rule, and so we update them periodically. I think the last time was in 2019.

We had planned to do it next year, but we're amenable to putting the maximums or referencing the IRS caps in the statute. We did check with the AG's office and they have no concerns with that. I do have one suggestion in terms of language changes. Unfortunately, it didn't make it into our testimony.

So if I can just verbally tell you what our suggestion is. It's on page one, line nine. We suggest deleting or striking the words inflation adjusted, and then on line 11, also striking the words for that calendar year. We find that it's not necessary in terms of the full context of what the intent of the bill is.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Director. Next up is on Zoom. Austin Martin, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii. Not present. Zoom Chair okay, thank you. In person, Nui Sebas, HGA and after Nui, we have Kamakana Kaimiloa from UPW. Aloha, welcome.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Nui Sebast with HGEA. We're in strong support of this measure. I'll stand on our written testimony.

I do want to note though that between what the IRS rates are and kind of what we have within administrative rules, we have about a $650 lag, $650 difference and also kind of a six year lag and kind of what the benefits are.

And that's just one of many other examples of kind of where we lag as an employer compared to the federal sector and I'm certain other private employers. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much. Kamakana Kaimuloa from UPW. Aloha. Welcome.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW we echo the points made by HGEA, you know, for those public employees that utilize this benefit. We believe, we believe the proposed amendment or proposed adjustment will further help to offset the ever-rising costs of health independent care moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we also received comments from Nola Miyazaki, the HR Director at the City and County of Honolulu offering comments. That completes our list of testifiers for today. Is there anyone else that wishes to testify on Senate Bill 2122? Okay. If not Members, questions? Yes, Senator Moriwaki. Requests for which?

For Director Hashimoto. So hi, Aloha. You heard from the unions that we're not keeping up with inflation. And you have your testimony says that you would like to have the inflation adjusted adjusted maximum that adjusted max adjusted, inflation adjusted stricken.

Can you explain what that means in terms of striking it from this bill?

It's suggesting that we strike those words because it's not really necessary in terms of the IRS sets the caps annually and on what basis, whether it's inflation or something else, we don't really necessarily need to know or be concerned about why they raise the rates. It's just that they raise the maximum.

So by prefacing it by saying it's inflation adjusted, it's just, it's not necessarily, we don't know if it's based on inflation or just because they feel like doing it right. So it doesn't add any value to the language and may cause confusion if for some reason they were to adjust it for some other reason is all.

So the unions are saying they support the language because they believe that, that our increases are lagging. Is that related or not related?

It's not really related. Although the IRS sets annual caps for contributions and for the rollover amounts, our caps are set by administrative rules. That's historically where they've been found.

So every time we want to adjust the rates, we have to go in and do a rules change, which, as I think most of you are familiar, is kind of a headache. So we don't do it every year and we probably should have done it a couple of years ago.

This particular year we're in the process of changing third party administrators for the plan. So the timing right now is not good for us. We had anticipated doing it next year, but by putting it in the statute, it's okay.

The only other concern I have, which is in our testimony, is if an employee elects to do a contribution or a deduction for the medical, they, they can recoup those reimbursements right away. So they don't have to wait until the end of the year until the deductions catch up with the reimbursement.

So the danger is that if too many folks leave before they've made all their contributions, the plan has to eat that cost. And so that's the information that's on the second page, top of the second page.

So there is some risk involved in raising the contribution limits if the plan can't sustain any kind of overtures that it pays out and doesn't get those contributions back into the plan. So that's why DHRD has typically been somewhat conservative in raising the rates. We typically look at where we're at in terms of the fund balance.

We also use those funds to offset the cost for employees, so they don't pay the full cost of administering the program. So we're a little bit hesitant to go all the way up to the maximum, but. But we have historically done it about once every five years or so.

So you are in the process of looking at increasing it this year?

Yes, we had planned to do it next year anyway, but so we're amenable to this.

Thank you, Chair. Chair Members. Yep. Senator Fevella.

So when was the last time you guys?

I think it was in 2019. 2019, yeah.

And then you guys are gonna try to be more. Doing it more frequently or it's gonna be that kind of like 2019, 2026. Is it going to be that kind of timeline maybe that you're looking at?

Well, if this measure passes and it goes into statute, then we don't have to we can do away with the language and the rules. We won't have to keep the rules updated. We can just refer to the statute. So it is beneficial in that sense that it won't. We won't be behind.

We'll always match the IRS rule rates.

You heard what they're saying. It's not keeping up with what we are.

Yes, I do appreciate that argument. And it's valid. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Chair, one question I have for you, Director Hashimoto. So with the proposal and this measure, do we have the funding that's needed to adjust appropriately?

The fund balance right now is about 1.6 million. I think that's in our testimony and we did provide information about what the plan, what kinds of costs the plan has to absorb. There's a on the top of page two, there's just three years of historical data in terms of what the negative forfeitures were.

Three years ago is about 98,000. Two years ago is 144,000, which is concerning because that exceeded the forfeitures in the plan. And then last year it was about 65,000 roughly. So most of the time the forfeitures exceed the liabilities, but not always.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Going back to Austin Martin from the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, it Ricky, is that person on Zoom still not present in Zoom? Chair that person submitted testimony in opposition. I do have a request for a representative from UPW and HGEA if you could please come forward. I don't know if you're able to provide comments.

So you heard from DHRD's testimony on some of the proposed additional language change from lines 9 to 11 of the bill, which would strike out the words the inflation-adjusted and then for that calendar year. Do you folks have any comments on that?

Chair, thank you for your question. I think generally we're fine with striking the word inflation as long as the intent of the bill remains that when there's new adjustment increase.

Same here.

Okay. Okay. Any questions? If not, thank you. Okay. We'll move on to our next measure, which is Senate Bill 2116 relating to public employees. Requires Attorney General to establish a confidential process for persons to anonymously file complaints against public employees.

Requires the Attorney General to review and forward the complaints to the Department, board, commission or agency deemed appropriate by the Attorney General. Requires the departments, boards, commissions and agencies to process the complaint pursuant to their standard complaint processing procedures and report the deposition to the Attorney General.

Requires the attorney General to adopt rules and submit annual reports to the Legislature. First up, from the Department of Labor Industrial Relations Director Jade Butay, followed by the Attorney General. Aloha. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair Lepante, Vice Chair Lamasao and Committee Members. I'm Jade Butay, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Diana Sermana or Amanda Dolan from AG's office. Hello. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, as well as Members of the Committee. My name is Diana. I'm Deputy Attorney General Diana Sumarna, and we did submit in opposition as detailed in our testimony, and I am available for questions.

Thank you so much. Deputy Attorney General Austin Martin from the Libertarian Party of Hawaii in opposition on Zoom.

Still not present in Zoom, Chair

Thank you, Ricky. Nui Sabas, HGA, in support, followed by Kamakana Kaimuloa from UPW.

Chair, Vice Chair Nui Sabas for HGEA. We're in strong support of this measure.

We're looking to at least begin the conversation on establishing an anonymous complaints process and do recognize, at least when reviewing the testimony that there is some agreement in having an, I guess, safeguard curbing anonymous complaints that would negatively impact an employee's reputation, although found to be untrue.

But just generally speaking, we're looking to at least begin the conversation about establishing some process while also balancing, still creating a process in place for employees that rightfully do decide to file a complaint.

Thank you. Thank you. Kamakana Kaimuloa from UPW in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee again, Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW. We do recognize the need for anonymity for legitimate complaints, but we believe that this Bill, as proposed, strikes a balance between receiving legitimate complaints and discouraging frivolous ones. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you. That completes our list of registered testifiers. Anyone else on Zoom or in person that wishes to testify In Senate Bill 2116, if not Members questions? Yes, Vice Chair Lamosao.

This is for HDA and UPW. So I just wanted to know, like, what was the nexus of this Bill? And like, are there any other states that have legislation or laws that are similar to what you guys are proposing?

To answer your. Thank you for your question. To answer your second question, through our research, I'm not aware of any laws that have passed.

Kind of where this came from was we have kind of received from our Members complaints that have been filed against them anonymously that were not true, but may have impacted impact, would impact their reputation. So that's kind of what we just kind of what started out as.

Then for us, for our Members, Vice Chair, it, the receiving complaints can vary from agency to agency, and how the agency responds to those complaints can also vary. Sometimes it's just a conversation. A lot of the times there isn't enough information for the employee to actually refute.

And as they do an investigation, sometimes it can vary from just a discussion about the complaint, but or in some cases put on admin leave while the complaint is investigated, which can be problematic, obviously, because that person can no longer work if they're put on admin leave.

Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you.

Senator Moriwaki

For both of you again, so if an individual had a complaint, wouldn't they come to the union to have you folks represent them so that you can't be anonymous and be able to have the person who's actually they're complaining against be able to respond?

So wouldn't they want to stay anonymous through you so that you could represent them? I'm not sure where the process leads to go straight to the Attorney General. You see what I'm saying?

Senator, thank you for your question. I think a good amount of the complaints that we're referring to would generally be referred to types of internal complaints as one kind of group. And generally those complaints would just be, would kind of go through the state or through the kind of respective employer.

Also, Senator, I think the majority of the complaints that we're trying to address here are actually from the public or maybe they're not, we don't often know.

But if it is an internal complaint, generally, if it depends on how the employer is going to respond to that complaint and whether or not there is a contract violation or not, that's when.

We would step in because the concern that is raised is anonymous complaints. It's really hard to deal with anonymous complaints when you don't know and it's hard to go after the person who they're complaining against unless you have specific information.

So I'm just wondering how that would detract from some of the duties of the ag and maybe we should bring the AG up on how that would be handled procedurally.

So I don't know, in the case that you're talking about, what is the situation that they wouldn't go either to the union or at least internally, and maybe an appeal to the AG if in fact it, you know, it hasn't been resolved. But I don't know how you folks see it being handled.

If I could just add, Senator, I think we'll normally get involved when there is a violation to the contract.

Just a contract violation

And that we address through the grievance process.

Yeah, the same would be. It would be the same for us.

As well, I guess. I have problems with anonymous complaints and not being able to resolve the complaint. Yeah, could I ask the AG.

Let's see if there's anyone questions for UPW HDA. Okay. If not, thank you. Request for Deputy Attorney General Surmana.

Thank you. Senator Moriwaki.

Yeah, I'd like to see complaints, you know, resolved, but anonymous complaints are difficult to resolve. And I don't know, as you look at the process, how would the AG handle it if in fact this law were passed, this Bill were passed?

That's a great question, Senator. And we are in complete agreement. That was actually part of our testimony. The first thing that stood out for us is the fact that anonymous complaints cannot be guaranteed to stay anonymous to begin with.

And the fact that there's so many laws, as well as coverage or provisions in the Constitution, the state's constitution, that says that complaints and disputes can be resolved confidentially, however, not completely anonymous.

And so to directly answer your question, there is no such procedures, you know, based on the existing laws, for example, not to call out any other commission.

But you know, I'm looking, we were looking at the state Ethics Commission where it does have a confidential, anonymous complaint system online where it talks about ethics violation as well as lobbying violations. Also, there's a process where that commission is able to receive complaints for fraud, abuse and waste. And none of them are completely anonymous.

Because what happens is that in this particular Bill, what is being suggested, Senator, is that we basically, the AG is just, basically a repository for the complaints without verifying. So in direct answer to your question, no, we're not able to actually.

It's not really meaningful for us to actually just gain all the complaints and then dole it out to the departments, because what happens to those complaints ultimately are out of the AG's hands. How they're being disposed of or how they're being investigated, they're completely out of the AG stands.

So if it were done in the Department, let's say, and someone felt that it wasn't really being, wasn't being attended to, would that be basis? It still wouldn't be anonymous. I mean, you can't really do much with an anonymous complaint.

But would the AG act as an appeal body when nobody's listening to them in their Department, they feel like this is really important.

That's also an important question, and I am specific specifically in the Employment Division and so basically when that happens, if, let's say this Bill passes, and this is what I'm envisioning, if, let's say this Bill passes, so the AG gets the complaint and then defer it to a Department for the sake of argument, let's say DHRD anonymously to be, to be, you know, not quite sure exactly, you know, what type of procedures that they have in order to, you know, to dispose of this particular anonymous complaint.

But if, let's say it, it leads to a specific grievance or specific lawsuit or any type of arbitration, you know, employment disputes that cannot, that name, the complainant's name cannot be protected simply because, you know, in order for dispute to happen, you need to have, you know, a party that actually is litigating or disputing.

So would you be able to see this Bill becoming law if you were to amend it so that it would be specific to helping somebody who is afraid to come forward and give their name, but it's a serious complaint, I believe, for resolution.

Would that be the AG if they felt they couldn't do get their day in court, I guess, in their Department, which is unusual, I think, but you know, how would it be resolved? Can this Bill be drafted in a way that it would narrow the circumstances?

Right. I guess it depends. I mean, it's almost kind of twofold, Senator, in that sense, the fact is that, yes, of course, any Bill can be amended.

We did propose in our testimony that just make sure that it's actually narrow, make sure that it actually follows all of the existing statutes that protects Congress confidentiality rather than making it anonymous.

That's the first thing that has to go because you know, unfortunately, the law just does not support anonymous complaints in order to be taken seriously, for lack of better word. However, I guess the darker aspect of this Bill, which is a little bit harder for, for amendment, is that.

There are already existing laws specific to each area that the complaints, the content of the complaints need to relate to, let's say, state the complaints for ethics or lobbying needs to go to the state ethics submission.

And so there's actually a set of body of laws that's already set for that employment law through the grievance system with the unions.

There's already a specific process we're looking at in the sense if you are going to amend it into something more substantive for the AG to do, for the AG's office to do, rather than just being repository and like, you know, to, to just receive the complaints, then it, it almost require more laws to be amended, basically. So a lot more laws are definitely going to be affected.

Any further questions Senator Moriwaki? Okay, Members, any other questions for the Attorney General? Okay. If not, thank you so much. Thank you, Deputy Attorney General. I think I did call everyone on the testifier list. Anyone else on Senate Bill 2116.

If not, we'll move on to our next Item, Senate Bill 2118, this is relating to indebtedness to the state, amends the amount that a disbursing officer may deduct from an employee's salary, a wage or compensation based on the employee's gross income.

First on our list on Zoom is Austin Shiloh Martin, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, in opposition. IT.

Not president on Zoom, Chair.

And then in person, we have Nui Sabas from HGA, followed by Kamakana Kamiloa from UPW.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Nui Sebast for HGA. We're in strong support of this measure. Kind of like what we're looking at is trying to establish a more lenient process when an employee is overpaid and subject to a repayment plan.

These employees, they're not asking for these overpayments and they will pay the money back, but some of them just ask for a little bit more leniency when they pay per pay, period. Thank you. Thank you.

Kamakana Kamiloa from UPW.

Hello again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Kamakana Kaimala, UPW, you have our written testimony and strong support.

I think in addition to all the points that have been made in our testimony, we, we think that what this bill does, most importantly, is it eliminates the, what we call a swipe provision, which allows DAGs to basically recover an indebtedness equal to or less than $1,000 in one pay period. We think that that is problematic.

It puts some of our members in a bind when that, when that is implemented. And so we just ask you to urge you to vote this up. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we also have Keith Regan, koptroller, offering comments, and Christian Fern, Executive Director for the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers. Anyone else in the audience or on Zoom that wishes to testify on Senate Bill 2118. If not Members questions. If not, we'll move on.

Senate Bill 2114 relating to collective bargaining repeals the prohibition placed on certain employees exempt from civil service law from grieving. A suspension or discharge allows any employee who is a Member of an appropriate bargaining unit to grieve any disciplinary action. First up is Director Hashimoto from DHRD.

Thank you again, Brenna Hashimoto, Director of Department of Human Resources Development. I representing the Department today and opposing SB2114 simply because exempt employees are hired under an at will arrangement. They serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. They're not civil service employees and have the same civil service protections.

And we believe that this granting them the right to grieve any kind of discipline as low as a warning or a reprimand or assistance and then ultimately a discharge is contrary to that at will nature of their employment. And we also would like to point out that there are existing protections in place.

You heard a lot from the Attorney General about avenues that employees can go if they have a complaint or grievance that is protected by federal law or state employment law, like discrimination or harassment, so they have remedies there. This is also contrary to our collective bargaining agreements. This is we strongly believe this is a negotiable matter.

We have contract language with HGA for four bargaining units related to this topic. So to use the legislative process is contrary to that.

Thank you. Nola Miyasaki, Director of HR at the City and County of Honolulu in opposition on zoom, we have Cynthia Razo-Porter, Director of Personnel Services for the Office of the Mayor. I'm not sure which county Maui.

Sorry, County of Maui. Yes.

Here we go. Yes. Aloha. Welcome. Please proceed.

Oh, you have my written testimony. And we are standing in opposition and, kind of echoing what Brenna had just shared, that these employees are - they serve at will. They serve at the pleasure of the authority. And we feel that they have measures in place that they can file an internal complaint with their department, you know.

If they disagree with some disciplinary action taken against them.

Okay, thank you so much. On Zoom. Osa Tui, President for the Hawaii State Teachers Association in support. IT, is...

Oh, not present in Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. We have also Christian Fern from University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support. And Nui Sabas from HGA; support.

Chair, members, Nui Sabas for HGA. We're in strong support of this measure. I do want to note that this bill was introduced last year as well and made it to conference. Over the past few years, we have seen an increase in the use of exempt positions.

I'll note back, in 2020, about 1700 positions were exempt within state government. In 2026, there's about 2,300 exempt positions. We've seen a lot of measures in past and within this session that is looking to exempt employees. And the purpose of exempt employees has pivoted away from the original intent, which was to fill positions that were unique or temporary.

We believe that the attitude now is to fill positions because we cannot pay at the civil service level or cannot hire fast enough. We believe these employees should be allowed just cause protections. And allowing these employees to have just cause protections will also help with the state's recruitment and retention of these employees. Thank you. Thank you.

Next on our testifier list is Austin Martin, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii in opposition on Zoom; IT?

Not present in Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW.

UPW stands on the their testimony and support.

Okay. In support. Thank you. And then we have an individual, Scott Crawford, in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for SB 2114. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure? If not members, questions. Senator Moriwaki.

For the unions, HGA. So these are at will employees. And whether it's a 1,000 or 3,000 or 2000. So your unions are open to represent them if they have grievances.

Correct, Senator.

Even if they're not really part of your union.

So thank you for your question. Senator, if I can clarify, these employees are members of our union within their respective bargaining units. However, since they're exempt, we cannot grieve if they do face disciplinary action. But they are members with our union.

If they're at will, at will, by definition, being you're at the will of the employer, the protections are less and they're more temporary. They're not permanent civil service employees, but you're saying you folks are going to represent them anyway. Is that correct?

Yes, Senator.

You too?

Well, Senator, this wouldn't actually impact us. We're just here to - because we believe that, you know, that all public employees should have some sort of representation that's similar to what we provide in terms of our bargain units.

And you've heard from the HRD Director, Hashimoto, that there are protections, at least by state and federal law, that protect them. But this is in addition to being you're representing them for violations of contract. But you said earlier you work within the contract, right?

True. Senator, what we're looking at here, if we can represent them through the grievance process, we can appeal decisions of disciplinary action. So, if an employee was suspended or discharged or terminated, we can grieve that decision. They'd go through our grievance process as outlined in the contract.

For many of our, for I think all of our bargain units, there's three steps, and I'll note the final step is decided by arbitrator if we do proceed to arbitration, which is a neutral third party.

But I guess just for clarification, so that if you said this earlier, that you represent them only if you know you've got a contract violation as we talked about it earlier. And now if we're talking about employees who are at will, they're not really covered by the contract, correct? No? Yes?

Senator, these employees that are exempt from civil service still are covered by collective bargaining agreements. However, since they are not civil service employees, they cannot grieve a suspension or discharge, which makes them at will. So we cannot use that article, that specific article to appeal a decision.

Okay. Thank you.

Good. Okay. Senator Fevella.

So these guys, do they pay union dues?

They do have the option of paying union dues and being.

But they do, right> So that's, that's what I'm saying. So I understand what you're trying to say. Reason why is because I was an at will employee at the city under HGA, and if I had that kind of representation, they wouldn't have terminated my contract because they just terminated at will.

But they used that as an average to put pressure on the people that is on contract. But having union representation, it's a little bit different, but that's what they did. They kept on finding reasons to get rid of me three times. The third time they did. Right. But then I couldn't get any union representation.

And it wasn't any kind of grounds of just. They just wanted to get rid of me because they wanted to get rid of me.

And that shouldn't be. Any of our civil servants have to feel that way, that they're doing a good job, which I was doing a great job, but the people above me didn't want me doing a great job because it made them look bad. So they got rid of me. Thanks to Kirk Caldwell anyway.

But, yeah, that's the reason why. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. If not, thank you so much. Final call for testifiers on this measure, Senate Bill 2114. If not, we'll move on to our next item, which is Senate Bill 2117. This is relating to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund.

Allows impasses and disputes relating to the amounts of state and county contributions to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund to be resolved by arbitration. Repeals the prohibition against strikes by members of bargaining units.

On the issue of the amounts of state and county contributions to the Trust Fund. First, Dr. Seth S. Colby, Director, B&F. In opposition, and followed by after Director, Acting Director Colby, we have Director Hashimoto.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Seth Colby, Acting Director of Budget and Finance, BNF opposes this bill and stands on his written comments.

Okay, thank you. Director Hashimoto offering comments, followed by Chief Negotiator J.N. Musto.

Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity. Although this is primarily an issue related to funding and that sort of thing, DHRD is concerned about having disparity amongst our bargaining units. I think this is one of those benefits that should be uniform across all of our workforce.

And I think having a uniform and equitable medical benefits is important for not only recruitment and retention, but also to just for workplace morale. If you've got some groups that are getting a more favorable rate and others that are not, I think that sends the wrong message. And I feel like the potential disparities are real.

We have some bargaining units that can go on strike and some that can go to arbitration. And we would have 15 different rates potentially. So there are not only administrative costs, but I'm concerned about fairness across our entire workforce as well as across jurisdictions. You know, we often we share the same benefits.

Thank you, Director. Chief Negotiator, Forgive me for mispronouncing your last name. Is it Musto or Musto.

I depends on whether you're in Italy or the United States. In Italy, Musto. Musto. In the United States, it's Musto. My name is J.N. Musto I'm the State Chief Negotiator. The Office of Collective Bargaining.

You can talk a little closer to the mic so we can hear you.

The Office of Collective Bargaining, which is just me, we believe that we should oppose this change for a couple of reasons. First of all, I am wary of any change which is wholesale deletion of language that appears in a statute and has been there for some time.

Unintended consequences arise, and in this case, I think they are there. Having said that, I believe that the issue of the EUTF needs to be addressed and how it is addressed and how it's applied to all public employees.

And the state's chief negotiator is willing to sit down with the exclusive bargaining agents, the city and county personnel directors, Personnel Director Hashimoto and others to discuss that. I personally believe we need some systemic changes. Thank you so much.

Okay, we have on zoom, Cynthia Razo-Porter from the county of Maui, Office of the Mayor.

Good afternoon. I stand by our written proposal or our written testimony in opposition.

Thank you. We have Osa Tui for the Hawaii State Teachers Association in support. Christian Fern for University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support. Kauanui Sabas, HGEA in support. And after Mr. Sabas, Austin Martin on Zoom.

Chair, Vice Chair, Kauanui Sabas with HGEA. We're in strong support of this measure. We're looking to continue the conversation about the employee employer cost share for the EUTF. The current negotiating process doesn't have a dispute mechanism and for our union, we can't proceed to interest arbitration for it. So it's, I'll be frank, it's a one sided negotiation.

So we're looking to just continue the conversation about it. And health insurance is another, is generally another place where the state may lag compared to other employers in terms of cost to onto their employees. Thank you.

Thank you. Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii, on zoom. IT?

Not present on zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. And then we have Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW, in support.

Chair, Vice Chairman of the Committee, Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW. You have a written testimony, strong support. We would agree with Mr. Musto/Musto, that something needs to be changed, whether it's in this bill or, you know, the process in and of itself.

If you want to talk about, you know, disparity between different bargaining units, I think you actually look at the employer jurisdictions and what's happening on Maui and Kauai where employees are provided 75/25 equivalent for free.

That's had an impact on some of our members at the state level actually moving over to the county because of those reasons. And while that's neither here nor there for us. Right? Better for them. I think that there needs to be something that's more equitable to match those efforts. Thank you.

Thank you so much. That completes our list of registered testifiers. Anyone else on Senate Bill 2117, if not members, questions? We'll move on. Senate Bill 2017 relating to healthy workplaces. This prohibits any employer employee from subjecting an employee to abusive conduct.

Requires employers and certain employees to take all reasonable, preventative and responsive measures to ensure a safe working environment of abusive conduct. Prohibits employers and certain employees from taking retaliatory actions against employees who engage in certain protected acts. Establishes a penalty, private cause of action and remedies. Requires the Department of Labor Industrial Relations to adopt rules.

First on our list, Director Butai.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee, members, Jade Butai for DLIR. We stand on our submitted testimony in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. From the Attorney Generals. Deputy Attorney General Raquel Pendleton or Gary Kam. Good afternoon, Mr. Kam.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Gary Kam. I'm Deputy Attorney General. This bill addresses a specific type of work connected injury and that is an injury caused by abusive conduct in the workplace. The Hawaii Workers Compensation Law is the exclusive remedy for work connected injuries. There are a few exceptions, though.

This bill also creates a private right of action in circuit court against the employer as well as provides for legal remedies. Because of the exclusivity. And that's also the exclusivity exemption is in the law of 73865. Because of that, we recommend that that the 370d and 378e be deleted from the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Deputy Attorney General Kam. We have Erin Kogen or Maggie Batangan testifying for SHRM Hawaii, in opposition. They submitted written comments. Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii on Zoom It Now.

Not present on zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. We have Letha DeCaires, retired HPD Captain in opposition submitting comments. And then Debra Bringman in person. Deborah? Yes. Please come forward in support. Aloha and welcome.

Thank you. Aloha. My name is Debra Bringman and I'm in strong support of SB 2117. I submitted written testimony, so I'll briefly summarize my key points. The survey data I provided shows that toxic workplaces are on the rise.

Nearly 80% of participants in these surveys, two of them, identified poor leadership and management as the top cause, which includes unethical, unaccountable and unsupportive behavior, which was my experience. I am currently out on disability leave due to workplace abuse that caused serious psychological and physical harm.

In May of last year, I experienced two medical emergencies in three days. Symptoms resembling a heart attack and a stroke, which doctors attributed to workplace stress. My hands turned blue, my muscles tighten, and my head started involuntarily bobbing. These episodes were frightening.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to ask you to please summarize.

Okay. SB2 017 fills a gap, a critical gap that I fell into under the current Hawaii laws. Mahalo for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Deborah. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2017. Anyone else in the audience that wishes to testify on this matter? Measure, if not Members. Questions? Okay, we'll move on to our next item, which is Senate Bill 2088 relating to health care plans for workers.

Requires the Department of Labor Industrial Relations in consultation with the Insurance Commissioner to establish and implement a five year voluntarial voluntary, non traditional workforce portable healthcare plan benefit pilot program that offers high deductible health plans or catastrophic health plans to non traditional workers who are ineligible for health plans provided by the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund or prepaid health care plans under the Prepaid Health Care Act.

Requires reports to the Legislature and appropriates funds. First up, former speaker of the House, Scott Seiki, our insurance commissioner. Not Scott Psyche.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Justin Chu with the Insurance Division's DCCA. So, yeah, we stand on our written testimony and find comments and we're available for any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you so much. Jade Butai, D, in opposition.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members, Jade Butai for DL. We stand on our submitted written testimony in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Eric Abe for Hawaii Primary Care association in support. Elizabeth Ignacio, Hawaii Medical association, in support. Comments from Christian Fern from University of Hawaii Professional Assembly. In person, we have Walden Au, HMSA. If you can just state your name for the record, please. Aloha. Welcome.

Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Mohani Raipanos with HMSA. We stand on our written testimony, submitting comments.

Thank you. And we have Robert Thomas Carlisle, Dr. Carlisle in support. And Tyler Scott McMurray in support on zoom it not present in zoom Chair. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2088. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure, if not Members? Questions? Yes, Senator Moriwaki.

So the Insurance Commission justified. Mr. Chu. Hi. Aloha. So you're saying in your testimony that high deductible health plans, catastrophic health plans, and health savings accounts are already available for individuals. Can you specify that? Because I guess this bill has emanated from people not like gig workers, not feeling like they have any kind of health insurance protection.

So can you tell us what these plans are? Individual plans? Sure.

Yeah. I think that comes from a misconception that you know, because under the Prepaid Health Care act, right. High deductible health plans aren't available for employer purchase, but individuals can purchase plans that meet the definition of a high deductible health plan and catastrophic plans.

And are these very expensive that individuals may not purchase it?

I think that may be a subjective determination. I mean, the Insurance Division posts on its websites the premiums for each of these plans, so any individual can go on our website and look at them. I have a copy year if you'd. Like to have it.

Yeah, that would be good to have. Sure. Again, what is the Insurance Commission doing to publicize this so that gig workers, people who don't have insurance, really have the opportunity to get some kind of coverage because health insurance or health costs are going up? So how can we help those without. Since gig workers are increasing in numbers?

Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, again, like I said, these rates are posted on our website and when individuals look to the individual marketplace, these plans are also available on the federal exchange. So they're available both on and off the exchange for purchase.

And there's really no way to have a group plan. Correct. Because these are all individuals that are coming in and purchasing their own insurance. Is that how it works?

That's correct. So as I mentioned in the testimony, under federal law, plans are classified as either individual or group. And group plans are typically tied to an employer or some other group that qualifies for a group plan. So since these are all individuals purchasing these plans, they would most likely be classified as individual plans.

I guess if there were a way that the insurance commission could be doing more outreach or could be looking at how we could help gig workers since they are increasing in numbers. Would you have any idea of how that could be done?

Or can we insert something in this bill to do more outreach or do more education or work with various plans.

I can certainly talk to our staff and we can come up with ways to try to publicize high deductible. Excuse me, individual plans that qualify for high deductibles.

Because we don't want to go in the face of ERISA and affect that. Right.

Of course. And as you may know, more plans now in the upcoming year qualify for the Health Savings account. So any of the bronze plans and the catastrophic plans under the new federal rules will qualify for a high savings account.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Any further questions? Okay. If not. Thank you, Mr. Chu. Okay, we call all the testifiers. We'll move on to our next item, which is our last item on our today's agenda. This is Senate Bill 2135 relating to privacy. Establishes the offense of non-consensual distribution of an intimate image.

First up, Deputy Attorney General Tricia and Nakamatu after Deputy Attorney General Nakamatsu, we have Daniel Hugo from Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

Good afternoon. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Tricia Nakamatsu appearing on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. We submitted comments on this Bill.

And while we definitely appreciate the intent and the value of the Bill, we had a number of suggestions as far as technical changes, word choice, terminology that could be used more consistently, language streamlined.

The one substantive suggestion that we did have is that any actions referring to a third party on page one, lines 15 through 17, and page two, lines 16 through 18, should either be deleted or amended as it's unlikely that prosecutors would be able to prove the requisite state of mind for someone else's transactions. Available for questions, if any.

Thank you, Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu. We're in support of this Bill with amendments. Currently, the distribution of non consensual intimate images is controlled by first degree violation of privacy law.

And this Bill would address a gap in that law which refers to, under the current law, you need an intent to cause certain specific types of harm. This Bill would cure that.

Second, this Bill is also addressed to Generative AI, which is a rapidly developing technology that makes the production of these images much less terrible, technically onerous, and so their distribution is more widespread. We will note that the AG's testimony also shares our concerns about the compound state of mind. And so we had recommendations on that. Happy to answer any questions for the Committee.

Thank you so much, Mr. Hugo. We also have Pamela Ferguson Bray, Executive Director for the Crime Victim Compensation Commission, in support. Andrew Martin, Prosecuting Attorney from the County of Maui, in support. Comments from Melissa Patak, Motion Picture Association. Kris Coffield, IMUA alliance, in support.

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair. Thank you for hearing this measure. I'm Kris Coffield, President of the MUA Alliance. We're in very strong support of this Bill. It's a big issue that we've been dealing with.

Just for reference, there's been national studies that show that up to 13% of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative did a study in 2017 showing that 13% of respondents had been targeted by IBSA. We've seen like a fivefold spike in contacts to our organization from survivors contacting us about this particular crime.

And so we're in strong support of all the legislature's efforts to address it. We did have some suggested amendments as well. As has been previously stated, this is already criminalized under 71110.9 B and C under violation of privacy in the first degree.

We think this Bill is far more expansive than that that Bill came in 2014, ironically, as a compromise between a coalition that I was leading and Tricia Nakamatsu when she was at the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office.

This is way better and we think you should just repeal 711 the violation of privacy protection provisions that apply right now in their entirety, and leave this and bring everything into this Bill, which is much more focused on generative AI and much more focused on affirmative consent and things like that.

Couple of other amendments that are in our written testimony. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. We do have Austin Shiloh Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii in opposition on Zoom. IT? Not present on Zoom, Chair. Robert Boykin testifying for TechNet, offering comments. Lorna Holmes in support and Amy Zhao in support in person. Aloha. Welcome.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. I'm Amy Zhao. I'm a senior in high school and as a student I've seen how image based sexual abuse is common among my peers. A single image can destroy someone's life overnight. I've watched classmates pull away from friend groups, stop coming to school, and feel ashamed for simply existing online.

As someone who's also experienced image based sexual abuse myself, I can tell you that barriers to seeking justice are already very overwhelming for survivors. The stigma, fear and emotional toll associated with having your privacy being violated is unimaginable and the law should not be another barrier for survivors seeking justice.

That's why I urge you to pass SB 2135 with the amendment of removing the requirement that victims prove harm. Non consensual distribution of these images is inherently harmful and the law should not make that accountability impossible. Mahalo for your time and commitment to protecting our community.

Thank you so much, Amy. Sorry for mispronouncing your last name. That completes our list of registered testifiers for SB2135. Anyone else in the audience that wishes to testify or on zoom on this proposed item? Okay. If not question for Prosecuting attorney and AG's office, if you could both come up, please.

I'm not sure if you had an opportunity to take a look at the written testimony from Technet and Motion Pictures Association and adding that language. Have, have you both had an opportunity to look at their, their testimony and their suggested language? So I have. Okay. Do you have any Comments on that, Mr. Hugo?

You know, in terms of.

If that would conflict with what you're proposing from your agencies

We would not have any opposition to including this language. It would protect it against arguments either about a conflict with federal law or First Amendment issues. Okay, thank you.

And offhand I don't have any concerns, but I would have to take that back to the Department to get official response.

Okay, thank you. Any questions for the Senator Moriwaki?

So you heard from Chris Caulfield about eliminating 711 110.9 in its entirety, that this would replace it. Would that be deleting anything that we want to keep in that law or is that something that you folks agree to?

So our Department would not recommend deleting it. We have prosecuted under the current law, secured convictions under it. It is a higher standard. Nevertheless, in appropriate cases we still want to be able to charge that

And AG?

Similarly and again, to get an official answer, I would have to take, take it back to the office. But in some ways I would actually recommend the opposite. That this, the language in this Bill be tailored to more align with the language that's used in the existing statute. So it would be if there's any.

Overlap, that could either be prosecutorial discretion or it could be just small portions.

So the portions of this, what's required in this, in this Bill be put into 711 110.9

There could be various ways to do it if you wanted to make standalone offenses to perhaps do carve outs that way. But we wouldn't recommend again not repealing the other. Yeah, but I don't think it would be a good idea to completely repeal the existing statute.

Okay, thank you. Thank you Chair.

Members any other questions? Okay. If not, thank you so much. Thank you. Good. Okay, I think I'm ready. Short recess.

Short recess, subject to the call of the chair. Recess. Reconvening Committee on Labor and Technology.

This is January 28th. Our 3pm agenda coming out of recess. We are now in decision making. First we'll start off with Senate Bill 2122. This is relating to cafeteria plans. Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments. We're going to change the effective date to January 1, 2070. 2077. Any discussions?

If not, Vice Chair Lamasao for the vote.

Chair votes aye. Members, we are voting on SB 2122. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Oh, sorry, hang on.

I'm sorry. Excuse me. Let me go back if I can. We're going to also further amend and take in DHRD recommendation which on line nine, we're going to delete the word the inflation adjusted. So lines 9 and 10, the inflation adjusted. And we'll put in a bad date of January 1, 2077.

As I recommend line 11, they want to take out for the calendar year. Was it necessary?

They did want to take that, but I want to keep that in to be prescriptive because IRS is calendar year and state is fiscal year. So to be prescriptive of that. So noting that further change with that, that's the recommendation. So any discussion on that? If not, sorry about that. Vice Chair. So Chair votes aye.

[Roll call]

Okay, thank you so much. Vice Chair. Next up is Senate Bill 2116. This is relating to public employees. Recommendation here is to pass with amendments. We're going to accept the Attorney General's proposed amendments in their testimony. We're going to change the effective date to January 12077 to continue discussion. With that being said, any further discussion comments?

If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye. Okay.

Voting on SB 2116. Chair vote. Sigh. Any other Members? Sorry. Voting. Any of the Members voting no. Any Anyone voting with reservations? All Members vote I Chair, your condition is adopted.

Okay, thank you so much, Vice Chair. Moving on to our next bill, Senate Bill 2118 relating to indebtedness to the State. Chair's recommendation here is to pass with technical amendments. We're going to change the effective date to January 1, 2077. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes I thank you.

Voting on SB 2118. Recommendation of the Chair is to Pass with amendments. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations? All Members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair. Next up on our agenda is Senate Bill 2114. This is relating to collective bargaining. Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments. We're going to change the effective date to January 1, 2077. Any further discussion?

Political reservation?

Okay. Noting the reservations to Senator Moriwaki. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair for the vote? Chair votes.

I'm voting on SB 2114. Noting the reservations from Senator Moriwaki. Anyone else voting with reservations? Anyone voting no? All other Members vote. I chair. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair. Moving on to our next item on our agenda, Senate Bill 2117. This is relating to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund. Chair's recommendation here is to pass with amendments. We're going to change the effective date to January 1, 2077. Any further discussion on that? Okay.

If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. Voting on 2117. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Anyone voting with reservations? Anyone voting no? All Members vote. I Chair. Your recommendation is adopted. Adopted.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair. Next up is Senate Bill 2017. This is relating to healthy workplaces. Appreciate the testimony from everyone on this mission. On this measure, Treasure recommendation is to defer indefinitely. Moving on to our next Item, Senate Bill 2088. This is relating to health care plans for workers.

Treasure's recommendation here is to pass with technical amendments. We're going to change the effective date to January 1, 2077. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair for the vote? Chair votes aye.

Okay. Voting on SB 2088. Recommendation of the chairs pass with amendments. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations? All Members vote. I Chair. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair Lamasao. And lastly, our last item on our agenda, Senate Bill 2135. This is relating to privacy. I do appreciate everyone testifying this. I'd like to take a little more time to take a look at some of the testimony and work out with some language.

So Chair is going to defer decision making on this measure to Wednesday, February 4, 2026 at 3:00pm in Conference Room 225. Okay. With that being said, that concludes our agenda for today. We are adjourned.

Have a great day, everyone.