Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs

Good afternoon, and this is the first meeting of 2026 for the Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. So, in the unlikely event that we have to end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 3:00 PM, Friday, January 30th, in room 229, and a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website.

We have a somewhat abbreviated agenda this afternoon. One bill was removed. However, we do have some important topics. Each testifier will be given two minutes to testify.

Testify, and if you have already submitted written testimony, we want to encourage you to hit the important facts or standing on your testimonies. So first up, we have Senate Bill 2145, relating to recordings of law enforcement activities. And I believe we have, for the Office of Public Defender, John Ikenaga. Is anyone from Public Defender present?

Okay, if not, they have submitted written testimony in support. Next, we have Maui Police Department. They have submitted testimony in opposition. Honolulu Police Department, I believe we have--let's see--Arnold Sagucio, testifying on behalf of HPD. Is he available?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. We can come back to that individual later on. Next, we have Douglas Meller, testifying for League of Women Voters of Hawaii. Let's see. Written testimony was provided. Next is Chris Caulfield, testifying for IMUA Alliance. Okay. Next is Gerald Kato, testifying for Media Council of Hawaii. Members, most of this is all in written testimony in your master testimony file. Following Gerald Kato is Austin Shiloh Martin for Libertarian Party of Hawaii. I believe he is available on Zoom. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it. I'm Austin Martin. I'm the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii. I'd like to affirm my written testimony with a caveat that some of the bills that I presented testimony on may have gotten swapped, and so if you noticed that, my apologies, guys. And thank you.

I might be switching in and out. So thanks to the administrators who are running the Zoom. This is so important. We need the ability to record interactions with law enforcement. It's absolutely critical, and I stand on my written testimony on this.

This bill explicitly establishes a statutory right for any person to record law enforcement activities in public. That needs to be established. It's often misunderstood and leads to serious rights violation. It needs to be distinguished as a right and a First Amendment protected activity. It should already be protected. But I think this is a helpful step, and I really appreciate this bill and thank its introducers.

Thank you very much. Members, any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. If not, next we have Josh Frost for ACLU of Hawaii. Oh. Welcome.

Good afternoon. I'm not Josh Frost. My name is Mandy Fernandes. I'm the Policy Director with the ACLU of Hawaii. We are in strong support of this measure. We know that the First Amendment, very solidly through case loss, supports the right to record officers when they're performing their duties in the public and in clear view.

What this does is it puts a statutory right on the books to clear up any confusion about this, to make sure that officers are at notice that this is a right of the public to record them when they're carrying out their duties. This would also apply to federal agents as well.

What we've been seeing out of Minneapolis is absolutely horrendous with ICE officers telling people to stop recording them or trying to intimidate them to stop people to stop recording them. Something that's really important is that this would establish a private right of action, and so what that does is it offers recourse that wasn't there before if someone's rights are violated. Thank you so much. I do hope you pass this measure today.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Senator Inouye. Yeah.

Yeah, this sounds familiar. Was there a court case on the mainland with regards to this particular issue?

Yeah, so this has been litigated pretty extensively, and there have been a number of court cases affirming this right in, I think, most circuits.

Do you know what the outcome of the court cases were?

Yeah. So the outcome was that courts have pretty consistently ruled or have consistently ruled that this is a First Amendment right. So as long as you're not obstructing, it doesn't give you the right to obstruct law enforcement operations, and this bill would not give you that right.

It wouldn't give you the right to trespass to go record police operations, but if somebody is-- if an officer is in clear view, it would give you the right or it would just reinforce the right. Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Members, any further questions? Okay. If not, thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for being here. Okay, next we have Judith Mils Wong from League of Women Voters, who have submitted testimony in support. Members, most of the testimony has all been in support, with the exception of the two testimonies from the police departments on Maui and Oahu. Next is Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara for Fujiwara Rosenbaum, LLC. See testimony in support has been submitted. Mo'i Kawaakoa, testifying for our Holomua Outreach, also in support.

The next group of testifiers have submitted primarily written testimony, so I'm just going to read their names. I don't believe they intended to show up at the hearing or testify via Zoom: Victor Ramos, individual testifying in opposition, Spencer Pote, in support, Scott Smart, in opposition, Sandy Ma, Veronica Moore, Sam Guggenheimer, Allison Bee, all in support.

Next is Doris Segal Matsunaga, in support, Stephen Munkelt, testifying for Hawaii Indivisible State Network, in support, Georgette Yaindl, testifying in support, Nancy Moser, in support, Judith White, in support, Tim Huick, in support, Lorna Holmes, Mona Eisa, in support.

Susan Pcola-Davis, Margaret Sippel, Kevin Hughes, Tammy DeBernardi, Marcela Lohalani Boydle, Younghee Overly, Michelle Bonk, Martina Wong, Julie Walters, Kahala, Matt Brown, Giselle, White T. Martin, Elena Arinaga, Christine L. Andrews, and Clayton Kamiya, all in support. Is there anyone else who would like to offer testimony on Senate Bill 2145? Okay.

Any others who would like to comment on Senate Bill 2145? Are you here to testify on this measure? Okay, thank you. Okay, turning to the next measure, Senate Bill 2151, relating to emergency management. On this measure, we have testifying for Office of Information Practices, Carlotta Ann Marino, who have submitted written comments.

Also, we have Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, Administrator Director Barros, in person. Welcome.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Senator.

Yes. Aloha.

Aloha.

Aloha.

James Barros, Administrator for HIEMA. We submitted testimony in opposition of this Bill, and we stand by our written testimony.

Okay, thank you very much. Please stand by for questions. I'm sure we'll have some.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Okay, next we have—let me see. Douglas Miller testifying for League of Women Voters, in support. Wayne Chong Tanaka for Sierra Club of Hawaii, in support. Ted Kefalas for Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, in support. David Henkin for Earth Justice, written comments in support with proposed amendments. I believe he is joining us via Zoom.

Welcome.

Thank you very much, Chair and Vice Chair and Senator. You have our written testimony. What I'd like to emphasize in this oral testimony is that with the NCOA decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court, the court gave a very, very broad reading to the emergency powers that Chapter 127A provides.

The Governor is empowered, in the view of the court, to invoke emergency powers, including suspending this legislature's lawfully enacted statutes, whenever there is an issue that is "rationally related to public health, safety, or welfare." I mean, that is virtually everything that the Legislature does is rationally related to public health, safety, and welfare.

The court specifically said that emergency powers are not limited to sudden or unexpected events, which I think is what immediately comes to mind with emergency powers. Things like tsunamis or the COVID pandemic or terrorist attacks or—there are a variety of things that are sudden emergencies.

But the court found that even long-term public policy issues could be subject to the Governor invoking emergency powers and suspending this Legislature's statutes. So, we strongly support the bill that is before you, and we feel it doesn't go far enough.

Because the only way that this Legislature could respond, if the Governor, and it's not this Governor, it's any Governor or any mayor at the City Council, at the County Council level, anything inappropriate, the only way to respond would be with a super majority. And you know how hard it is to pass bills.

It's really hard to do things by super majority, and if the emergency proclamation is issued when you are not in session, you'd also have to call a special session. That should not be. We've suggested some language to address the Supreme Court's ruling that emergency powers under 127A are not limited to sudden or unexpected occurrences.

We're not wedded to the specific language that we have proposed, although we understand that there is a companion house bill that's being introduced that will have this language.

But there has to be something in Chapter 127a to make it clear that the Governor can use emergency powers and the mayors can use emergency powers only in what are true emergencies. Things that do not allow enough time for this Legislature to respond in the next legislative session, things that are not longstanding public policy issues. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so very much. Other questions? If not, please stand by because we may have questions to follow up with. Thank you. Next, we have Ben Kreps testifying for Public Law Center, offering comments.

Yes. Hi. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Member of the Committee. My name is Ben Kreps. I'm a Staff Attorney at the Public First Law Center. We're a nonprofit dedicated to promoting open government in Hawaii. We strongly support the intent of this measure. You know, we. We do need a healthy tension between our Executive and our Legislative Branch, and this Bill is definitely a step in the right direction, and we do offer a friendly amendment in our testimony.

So, right now, this Bill, as drafted, carves out one part of the public records law from the Governor's ability to suspend the public records law. But there's four parts to the public records law.

And so, our, our suggested amendment is to carve out the entire public records law. And I did have the opportunity to review some of the written testimony, in particular, the testimony in opposition. And I do believe that, as written, this Bill does address the concerns that were, were raised in the opposition testimony.

And that's one that this Bill does provide for reasonable delays and extensions when necessary. I would also point out that there's an existing exemption under the public records law that, that agencies can withhold records if it frustrates a legitimate government function.

And that's an exemption that the, the Department of Defense or HIEMA can avail themselves of under existing law. So, we think this is a good measure and we, we request that you pass it favorably. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's see. Next, we have Austin Martin testifying for Libertarian Party of Hawaii on Zoom. Mr. Martin, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair. I really appreciate this issue and I want to, I want to stand on my written testimony, but I also want to add a personal little anecdote for why I'm here today. There's a whole lot of bills you'll notice that I've provided testimony on, and you'll—I'm the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii.

My name is Austin Martin. If you haven't met me yet, you'll get to know me. The reason why is because of Chapter 127A. Shortly after I moved to Big Island, I was arrested and charged with a pretty significant crime of violating the Governor's Emergency Powers Act and the absurd, strict interpretation that it got for political selective enforcement.

What I did, my crime, was calling Covid mandates Nazi policy. I was angry about it, and I'm not proud of, you know, letting, letting that slip out that way. But at the same time, that's my First Amendment.

I was arrested for that and charged and the charges were maintained in court for over a year before the prosecution came out and admitted in writing that they had no evidence of any crime being committed in the first place. It was a political targeting event. That is how emergency powers are currently being used in Hawaii.

We are really hurting our people by running with emergency powers to override the rule of law and allow the executive to run absolutely rampant. It's lawless out here. We have to stop this. I love the idea of putting a check on this, but this Bill is not an effective check.

This Bill will change nothing, although I really appreciate the intent of putting a check on there. In reality, I think the Judiciary should have stepped up and stopped the Governor from doing what he's done. And it's not fair that you guys have to pick up the political pieces of the mess that he made for you, and I am sorry for that.

But I hope that you guys will do the right thing here and restore the rule of law in Hawaii and reject the extreme interpretation of executive authority.

Thank you so much, Mr. Martin. We appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Okay, next, we have Marita Townsend, also testifying for Earth Justice. I believe written testimony has been submitted. Next, Victor Ramos, testimony in support has been submitted. Lila Mori Salvage, testimony in support has been submitted. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on Senate Bill 2151? Okay, if not, Members, any questions?

I know the, let's see, Earth Justice testifier, David Henkin, did have some amendments to propose, and Chair did want to go back to him for a couple of questions.

You know, in the, in the, I guess, proposed amendments that you are proposing that cover not only natural disasters, but hazardous material accidents, disease or contagion outbreaks, et cetera, do you believe that this list is broad enough to encompass, you know, some of the areas that the opposition had raised as a concern for having this emergency power area limited?

Yes, we do. Basically, the, one of the problems, I think, with the existing statute is that it does not provide its definitions of emergency or disaster, any examples of what the Legislature has in mind.

And so, the language that we've suggested, which the examples actually come from a bill that is currently in, stuck in conference from last year's session, House Bill 596. I will note that that language was passed unanimously in both houses. It got stuck in conference. But anyway, the intent of this language is to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

The real key issue, and the key thing that the Supreme Court seized on is that there is a statement in Chapter 190, I'm sorry, 127A, that the Legislature intends the emergency powers to be interpreted broadly. And I think that's right if there is truly an emergency.

But then, the court interpreted that and said, well, there's nothing in the statute to suggest that it can't address long standing issues of public policy. And so, in our definition, including that it has to be in response to a sudden event. And then, the examples provide that—respond to what the Supreme Court said.

And you know, in the Committee reports, that also suggests that you clearly state that the, that the amendments are being done to respond to the NCOA decision.

So, the legislative history would be clear that the Legislature does want the Mayor and the Governor to be able to respond to true emergencies, but that the court interpreted that too broadly in the NCOA decision.

Okay, thank you so much. Members, any further questions?

Yeah, Chair.

[Unintelligible]

So, what we're saying with the amendments, but I note that you do say that the two thirds of the Legislature—well, that's the current statute. Right? The current statute is that it should be approved by two thirds of the Legislature. And this is for both houses, however, but you're saying that this definition also includes limiting the emergency powers in the first place.

So, but that's true for the statute. But are you saying to delete then the two thirds votes for all emergency powers recommendations?

Well, to clarify, the existing statute does not have the provision about the two thirds override. That is the new language proposed by this Bill. So, under the existing statute, there is no way for the Legislature to override the invocation of emergency powers. That is the new language. We are—we have no objection to including an override.

We're just saying that that is not sufficient. So, that's the new section E and F. It's in Section 5 of the Bill. It's in addition to Section 127A-14. So, that that's not in the existing statute. We have no objection to including that. What our testimony wanted to emphasize is that alone isn't enough.

And you who have served in the Legislature for a long time, collectively, I don't even know how many years I'm looking at in terms of service. But you know how hard it is to get bills, you know how hard it is to get a special session.

And so, you know, if the Governor is invoking emergency powers when you're out of session or even if you're in session, be very, very hard to get a 2/3rd override. And so, we need to limit what is an emergency and that's the language we're suggesting. And this is a safeguard.

Even in the case of a true emergency, if the Legislature thinks it's contrary to public policy, having the two thirds override makes a lot of sense.

And that's true too, because an emergency proclamation, if it's in a really emergency, it's impossible to have the Legislature come back just for that.

I agree completely. And so, this 2/3 override would be in situations—the court recognized, and I think it's correct, that even with a true emergency, let's say the tragic fires in Lahaina, responding to...

Or a tsunami. Or a tsunami.

Exactly. Or a hurricane. All of these, the emergency response can take a long time.

However, at some point, the Legislature might decide that it's time for the Legislature to act and suspend—and end the emergency. And so, I think the 2/3 override makes sense.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Okay. Vice Chair Lee.

Oh, thanks. Well, Senator Inouye just asked the question I was going to ask, but maybe for HIEMA, or for, I guess the—it was HIEMA, right, that?

No.

Sorry? Yeah, but you guys had submitted testimony on this, on 2151, in opposition.

In opposition, yes.

Right. Just to that point that the Senator had asked the last testifier about identifying some of those key instances of disaster, you know, going back over the last decade or so, or even expanding upon Covid and dam breaks and any number of other things that we've experienced here.

I'm reading through your testimony, trying to figure out what sort of situation you're alluding to that this measure would impact or prevent proper response to—like, what's an actual example of, of that?

So, last session, we did oppose the bill that tried to limit and define specifically what an emergency is because we, we want to, from, from my perspective, from the Emergency Management Agency, we want to be able to look across and be prepared for the unknown is what we're seeing.

So, you brought up Lahaina, which we got an emergency proc, but that impacted one community on one island. What we're looking at in HIEMA is we're planning for our worst day in the state that every county is impacted, every agency, every community is impacted.

And that's the kind of emergencies that, that we're looking at, be it a tsunami that impacts the coastline for every island or a very large hurricane that we're seeing now, the United States goes to war and we're now on a war footing at the United States. Hawaii is at the central in the Pacific.

What does that mean for us? So, that's the kind of flexibility we want to provide the Executive to now say here's, here's an emergency for us. And the first part about limiting access to public records—when we're in a response phase, we're looking to save lives and, you know, address the needs of the people.

That becomes almost secondary, sharing the, the public information and getting that. So, we're trying to, we're trying to give as much flexibility to the Executive in this disaster because his proclamation is 60 days. It's in there and we renew it.

And when we renew it, it's a, it's a very collaborative across the state agencies on do we want to renew this and what do we need to keep in it.

Yes, I get that part. I think with respect to the definition of emergency as it's currently defined versus what is being proposed, or in the discussion we just have with the last testifier, whether it's a disaster, which I totally get, like in Lahaina on one island, or there's multiple Lahainas across the state at the same time.

What I took away from the last conversation is the emergency proclamation would still apply, and you would still have the ability to declare an emergency for anything that happens statewide under this. But what I was trying to get at is what, like, what is the actual—because I get the, I get the broad applicability you're talking about.

But what's an actual example that would be impacted under this?

Well, I think that first part that you guys want to add that the Governor or the Mayor cannot suspend the Public Records act piece of it. In, in any, in a larger emergency, we, we need that time and space to be able to get to those public information requests.

For example, Lahaina was a very large event for us. Every agency was involved. We had our PIOs. But there's no way that we can keep up with that. So, if—and, and I guess from our perspective, you're calling out one piece to, to, in, in the law that says a gov—Governor, Mayor—you cannot do this.

Where we would prefer that he has that flexibility that if he needs it in a emergency prompt, that he can do it.

So, you're not speaking to the state of emergency section of the bill?

No. Yeah. So, pretty much.

I guess what I mean is the concern is the, the public records section, not the, not the definition of emergency or the scope of what could constitute a state of emergency as is defined in the bill.

Yes, sir, it's both. We're looking at both of it because there's some pieces in there that. Okay, sure.

By setting aside the public records portion for a minute, because there's obviously different elements going on here, but just looking at the last section of the Bill in Section 5, which is the state of emergency portion, just focusing on that for a minute.

Is there anything in there that's concerning to you or was the testimony really focused on the first section?

I've seen our testimony, for me, HIEMA, was, look, the overall package. Both, both sides.

So, if, if—let's say for a minute, if the public record section of the Bill went away and we're just passing what's in the state of emergency portion of the Bill, which I think this last discussion was about, we're looking at when and for what purposes the Governor or Executive Branch is able to declare a state of emergency and what the scope of that is and whether or not there's a point at which the Legislature then can step in after you know, so much time with a super majority vote.

If we pass just that, then trying to understand what the impact is for some of the potential disasters or situations that you guys would face, that would be limiting to your mission.

So, our mission at HIEMA with the Governor, because at the very last line, when conditions weren't, we help him define when we can transition into more of a recovery phase. So, I think that makes sense because that's our job to help him say, okay, the conditions are met, sir, we're no longer in an emergency.

And that, that's part of our Liana. So, I, I would—can I oppose pieces of it? And so, as, as he worked through this Bill and it was, it was hard because there's some things we look in and say, okay, I, I can—that makes sense that when conditions warrant, because that's our job to define that for him.

And like I said, when the EP is going to expire across the state agencies, we come back and say, okay, do we still need the emergency prop? And then, we go back with the AG and the Governor.

Is there a situation— I wouldn't imagine with this Governor—but down the road with a future Governor, whoever that might be, that you end up with an abuse of the use of emergency proclamations such that there would be a justification or could be a justification for whatever it is, where you'd need someone outside just the Governor, Executive Branch, to step in?

Yeah.

So, where would that accountability lay?

So, I saw the, this Bill adds, at the end, the two thirds. I, I don't know if we need that in 127 Alpha because you guys already have that power. The, the legislators have that power to override an emergency.

So, I'm not sure if we need to capture that in here when, you know, somebody can introduce something here, get it through boathouses and you know, override the Governor on an emergency.

If we were to do that in normal course, wouldn't that require a full session?

I got to check with my legislative experts.

Because under this language, you would only need basically one vote, hypothetically, the way that I'm reading this, versus passing a piece of legislation through the normal process, which would require, you know, a number of other steps over a much longer period of time.

Yes, sir. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, sorry.

Thank you, Chair.

Senator Inouye.

Yeah. To follow up with regards to having the opportunity to look at the public records, but you did, didn't you just say that during the wildfire that you needed to have or asked to look at public records, but you were denied?

No, no, we didn't—so, we didn't deny any of that.

Okay.

But it was delayed and then, when it's delayed, you know, it comes up through a, you might get a fine, we get letters going, hey, we gotta follow up on this.

Can I ask you then, what public records would you need as an example? It could be anything. Right? So, what would be important for you to?

Oh, not for me, but for the, for the public asking for information from us, right?

Ah, okay, okay. I got it. I got it.

Right. So, and then, you know, we had our, our public affairs officers really trying to focus on putting out the correct message or correcting some misinformation. So, we didn't have the bandwidth at the time to get follow up on a lot of this, so, it got pushed to the side.

Okay, thank you. Maybe one very brief follow up question. You know, we appreciate, you know, the scope of Governor's emergency powers that are needed. However, in the Earth Justice proposed amendments, they did kind of provide a laundry list that seems pretty extensive, including, you know, war or other kinds of actions.

I think, you know, if anything, we're really looking to work with your agency to tailor the emergency proclamation type of activity in a way that ensures that we don't have other types of public policy discussions be treated as emergency proclamation type of subjects. And that seemed to have been, you know, the real purpose here.

So, I think if we look at the various natural disasters—warfare, bioterrorism, Covid, et cetera—that seems like a pretty broad list, and it's not intended to otherwise limit, you know, the Governor's legitimate areas of jurisdiction.

So, you know, perhaps we can kind of look to see the extent to which there may be parts of this proposed set of amendments that actually would help your Department, as well as the Governor's Office frame, you know, the proclamations in a very targeted way that would allow us to move quickly.

Yes, Chair. We look forward to having those conversations.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? We have not—let's, oh, I'm sorry. I neglected to identify one of the late testimonies that was received from Department of Emergency Management from the City and County of Honolulu. The Department also opposes Senate Bill 2151.

And is there anyone from the Department here to comment on this measure? Okay. If not, it appears that, you know, they have somewhat similar concerns to those expressed by HIEMA, and it is—I think they raised some legitimate concerns.

But anyway, since we don't have anyone from their office, let's turn to the next measure on the agenda. It is Senate Bill 2030. This one is relating to corrections and I believe first testifier that we have is Director Johnson. Is Director Johnson presentation. Oh, okay. Welcome.

Zero, hi. Hello there. Chair Fukunaga, Vice Chair Lee and Members of the Committee. I'm Michael Hoffman. I'm the institution's Division Administrator for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation supports the intent of Senate Bill 2030 seeks to appropriate an unspecified amount of funding for all adult correctional officers to wear body worn cameras while on duty in all state correctional facilities requiring to have that ACOs to wear the body worn cameras.

Body worn cameras affects the conditions of employment because of violation of any body worn camera policy established by us. Could result in disciplinary action or dismissal of an employee.

The DCR would be required to consult and or negotiate with UPW on this matter, including implementation of any policies relating to the body worn cameras by our adult correctional officers.

Therefore, we DCR respectfully request this measure to be amended to allow us the time needed to conduct research into the cost of the body worn cameras, the cost of data storage, replacement of the adult correctional officer shirts, and consultations with the UPW on this matter.

DCR will be prepared to provide a report to the Legislature no later than 20 working days prior to the 2027 legislative session addressing these issues. And we thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in supporting the intent of SB2030. And we'll be standing by for questions if you have any.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have Kristen Johnson testifying for Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Welcome.

Hi. Aloha. The Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission supports Senate Bill 2030. Interestingly enough, there's been some pretty recent research that has been posted by the National Institute of Justice that has really supported body cameras specifically for those who work in jails and prisons. It's been shown to reduce pretty serious incidents, inmate injuries, use of force.

And the commission also just wanted to note that body worn cameras are really important because they protect correction staff just as much as people in custody. Video evidence can quickly resolve complaints, discourage false allegations and provide officers with confidence that their professionalism will be documented.

The other piece that we wanted to mention is that clear video evidence can reduce litigation costs and settlement expenses. And it can also really help with investigations, including our investigations, and just improve training by using real time footage to show other staff what should or shouldn't be done in these types of situations.

So the Commission supports this Bill and we hope that you pass it along. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from Kat Brady, Community Alliance on Prisons. Welcome.

Good afternoon. I feel like I'm sitting in a hole. My name is Kat Brady. I'm the coordinator of Community Alliance on Prisons, and my testimony is respectfully submitted on behalf of the 3,668 people who are currently incarcerated in Hawaii, 799 of whom are serving time at corporate prison in Arizona. We're in really strong.

Put the mic to you. Yeah, there we go.

I got to bring it down to the.

This moves. Thank you.

This as, as the oversight commission testified, this has really been a huge issue around the country and currently many states have mandated body worn cameras. Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina.

And they all use the same two words about why this is important. Transparency and accountability. In LA, a sheriff, a jail sheriff, purchased 4641 body worn cameras because they know that it protects staff, it protects people inside and that it really helps when there's an investigation. Arizona just purchased 1300 body worn cameras.

And I've been doing a lot of research on this and one of the researchers that I just looked at is a professor from John Jay College. And he said, you know, this is really, really important because agencies must have clear policies in place around who is provided cameras and when they are, when they're activated.

Secondly, agencies must have strong ways of tracking and enforcing policy compliance. And lastly, true transparency and accountability requires official to release footage when an incident occurs. This is really important and we hope that this Committee supports this. Too many lawsuits. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, lastly, we have Tuli Tafai testing for UPW. Yeah, I'm sorry, not the last testimony.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Senator Tuli Tafai on behalf of UPW. We stand on our Richard's testimony providing comments. I just want to reiterate, just like DCR, that this is something that will need to be consulted with the union and the employer to go ahead and move forward.

Okay, thank you. Please be available for questions. Next we have Austin Martin testifying for Libertarian Party of Hawaii on zoom. Not present on zoom Chair. Okay, thank you. Next we have Veronica Moore. Written testimony and support has been submitted. Georgette Yendo. Comments have been submitted. Members, are there questions? Oh, you would like to provide testimony. Welcome.

Aloha Angela Melody Young testifying as an active volunteer of the neighborhood security walk from District 5. So we collaborate across districts 1, 5, 6, 8, downtown Chinatown to Waianae Ewa Beach in Waikiki. So, just a fan of public safety and in favor of appropriating the funds for body cams.

So body worn cameras are crucial in correctional facilities to enhance safety, accountability and to provide a transparent, objective, first person evidentiary support of incidents for what happened in correctional facilities. Because sometimes people can create things with their verbal testimony that could be subjective.

And so both witness testimonies and body-worn camera footage serve as crucial update different forms of evidentiary support in proceedings. And so body cams can help to reduce violence, de-escalate conflicts, and document staff inmate interactions, which decreases liability and in its assists in investigations.

So these devices offer a comprehensive review of operations, ensuring that actions in high risk environments are documented, and can provide evidentiary analysis to help with improving operations in facilities. Thank you very much.

Okay, is there anyone else who would like to comment on Senate Bill 2030? Okay. If not Members, any questions? I believe Chair would like to ask Michael Hoffman and UPW to respond to questions. If you can return to the table.

Thank you. You know, in both the department's testimony as well as UPW's testimony, there was a reference to the need to consult. And I wanted to get a sense of typically how much time is required, you know, for consultation and review, you know, as a collective bargaining type of issue.

In the, in the BU10 contract, there's no time limit to the consultation period. But because DCR supports this matter, we just want enough time to get the research to provide the legislator with enough information to make an informed decision.

So I want to make it clear we support the officers wearing the cameras, but we do need to consult, we do need to develop a policy, we need to determine the cost of the uniforms, get tamper proof cameras, and then the data storage will be the biggest cost.

Okay, yeah, so that's correct.

There is no provision where there's a time limit, but unfortunately I'm not part of that consultation, so I wouldn't be able to give you an answer regarding the timeframe, but there will be some things that UPW would like to probably address regarding the cameras and it leading to disciplinary termination of a lot of our employees.

So that's probably something that we're going to look into, making sure, protecting our workers.

Okay, thank you very much. Would kind of a rough range of six months, you know, a delayed effective date be adequate to at least provide consultation time as well as research?

I think it'll take a little bit longer than that because we intend to contact other jurisdictions similar to our size to figure out the do's and don'ts like the lessons learned. Also get an accurate cost of what it would take to replace the uniform, because the uniform search now you cannot mount the cameras on.

And then we'd also need to take a look at it again. The data storage cost will be the biggest cost. When I consulted with Honolulu police chief, he indicated they were paying $1.2 million a year just in data storage. We have 1800 positions with about 1400 filled.

So it would be considerably more than that for what HPD pays.

Let's see. Thank you. Members, any further questions? Yes.

So this, this particular measure as well has nothing to do with collective bargaining, right? Because - it does? Okay, so when's the next collective bargaining agreement?

Well, we're current. Our contract is actually at the beginning of our current, our current contract.

Oh, okay. So that'll take collection going through session and. But I tend to kind of, you know, agree with the Chair, the concerns if there's a delay. I can see there needs to be a delay. Because, you know, considering, you know, the cost as well as, you know, the now you're - we're including not only the body cameras, but we're including the other things like the uniforms. Is it, you know, compatible that can take, you know, the cameras as well. So you'll have to go and look for concessions or, you know, areas of who supplies it as well.

So, I think it's more like doing a delay or moving this to, you know, probably even July of 2027. I mean, you know, it's a lot to do. It's not. I can understand, you know, the work that needs to do in order to purchase and the needs. Yeah. And you did say you wanted more information of what?

Right. I want to provide the legislature with enough information to make an informed decision after we check with several other jurisdictions that do this. And, you know, look at some of the lessons learned from them where we can implement more efficiently, where we don't make missteps and have to pay more taxpayer money.

Sure. And I support this measure. The only thing I think at this point in time for this year, I doubt it. It's better to move the date rather than let the bill die because there's appropriation, and we know that's not going to happen this year. There's so many other needs there. So we'll see.

And I'm sure that Chair will work out something and see what we can come up with.

Okay. I might suggest you add language that encourage DCR and UPW to work together on this with a certain deadline date.

We're saying it in public.

Thank you so much.

You're being recorded.

Thank you. Okay, turning to next bill on the agenda. This is Senate Bill 2109, relating to emergency preparedness communications. I believe we have Administrator Barros testifying on behalf of HIEMA. That's you. Thank you.

We said it sent in our written testimony. I, I just wanted to add a little bit of context too. In the past three years, HIEMA spent little over $500,000 in our public messaging. We used every platform available. It was federal money that we used. We used federal grants for that.

And now, when UH comes out with a study that says only about 12% of our Hawaii residents are 20 weeks ready, that concerns us. So, that's why we, we support this effort. It's a heavy lift for HIEMA, but I think it's an important messaging and we build a strategy and a team around that.

Thank you. Please stand by for additional questions. Stephanie Kendrick testifying for Hawaiian Humane Society. They have submitted written test—oh, there she is on Zoom. Thank you so much for joining us.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. We're in strong support of this measure. Hawaiian Humane is very involved in disaster preparedness messaging. We would ask that the Committee write in providing for one's pet animals as part of the messaging that it's recommending for the Department.

And we would be absolutely honored to work with HIEMA in order to help with that messaging.

We have, we have graphics, we have, we have content. We have all sorts of things that we'd be happy to help provide with the Department with in order to make sure that our families are thinking about their pets when they are preparing to leave their homes in a disaster.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, we also have Austin Shiloh Martin testifying in opposition, on Zoom.

Not present on—not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Please come forward.

Angela Melody Young, CARES, in strong support. So, many of the moms and the teenagers that I get to work with in nonprofits in Maui update me about recovery events in Maui, and I get to hear about everything from animal rescue to restoring native Hawaiian plants that were impacted by the wildfire events.

And so, emergency preparedness for public education and communications program provides a clear action plan for guidance on how households can build and maintain 14 days of supply. But not only does it do that, it also, by statute, helps nonprofits organize. So, when an emergency impacts communities, there's a lot of chaos and confusion.

And having a comprehensive plan of action and statute empowers the nonprofits to provide for the state, county, and federal offices. And so, for example, organizing with food distribution, with food banks, and with faith-based programs, if it's in statute, then nonprofits can act with the effect of the law and can help communities get to emergency supplies.

And also, so the sentence for the public service announcement instructions for radio, television, and digital platforms, I think that's a really good policy, but you could also consider an amendment.

So, nonprofit resources for emergency community needs shall provide instructions for emergency resources, including mental health support, emergency food distribution, animal rescue, so that these organizations can provide for the community beyond what the state, county, and federal offices can provide. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? If not, members? Chair proposes to take a brief recess to confer with the members, and then we'll come back into session.

Thank you, Members. Having had a chance to hear from some really Beneficial testimonies this afternoon. We'd like to go into decision making. We'd to like on a number of them. First one on the agenda was Senate Bill 2145 relating to recordings of law enforcement activities.

Most of the testimonies were in strong support and Chair would like to recommend that we pass this measure in an unamended form. Any questions? Discussion. If not Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

My apologies. I would like to take one brief recess.

Okay, returning to the agenda, Senate Bill 2151 relating to emergency management. There were a number of good recommendations that were offered by Earth Justice as well as the Public First Center.

And Chair would like to propose that we amend this measure to incorporate the language proposed by Earthjustice and to leave the public records section for a Judiciary Committee to work on. Any questions? Discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lee.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. On Senate Bill 2030 relating to corrections, Chair would like to note that in light of the comments from the Department as well as the collective bargaining representatives, you'd like to amend the Bill to extend the effective date out one year. So that would be July 1, 2027. Any questions? Comments? Okay, if not Vice Chair Lee.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Turning to the last measure on the agenda, Senate Bill 2109 relating to emergency preparedness communications.

Chair would like to defer this measure since there are several bills that have been introduced in the Senate that also covered this topic and we'd like to see if we might be able to combine them so that we have a very comprehensive program for both communications as well as preparedness. Any comments? If not, thank you so much Members.